The Law Teacher

ISSN: 0306-9400 (Print) 1943-0353 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ralt20

Enhancing student learning of law by involving

students (and colleagues) in developing
multi‐media teaching and learning materials

M. J. LeBrun & Lawry Scull

To cite this article: M. J. LeBrun & Lawry Scull (2000) Enhancing student learning of law by
involving students (and colleagues) in developing multi‐media teaching and learning materials,
The Law Teacher, 34:1, 40-57, DOI: 10.1080/03069400.2000.9993046

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2000.9993046

Published online: 09 Sep 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 65

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ralt20
 ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING OF LAW BY
INVOLVING STUDENTS (AND COLLEAGUES) IN
DEVELOPING MULTI-MEDIA TEACHING AND
LEARNING MATERIALS

By M. J. LEBRUN WITH LAWRY SCULL*

Introduction

EFFORTS TO improve the quality of teaching and learning have been a

hallmark of the 1990s tertiary educational landscape in Australian
universities. Various federal, state, and institutional schemes have been
devised over the past decade or so to enhance the role of teaching and
learning at tertiary level. One of the most notable is that promoted by the
Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development (CUTSD), a
federal government initiative that assumed some of the functions of the
former Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching (CAUT).
Both Committees have helped raise the profile of university teaching and
learning by awarding various grants and prestigious fellowships to
individuals and to groups. Although some of these prizes have been
awarded for work in more commonplace areas of inquiry in education,1
many grants and fellowships have been awarded to academics who wish to
design innovative teaching and learning materials for flexible learning, such
as the one described in this article.2
One might well expect that project applicants would necessarily involve
students actively in all aspects of the project in order to achieve the
ultimate goal of enhancing student learning. Surprisingly, though, not all
grant applications that are submitted to federal funding bodies for funding
approval in Australia draw upon student knowledge to full advantage. Nor
do they draw on the expertise of academics in other disciplines, such as

* Associate Professor of Law, 1998 National Teaching Fellow, Director, Client-Centred Legal
Practice Unit, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, 9726, m.lebrun@
mailbox.gu.edu.au; Research Assistant, fourth year Law and Accounting student Griffith
University respectively. I wish to thank Melissa Buttigieg for her assistance with this article
and the following Griffith University Gold Coast students for their contribution to this project
Jodi Allen; David Bushby; Melissa Buttigieg; Kathryn Byrne; Daniela Conte; Lillian Corbin;
Annisa Loadwick; Darren Mullaly; Glenn Newman; Danielle Matthews; William Powell;
Desiree St John; Lawry Scull; Vanessa Stafford: and Andrew Williams.
1 For example, "Enhancing Student Academic Writing", "Enhancing the Teaching and Learning
of Science Education", "Development of a Resource Kit to Assist Tertiary Teachers to Integrate
Literacy Skills into the Teaching of their Discipline", "Identifying and Correcting Student
Misconceptions in Economics".
2 For example, "A Cross-Cultural Interactive Study of Myth-Making on the World-Wide Web",
"Development of an Interactive Computerised Procedure for Training in Speech and Stuttering
Rating", "Learning Laryngectomy Speech Rehabilitation by Using an Interactive Multi-Media
Program", "The Virtual Patient': A Clinical Case Study. An Interactive, Web-Based Case-Study
of a Critically Ill Patient". Taken from the 1999 National Teaching Development Grants
(Individuals) web page.

40
 ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING OF LAW 41

educationists. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the amount of student

involvement, in particular, in project design and implementation in teaching
and learning grants has varied over time and amongst applicants. Years
ago, the importance of student involvement in teaching and learning grant
projects was obvious from the grant application form itself. For example,
applicants were asked to include the names of a minimum number of-
students as members of a project reference group. Today, student
involvement appears to be expected as a matter of accepted practice in at
least in two stages: that of project implementation; and that of project
evaluation. Thus, some grant applicants include students in the summative
evaluation stage of a project as well as in a project reference group. Few,
however, seem to involve students directly in the actual process of project
design or in key aspects of the formative evaluation of a project.
This is understandable but unfortunate. Despite the obvious message
given to grant committee members—and to students themselves—when
project applicants involve students actively in project development and
implementation, it would appear that some grant recipients have been, and
are, hesitant to involve students fully in the conception and formative
evaluation of their projects. A number of reasons can be advanced to justify
why student involvement (and to a lesser extent involvement from staff
from other academic disciplines) is kept to a minimum, especially in the
conceptual and evaluative stages of a project. The reasons go something
like this: "Grant writing is time-consuming. Why expend time and effort
involving students, and other staff, in writing grants when the chance of an
award are slim?" "The quality of student input varies too much and is too
unpredictable. It depends on the depth of student understanding of the
goals and aims of the project, upon their abilities to provide constructive
feedback, and upon their commitment to seeing the project completed".
"Students aren't always available when you need them, and then you need
to schedule your project work so that it doesn't interfere with their
studies—or their part-time work—or their social life". "Student involvement
can be counter-productive. What if they advocate a major change in the
project that I don't share?" As a result of some of these concerns, applicants
for grants in the teaching and learning area may not be willing to use fully
the benefits that students can bring to educational projects.
Nevertheless, despite the validity of some of these objections, a strong
argument can be made ' for the active involvement of students in the
planning, design, development, implementation and evaluation of teaching/
learning initiatives if the ultimate goal of funding teaching/learning
initiatives is to enhance student learning. Although such an involvement
can be time-consuming, expensive, and, at times, frustrating, its benefits can
be considerable. This is particularly true when the project involves the
production of multi-media materials where any design and production
faults cannot be changed once the package has been produced.
This article responds, in part, to some of the concerns that academics
42 M. J. LEBRUN WITH LÄWRY SCULL

have raised in Australia when they have considered actively involving their
students and academic staff from other disciplines in teaching/learning
projects such as those funded by the Australian Federal Government grant
committees. It outlines some of the ways in which students (and colleagues)
can enliven and enrich the process of teaching/learning materials
development in law by assuming a central role as project developers and
evaluators (as well as research assistants and actors). It also offers
suggestions on how granting agencies can encourage the active involvement
of students and staff from other disciplines in project conception, design,
implementation, and evaluation. Although it describes a particular
Australian experience in producing a multi-media educational package on
lawyer-client interviewing, it may prove to be of interest to academics
outside Australia and across other disciplines. Funding cuts to tertiary
education are common world-wide. As a result, academics are encouraged
more than ever to seek funding from a variety of sources for various
projects. Of particular interest to funding bodies appears to be the
development of student-centred flexible teaching and learning materials,
such as the one described here.

Applying for and Getting Grants: Theory and Practice

The Theory
Some academics acknowledge that successful grant writing is an "art", one
that often develops over time. And they also acknowledge that the award
of one grant can lead to additional awards as earlier successes lead to a
snowballing of successes.
This process of learning by doing is not limited to grant applicants,
however, at least in Australia. It would appear that grant committees
themselves refine their deliberative processes as they learn about the
successes and failures of the projects that they fund. The new demands that
the grant committees then make of applicants appear, in turn, to be
reflected in an increase in the quality of the applications submitted for
funding under the revised criteria.
To be successful today in the individual teaching grant rounds in
Australia, applicants appear to need to meet a number of explicit criteria.
They need to provide informative and relevant details about the aims and
outcomes of their projects in a language that all members of the grant
committee can understand. They need to locate the goal of the project in
current work and applications in the field of inquiry. They need to provide
realistic information about the budget and about project time-lines.
Applicants also need to convince the grant committee that their project will
produce long-term improvements. Most of all, it would appear (and one
would hope) that the committee must be satisfied that student learning will
be enhanced as a result of the project.
Despite the obviousness of this final claim, in the project described
 ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING OF LAW 43

below one learning outcome (in retrospect, a significant learning outcome)

was overlooked when the project proposal was written. Although learning
outcomes for law students who would use the educational package were
identified and described in the grant application, the proposal did not
acknowledge that the students employed for the project would themselves
learn considerably more about interviewing a client than they knew before '
their direct involvement in the project. Had students been actively involved
in the conceptualisation of the project at the time of the grant was written,
this learning outcome might have well been identified and included as an
objective of the grant, thus strengthening its appeal to the granting body
and to other potential donors.

The Practice
In 1998 the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development
awarded a grant for the production of a multi-media video and manual
package for the teaching and learning of legal interviewing skills.3 The 50-
minute video comprises two interviews, both of which are based on an
intellectual property claim made by a university student against a television
producer. The first interview is conducted by a team of intellectual property
lawyers in their suburban law firm, and it follows the stages of an initial
lawyer-client interview that are outlined in an accompanying text.4 The
second is conducted by a corporate lawyer in the television station's
company boardroom.
The videos are accompanied by two manuals: one for facilitators/
teachers; and one for viewers/students. The facilitator/teacher manual
contains information about the package and about the aims of the videos,
and it provides information about its use as a teaching/leaning tool.5 It also
includes questions and sample answers on each video and on both videos.
The guide for viewers/students complements the guide for facilitators/
teachers, although it does not contain sample answers to the questions
posed. The package is designed to be used by students working alone, in
teams, or in groups.

3 The project resulted in the production of a video/manual package for teachers and learners
entitled, "A New Face of Lawyering: A Client-Centred Approach to the Initial Lawyer-Client
Interview". The package was designed to accompany the text "Legal Interviewing: Theory,
Tactics, and Techniques by K. A. Lauchland and M. J. Le Brun, Sydney, Butterworths, 1996.
The package was produced by M. J. Le Brun and directed by John Orcsik, artistic director of
The Australian Film and Television Academy. It is available from Butterworths, Academic
Publishing and Promotions, Locked Bag 2222, Chatswood Delivery Centre, Chatswood, NSW,
Australia, 2067; e m a i l [email protected]; web address—www.butterworths.com.au
then link to academic publishing. The package was shortlisted for The Australian Awards for
Excellence in Educational Publishing, TAFE and Vocation Teaching and Learning Package
Category, 1999.
4 Ibid., at p. 4.
5 D. Laurillard provides sound advice (that is beyond the scope of the guide) for those who
wish to take best advantage of the use of educational technologies in chapter 11 of Rethinking
University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology Routledge, 1993.
44 M. j . LEBRUN WITH LAVRY SCULL

Implementation and Evaluation: What was Planned and What

Eventuated

The development of a multi-media package invariably involves a number of

people who have different types of theoretical and technical know-how.
These individuals often have different, and sometimes conflicting and
strongly held, ideas about the direction that a project should take and about
the emphases that should be given to certain aspects of the project because
of their different backgrounds and orientations.
Although a team of persons with various skills was assembled to
produce the interviewing multi-media package, the original grant
application did not give students a central role in either the conception of
the project or the formative evaluation of the project. In the final grant
application, funding for an Instructional Designer, a Graphic Artist, a
Research Assistant, and a Project Evaluator was sought, as well as monies
for team members central to the production of a video—cast and a crew.
The Instructional Designer considered the interface between the videos
and the manuals as well as the content and layout of the manuals. The
Graphic Artist focused primarily on the use of icons in the manuals that
accompanied the video. The work of the Research Assistant, which was
performed by several law students, involved conducting a literature and
materials search on client interviewing. . One of these students also
continued to work on the project as the articles for publication were
completed and submitted for publication.
Defining what role the Project Evaluator would play in the project
proved challenging, yet most rewarding. In some teaching/learning grants,
a project evaluator's role is quite straightforward. The project evaluator can
easily assess the project upon its completion and make recommendations
for change the next time that the project is offered. So, for example, the
design and implementation of a one-week workshop can be refined from
one workshop to the next on the basis of the feedback from the evaluator.
The adoption of this approach is not always possible, however. In the
production of multi-media materials with a limited budget, for example, all
design flaws have to be eliminated by the time of filming. Once material
has been recorded, it can become costly and inefficient to make changes. In
the video/manual package discussed here, intended learning outcomes
needed to be tested by a process of ongoing evaluation before the shoot
commenced and the manuals were printed. On a practical level this meant
that an approach needed to be developed so that formative evaluation
could occur whenever possible during the life of the production of the
video and of the manuals. Learning new ways to think about project design
and development and build in junctures for evaluation as the project itself
grew became essential. In the end, this involved a considerable re-
conceptualisation of the actual role of the Project Evaluator. This process of
 ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING OF LAW 45

redefinition itself provided a valuable learning experience for the project

team.
Although of marginal concern when the grant was written, the Project
Evaluator ended up playing a central role in the formative evaluation of the
project.6 The Project Evaluator met with the students who were involved in
the reading of draft scripts and the auditioning of some of the actors. He
read and provided feedback on questionnaires designed to accompany the
draft scripts for the videos. He provided feedback and direction on the
guides and the interface between the guides and the videos. His reminders
to keep the script realistic and relevant to student needs and interests
encouraged the development of different ways to evaluate the project. His
constant reference to the need to focus on student learning outcomes
helped keep the project on track and the overall goal of the multi-media
package in mind.

The Students' Contributions to the Project

Although funding was provided for student research assistance, no specific

funds were sought for student input into the conceptualisation of the
project or its formative evaluation. The role that the students could play
was not appreciated at the time the original application was submitted, in
part because of the model of design and evaluation that was originally
adopted in the grant application. As noted above, the grant application
itself did not highlight how the processes of evaluation (and of research)
that the student participants would—eventually—undertake would enhance
their learning of interviewing. One might conclude in retrospect that this is
quite remarkable—given that the aim of the grant was to improve student
learning of interviewing.
A number of law students were employed in the development of the
project as research assistants, as project evaluators, and as "extras". In
addition to their contribution as research assistants, three law students
worked as project evaluators at various stages of the project once funding
was approved. Their contributions to the development and completion of
the project were significant. They provided direct feedback and information
on all aspects of the project, formally and informally. Moreover, their
regular contact with the other student evaluators provided an informational
link with the project team that would otherwise have been absent. One
student research assistant was involved in the creation of the scenario that
is depicted in the video, in the first draft of the manuals, in discussions
about the form of the multi-media package, and in some preliminary
research for articles that have since been written on the project. Two other
law student research assistants were involved closely in the remainder of

6 The evaluation of the project was conducted by Neil Russell, Associate Professor of Education
at Griffith University.
46 M. j . LEBRUN WITH LAWKY SCULL

the project. They were actively involved in: the refinement of the scripts;
the making and filming of the videos in all their aspects; the creation of the
manuals; and the completion, packaging, and distribution of the multi-
media package to the deans/heads of all Australian law schools.
One main difficulty that was faced early in the project was in
determining the suitability of the plot and the scripts for student learning
purposes before actual filming began. To save time and funds, several
actors were invited to audition for various roles as they read the draft.
scripts. These readings were watched by one group of student evaluators
and also video-taped for use by a second group of student evaluators who
were unable to attend the audition. Both groups answered questions about
the process and discussed their observations with the Project Evaluator. In
addition to discussing the project with team members and the students, the
Project Evaluator submitted a written report on the process of evaluation
contained in the Appendix. The report itself influenced the future direction
of the project.
Several first, second, and third year Griffith University Gold Coast law
students also provided useful feedback on the text for the manuals.
Students' comments on the guides ranged from matters of clarity through
to content, style, and lay-out. Many changes were made to the guides in
response to the comments that the students made.
Several law students were asked to view the teaching/learning package
as it neared completion. The most effective use of the multi-media package
became an issue of concern at this time. Two approaches were trialed. The
student evaluators were divided into two groups. One group was asked to
view the videos and then answer the questions in the guide for users. The
other was asked to read the questions in the guide for users, view the
videos, and then answer the questions. In addition to discovering that the
latter approach to the package seemed more efficient, the exercise generated
a battery of sample answers to the questions contained in the draft guide
for users. These sample answers led to further refinements in the questions
themselves. The sample answers were then included in the guide for
facilitators/teachers to provide an idea of the sorts of responses that
students might offer. They were also included to provide a guide for
students working alone or with other students without the assistance of a
teacher or facilitator.
The involvement of these students enriched the project immeasurably.
The feedback that they provided was most useful and insightful. They
acted as a sounding board against which ideas about the project were
bounced as well as providing a context within which the feedback from the
other students could be better understood and responded to more fully.
Although some disagreements about minor points arose, the students
shared similar ideas about the suitability of individual actors, the
authenticity of the plot, the text of the scripts, and the conduct of the
interviews. The formal discussion amongst the students in the meetings and
 ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING OF LAW 47

in informal discussions also helped resolve some differences of opinion

about the balance of educational worth and entertainment value.

• Fashioning New Approaches for Project Design,

Implementation, and Evaluation

A diversity of methods is required by the endless diversity of

problems. If methods are instituted to solve problems . . ., we must be
prepared to enlarge our conception of methods accordingly.7 (Italics added)

The central question in the evaluation of any teaching/learning initiative is

whether, in fact, learning has occurred.8 Although this goal is easy to state,
it can prove elusive, if for no other reason than because ideas about the
practices of program planning and development, and of program
evaluation are strongly held.
Writers of grants often separate the activities of planning and
implementation from evaluation in their applications. This approach may
be adopted, for example, in order to satisfy the established criteria for
funding, first one plans and implements; then one evaluates. The detail of
the timeline and the budget costings of the project may be easier to
describe if various processes are, in fact, kept distinct. The adoption of
this approach also provides for ease in the delegation of functions.
Moreover, it facilitates ease of accountability. For example, the production
of curricula and teaching packages in standardised modules makes a
division of labour possible and makes outcomes easier to measure.
Distinct roles are given to particular individuals much as if they worked
on an assembly line.
It was this functional model for development and evaluation that was
adopted in the project proposal, and it was this model that proved
unsuitable as soon as the project commenced. As a result, alternative
approaches to development, implementation, and evaluation needed to be
considered because, as noted above, there was no opportunity to rectify
mistakes once the video was shot. Given the parameters of the grant, a re-
shoot was too costly and too time consuming.
Alternatives to a functional approach to project design, implementation,
and evaluation are recounted in a vast body of literature. Hermeneutic
and phenomenological approaches, for example, focus on the need to
investigate the making of meaning in a particular context.9 It is the context
and the needs of the individuals involved - here law students - that

7 M. Farber, The Foundations of Phenomenology, State University Press, 1968, p. 10.

8 "The aim of teaching is simple: it is to make student learning possible". P. Ramsden, Learning
to Teach in Higher Education, London, Routledge, 1992, at 5.
9 See, for example, M. Patton, Practical Evaluation, Sage, 1982; and E. Guba & Y. Lincoln, Effective
Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Education Results Through Responsive and Naturalistic
Approaches, Jossey-Bass, 1983.
48 M. ]. LEBRUN WITH LAWKY SCULL

determines the "how", the "why", and the "what". Rather than follow a
linear approach in which planning is separate from evaluation, teachers
and students together design and evaluate (for example, the interviewing
package discussed in this article) against the background of how it relates
to their teaching/learning environment and their needs. It is this
immediate context that determines the direction of the project. Thus, the'
teacher and student negotiate and agree upon shared meanings of what is to
be done and how, and what is to be used. Even though the teacher may take
a lead in orchestrating the process and hold the final decision-making
authority, students and teachers work more as collaborators and co-
learners, thus transforming the traditional role of teacher and of student.
By adopting a more holistic, co-operative and contextual approach, the
project team can address issues about what is worthwhile and useful, and
what is feasible.
Although the adoption of this approach appeared early in the project to
be more time-consuming and challenging than the adoption of a
mechanistic approach would have been, it soon became clear that it offered
an opportunity to develop a richer, more complex, and more student-
centred teaching/learning package. As an additional, unexpected benefit,
the adoption of this model gave space and permission for discussions about
ethics and professional responsibility that might have been otherwise
foreclosed by the adoption of a more functional model, thus enhancing
student learning in this area of law.

Evaluating the Evaluators: What Was Learned by the Students

Who Participated

Do media influence learning? . . . Some students will learn . . .

regardless of the delivery device. Others will be able to take advantage
of a particular medium's characteristics to help construct knowledge.
. . .Some learners rely on pictures to help construct a textbase and
map it onto a model of the situation; others can provide this model
from information in memory and do not need pictures or find audio
presentations sufficient.10

Two final steps in any evaluation process of a teaching/learning initiative

involve determining whether the planned learning outcomes have been
met, and whether the evaluation process itself has been appropriate and
useful. As indicated earlier, one important evaluation that was overlooked
in the grant application itself involved determining whether the students
actually working on the project learned about interviewing clients from
their involvement in the project. That this was a likely outcome of student
involvement in the project was pointed out by the Project Evaluator after

10 R. B. Kozma, "Learning With Media", (1991) 61, 179 Review of Educational Research, p . 205.
 ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING OF LAW 49

the commencement in the project. The error of not including this outcome
in the application became obvious after the project was completed. A small
celebratory function was held for all of the students involved in the project
to give the students a chance to view the videos and to discuss the project
several months after its completion. At that time, the students were invited
to complete a brief questionnaire that: asked them for feedback on their
participation in the project; and asked whether they would like to be
involved in a similar undertaking in future.
All of the students that responded indicated that their involvement in
the project provided a valuable experience. Several commented that it was
"(g)ood to be involved". One student noted that the experience was very
valuable as well as enjoyable because it was directly related to what he was
learning in his law studies. Two others explained how their knowledge of
client interviewing had deepened considerably as a result of their
involvement in the evaluation process. One student wrote,

(I)t helped my understanding of client interviewing. Evaluating the

scripts and manuals made me think deeper (sic) than I normally
would have. I now feel much more confident with client interviewing
in general as a result of this work.

Due to the extent of their involvement, it is not surprising that the

students who worked as research assistants and as evaluators wrote in
greater detail about their experiences. One student wrote,

It seems to me now that some of the things that I have learned

probably should have been obvious before.

The readings indicate that clients want someone who will listen,
understand their concerns and empathise with them (w)hereas lawyers
seem to consider that they have been of great service to their client when
an outcome is reached. Both individual and corporate clients have a need
to know that they have the lawyer's attention and that their concerns are
understood. To this end, some of the information that clients feel is
important holds little relevance to the lawyer who is only interested in
determining which course should be undertaken to achieve an outcome,
and so would be considered irrelevant chatter. I think that clients
recognise that lawyers are able to provide the advice and guidance that
they need but they also want the service or the attention during the
process of arriving at the suitable options available. . . .

The interview is particularly important as it is the lawyer's chance to

show their credibility and that they can be trusted to act in the best
interests of the client. They need to realise that more than just an
outcome is expected.
50 M. j . LEBRUN WITH LAVRY SCULL

Another of the student researchers/evaluators wrote,

The project has taught me that, no matter what problems arise,

there is always a way to get things done. It also taught me some
valuable tips and techniques . . . (I)n just participating in the
production of the videos, I have learnt a great deal'
about how to interview a client, so I do hope that the many students
who watch the videos get as much out of them as
I have."

The third student research assistant and evaluator commented about the
process of designing teaching/learning materials as well as what had been
learned.

Through evaluating the video in its early stages, I realised the

importance of body language . . . When watching the audition video
(and possibly even the filming) I was aware of body language which
would be hostile to the client and which, if I had been the client, I
would have left the interview. . . You possibly don't realise your own
body language as much as that of your client during the course of the
interview, but when you see yourself (on film), you realise its
impact.. . .

The student went on,

For the first time, I was sitting on the other side of the textbook (so
to speak). It is a totally different experience from being on the
receiving end of information. Thinking from the viewpoint of the
viewer, attempting to determine what information would not only be
easy to portray, but would be of value to the viewer, is quite difficult.
It challenged the conventional thought process that I had developed
during (the) first few years of my degree.

To questions about what was learned in the process, the student

responded,12

An advantage of involving student evaluators in a project designed for

student use is that often what students want to learn about a

11 The student also wrote, "The project, for me, was a tremendous learning experience. I have
had an interest in the production of movies, videos, etc for some time but have never really
had the opportunity to participate in such a production. I had no idea the amount of work
that was needed for such a project . . . the amount of preparation, proof reading, and
planning that it took astounded me. . . . Nevertheless, it provided me with a real challenge,
and it was deeply satisfying to see the finished product . . . "
12 This assistant also noted that, "I learnt that I could proofread!"
 ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING OF LAW 51

particular area of law and what project developers believe students

want to learn are different. This (evaluative approach) ensures that
student needs are met. After all, the end user is the student, and the
aim of the project is to improve student learning.
Being involved in the evaluation process was in itself a valuable lesson
in client interviewing. Through developing sample answers and
engaging in oral discussions on the interviews, I think I learnt more
about client interviewing that I had in three years of law school.
This means that the benefits are mutual. Not only does the project gain
from student input . . . the students gain also.

Commenting on the specific role of an evaluator in the project, the student

stated,

Possibly the evaluation process I found most beneficial was when

(student A), (student B) and I were developing sample answers. The
brainstorming was rather informative. I discovered the benefit of
working in a group. We had all prepared our own answers, but it gave
us an opportunity to challenge each other's opinions and views and
made us consider in more depth, the answers that we had given and
the underlying reasons for our answers.

In summary, all of the students who contributed wrote that they would be
willing to participate in a similar initiative in the future. The fact of their
continuing enthusiasm about their involvement in the process was both
rewarding and reassuring.

Learning by Reviewing the Process

Part of the process of securing grants involves learning from previously

funded projects. The lessons that were learned in this project have been
drawn upon in 1999 with the award of a grant for the development of
amulti-media teaching/learning package in legal ethics and professional
responsibility.13
With hindsight, it is clear that the approaches to evaluation that needed
to be instituted in the client interviewing project were not obvious at the
time the grant application was written. These design flaws could have been
minimised.
Sufficient attention was not given to project design at the time the

13 'Ethics, Conscience, and Professionalism: Rediscovering the Heart of Law,' produced by M. Le

Brun and Directed by J. Lomax, 1999, funded by the Committee for University Teaching and
Staff Development.
52 M. j . LEBRUN WITH L/WKÏ SCULL

application was submitted to the Committee for University Teaching and

Staff Development. That it was not was strategic in part. Not all grant
applications are approved for funding. VWiting grant applications is time-
consuming and can be counter-productive. Time spent in writing a grant
application that has a relatively low probability of success may be better
used in other academic pursuits, such as the writing of an article for
publication. Some, if not many, successful grant applicants attempt to
include only what is absolutely necessary in the draft grant application.
Applicants then embellish those aspects of their project application that are
likely to catch the attention of the grant committee's members in 'the final
submission that is sent to the granting body. Some successful applicants
also modify their proposals as the project proceeds. The extent of these
changes cannot be too significant, however. Even though the parameters of
the formative evaluation of the multi-media package discussed in this
article were sketchy in the grant application itself, it was most fortunate
that some modifications to the plans that are contained in grant
applications were able to be made after approval of funding was given.
The project might have also have proceeded more smoothly had more
thought been given to the process of formative evaluation and had more
information been available that described the processes of multi-media
production for "laypersons". One reason this article has been written is to
address these concerns.

Concluding Thoughts

This article has described how students and colleagues contributed to the
development of multi-media teaching/learning materials in law. It
illustrates how the direct involvement of students in projects helped
increase student learning of client interviewing both for those students who
used the package as well as for those who were employed in its
development.
The successful completion of grant-funded projects on teaching and
learning can produce feelings of relief as well as of accomplishment. In the
end, the evaluation of the project proceeded on a number of levels,
involving more individuals than originally"planned or even anticipated. In
retrospect it was this aspect of the project—the formative evaluation of the
project—that proved to be one of the most, if not the most, productive and
enjoyable aspect of the entire undertaking. The quality of the contribution
that students made to the project proved a most pleasant, and yet
unexpected, surprise. As the value of the student input became noticeable,
the level of their direct involvement increased. As a result, the amount of
their contribution grew as the project progressed towards completion. This,
too, was unexpected yet delightful.
The completion of the multi-media package described in this article
brought with it a sense of closure on other levels. On an academic level, the
 ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING OF LAW 53

package provides a visual modelling and instructional tool on client

interviewing which takes students beyond book learning. On a more
personal level, completion of the project brought to the teachers involved
an even greater appreciation of the abilities—and generosity—of the
students who participated in the project as research assistants, evaluators,
and actors (extras). As a result of the quality of their contribution, the
project became very much more a joint and collaborative production than
anticipated.
This feeling was shared by the students. Some of the students involved
in the project have remarked how they still feel that they are part of the
creation of the interviewing package—certainly those who appeared on film
have a celluloid record of their involvement. One of the student research
assistants/evaluators wrote,

(A)t the end of the project there was a great sense of accomplishment
and achievement. Being involved (in what I consider to be a large
team) was quite rewarding. At times I didn't think we would complete
the project at all, let alone on time. However, somehow, the project all
came together. And the end result was quite good. Like any project,
those involved notice its faults and defects, but generally speaking the
video package has been well received and enjoyed. Possibly, this is the
greatest reward of all.

The experience recounted here also indicates that the benefits of

involving students—and colleagues—in the initial conceptualisation and
creation of teaching/learning products have yet to be tapped. Perhaps in
time the involvement of students—and colleagues from other disciplines—
in all aspects of project design, development, implementation, and
evaluation will be built into criteria for the award of grant monies. To
achieve this goal, some changes may need to be made to the granting
process, however. University and grant committees need to provide
sufficient incentives to enable teachers to adopt a more holistic approach to
the creation and completion of teaching and learning packages. Financial
payments for the submission of grant applications of a particular standard
which include students and an interdisciplinary team in project formulation
and completion is recommended so that academics are encouraged to exert
their energies in completing rigorous applications. Successful grant
applicants in related disciplines should be encouraged to comment on
applications, and applicants should be encouraged to include successful
applicants in related disciplines as part of their project reference team.
Payments to students should be organised so that their full participation
throughout the life of the entire project is ensured.
The grant process itself needs to be made more transparent, and greater
opportunities for sharing information amongst grant recipients need to be
created. Academic staff need to be given adequate and reasonable notice of
54 M. j . LEBRUN WITH LAWRY SCULL

the time-lines for the submission of proposals so that proposals are not
cobbled together last minute. They need ready and easy access to
unambiguous criteria from the grant committee to which they can respond
directly in their applications. They need clear guidelines on reporting
requirements that include information about the procedures for dealing
with changes to project details and emphasis. In order to make the process
of completion smooth, it is recommended that one individual (or a team of
individuals) from the grant committee be nominated to oversee specific
grants so that recipients deal with one person (or a team) who is familiar
with the entire carriage of their project. A step-by-step guide to the
completion of projects would be of use.
Despite these shortcomings, anecdotal evidence suggests that the
establishment of grants to fund educational innovations in Australian
universities has raised the profile of teaching and learning considerably.
More can be done, however. If student learning is to become the central
focus of teaching and learning grant-funded initiatives, as is advocated in
this article, future funding bodies will need to consider in greater depth
how academics can ensure that this goal is achieved. Including students
and colleagues in all phases of project design and completion is one step
towards achieving this goal.

Appendix

Legal Education Project

Formative Evaluation of the Video Script
Prepared by Neil Russell
1.0 Purpose of this aspect of the evaluation
The purpose of this formative evaluation is to give feedback and advice to
the Director of the Project on the extent to which the draft script allows the
objectives of the Project to be realised.
The most significant outcome sought for this project is that it facilitates
the development of unproved interviewing skills by a legal practitioner and
his/her client.

2.0 Setting for the formative evaluation

There were two settings for the formative evaluation.
(a) A group of three first-year and one second-year law students
observed the filming of the reading of the draft scripts and then
answered questions relating to the interviewing strategies used by the
actors reading the scripts.
(b) Two groups of (three third-year) law students watched the pilot
videotape of the actors reading the draft script and answered
 ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING OF LAW 55

questions relating to the interviewing strategies used by the actors in

the recorded videotape.14

3.0 The questions asked during student interviews

Students were asked the following questions in a focus group format.

3.1 Please rate the authenticity of the interviewing process you have
observed. How realistic was the setting for a lawyer-client interview. Were
there distractions to the interview process which interrupted your review of
the process?

3.2 The purpose of the script is to assist you with both the development of
insights into a legal client interview process and developing your own
approach to interviewing a client. Did you gain important information on
the conduct of a client interview?

3.3 List two (or more) examples of good interviewing methods you
observed in this session.

3.4 List two (or more) examples of poor interviewing methods you
observed in this session.

3.5 Can you identify any gaps in the interview process? (This might include
questions that should have been asked but were not and includes body
language and the client-centredness of the approach observed on tape).

4.0 Student Reaction to the Reading of the Draft Script

Ql. In general terms the students considered the overall authenticity of the
process to be satisfactory. There were some comments on the adequacy of
the actors to portray the rapport that is necessary between a solicitor and a
client. The level of realism achieved by the actors during the reading was a
distraction to two students.
The interview setting needed to be improved to make the situation more
realistic. The students suggested bookshelves, folios and a simulated or
actual office setting.

Q2. The students considered the second lawyer-client interview (the

younger lawyer) to be reasonably client-centered but more stilted than
would be observed in a legal office. The group considered this was a
problem with the acting rather than the script.

Q3. The students considered that the script made good use of the tactical

14 Some of the script was amended, and these students gave feedback on the revised script.
56 M. j . LEBRUN WITH UWKY SCULL

plan of the interviewing processes and that the closure of the interview
demonstrated very good interviewing technique. The use of the tactical
plan in the review of the interview could be a feature of the teacher's guide
and be included in the student materials. One way of approaching this
might be to have a brief, say half page, interview to be analysed using the
tactical plan before the video is played.

Q4. The students agreed that there were too many examples of "legalese"
in the second interview and that the interview gave the appearance of the
lawyer "railroading" the client. Either technical terms need to be explained
or a different form of language used in the script. Alternatively, there could
be a glossary of terms for students as part of the kit.

Q5. The question of more information on the "missing link" in the story
might be included in the interviewing process.

Short Summary of Suggestions Arising From the Interview

(a) Have a more realistic office setting for the office scene. This could
include books, papers a phone . . . and even a laptop!
(b) Audition another group of actors. The view of the students was that
the quality of the reading was a distraction from the interviewing
• process.
(c) Review the use of legal language in the interviews.
(d) Brief the actors in terms of empathy with the client and body
language so that the client is not seen to be "railroaded" into a course
of action unless you want to want to highlight examples of poor
interviewing.

5.0 Reaction of Students to the Pilot Video tape

Ql. The students expressed a strong view that the office scenes needed to
be more realistic, that legal language was over used, and that body
language of the solicitors was not client-centred.
There were concerns expressed that the introduction to the actual
interview was "lecture like" and that the transition from social talk to legal
talk was too forced.

Q2. (No clear response).

Q3. The students thought that the closure to the interview was satisfactory
with a good summary of client options. The homework set for the client
was also clear.

Q4. The lawyer summarised the setting twice and the dismissive nature of
the lawyer and the extent to which the lawyer "led" the client were
examples of poor interviewing techniques.
 ENHANCING STUDENT LEARNING OF LAW 57

Q5. The students wanted more information on Dario . . . (the guest

lecturer) to be gleaned by the lawyer.
The timing of the events in the story was also considered to be needed
by the students. Possibly this could be provided in the teacher material
with a list of the sequence of dates.

Summary of Suggestions
(a) Have a more realistic office setting.
(b) Consider replacing the actors portraying the lawyers and employ
actors who were more client-centred.
(c) Reconsider the use of legal terms during the interview.
(d) Consider the use of the tactical plan as part of the student materials.
(e) Consider including a more strict recounting of the time specific
events took place.
(f ) Overall the script was considered sound.