Beyond the classroom keeping the conversation going

I sat to the right of my teammates, Celine and Naphta, this was the only way however that I could be described as being on the right as we were there, on the day of the Iron Lady’s funeral, that we would have been much better off if Thatcher had never been PM.

The event was the final of the College debating competition, our arguments for the next hour had been determined by the flip of a coin and not our personal political convictions.

The popularity of the competition was obvious from the size of the baying crowd, a mix of students and lecturers waiting to see who would draw first blood in a battle in which our intention was an ambitious one, to un-seat the team led by the reigning champion, a colleague who in two years of competitive debating had 7 wins, 1 draw and no losses to his name. To say I was nervous would be a huge understatement, but this was mixed with a huge amount of pride for the debating competition is my baby, an event I started 18 months ago to sharpen students oratory skills that has grown into an arena where those skills are tested to their limits.

Every student who is ballsy enough to enter this arena deserves our admiration for having a go, and every performance has been impressive – neither my team nor our competitors had enjoyed an easy ride to the finals, any complacency was quickly checked and our sucesses thus far were due in large part to our ability to quickly learn from our mistakes and the strengths of those we competed against. I have not witnessed skills development at this pace before, every member of the the team I stood with in the final, myself included, had learned so much and was desperate to show it off.

Praise should also go to the floor, the thought provoking interventions from the audience are a vital ingredient of any enjoyable debate.

All four student competitors deserve to be extremely proud of their performances, the closeness of the competition demonstrated by the fact that in the post-match analysis 3 colleagues and I were completely divided over who performed best.

We had gained so much in the learning experience getting to the final, the thoughtful individual feedback from our experienced judge the icing on the cake. The fact that my team emerged triumphant pleases me immensely, but it is the footnote.

Almost all my blogs begin with an excuse, of varying plausibility, about why I have been remiss about blogging.  Yet again I can report that I’ve been busy, but this time I am able to report that it has been with unusual drive and purpose.  I was fortunate enough to have a paper accepted at a conference and at the end of last month I presented my research on the value of self-reflection to the Association of Law Teachers.  The thoughtful feedback I received was constructive and the other papers I saw inspirational.  One paper is influencing this afternoon’s revision lecture and I’d like to share this even further so here goes…

The importance of using visually stimulating methods in teaching should not be underrated, many of us learn visually and a diagram, flowchart or even different coloured text can help us to understand and remember information.  With exams rapidly approaching I’m busy encouraging students to organise their revision and marshall it into useful and memorable forms and the most exciting way I’ve come across recently to do this is an intuitive little tool called MindMeister.  I’ve just taken a huge step and joined the rest of the world by purchasing a tablet, I settled for a Samsung Tab2, and have downloaded the MindMeister app so on this morning’s tube journey I was able to create a mind map that takes students through the nature of Public International Law.  The tool isn’t only available as an app, it can be accessed on a web browser from any machine.  The most effective application though is in marshalling your thoughts – if you can organise your notes in a brilliant, colour-coded map then you must have understood the topic and being zoomable you can map a whole module and then focus on a unit within it when it comes to revising.  I find that flow charts work brilliantly in preparing a topic for a problem question so that’s what I’m off to ask my students to do.

Today I am teaching my jurisprudence about Karl Marx’s theory of law, as Marx does not offer us a developed theory of law this is not the simplest task; in fact in Marx’s future, classless society he anticipates no need for law.  However his theory of historical materialism has influenced legal theory.  Historical materialism is the view that all social change is driven by economic change, as Marx notes in his preface to The Poverty of Philosophy (1847):

“In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production; and in changing their mode of production, in changing their way of earning a living, they change their social relations.  The hand-mill gives you a society with a feudal lord; the steam-mill society with an industrial capitalist.”  (Cited in Marx and Engels, Collected Works (vol. 6) (1976),  p.166)

Historical materialism describes a structure of society where the economic base gives rise to the superstructure and the superstructure includes politics, morality, religion, ideology, culture and – most importantly for me – law, or as Marx put it:

“Legal relations … are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the so called general development of the human mind, but rather have their roots in the material conditions of life.”  (Marx, Preface to ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ (1859) in Marx and Engels, Selected Works (vol.1) (1958), p.362)

In essence he is arguing that capitalism could not  survive without a superstructure which includes laws that provide for the private ownership of the means of production.

Marx believed that the law presented itself as impartial but is in fact partial, for example the law of contract is an opaque way of representing a system where he felt workers are forced to sell their labour, the worker is “bound to his owner by invisible threads” (Marx, Capital (vol.1) (1867), p.538) and Marxists like Meyerson argue that law obscures and maintains the exploitative relationships on which society is based (False Consciousness (1991, Oxford), pp.2-4).  Stalin used Pashukanis’ Marxism to justify deregulating the State because Pashukanis argued that the law ceases to have a function with the destruction of private property, although Stalin also used the legal system the dictates of the Soviet State.  Althusser’s Marxism is however subtly different, for him the “legal-political and ideological superstructure” develop separately (Reading Kapital, p.177) and that the ideological state apparatus means our identity is governed by the law.

Revisiting my notes on Marx has rekindled my scepticism of capitalism, I can’t help feeling like we wouldn’t be inadvertently consuming horsemeat if capitalism were tempered by other ethical considerations.  Capitalism drives a culture of getting more for less, sometimes to the exclusion of other moral considerations and now I can buy trainers for my 4 year-old son made by kids his own age in sweatshops abroad.  His attempts at junk modelling a magic car are crude in comparison!  This is not a radical position, politicians from all sides have rallied against unbridled capitalism, Ed Miliband argues for “responsible capitalism” and David Cameron has repeatedly called for what he calls “ethical capitalism”.

I have long described myself as a liberal, feeling that the State has no justification for interfering with my personal liberty unless it conflicts with someone else’s but unregulated capitalism with its focus on driving down prices and increasing profits necessarily leads to corners being cut, horse meat in our convenience foods and the products of child labour on our High Streets are a symptom of this and this leads me to consider whether the law has a wider role in ensuring that a basic standard of morality is enforced to limit the excesses of capitalism.  Of course that leaves me to face the difficult questions of whose conception of morality and consider if moral rights exist at all, perhaps that’s for another blog.

MOOCs are Massively (or sometimes Massive) Open Online Courses, they provide online video lectures, self-test exercises and, often, assessments to anyone with an internet connection and some spare time.

I first heard of MOOCs in Autumn last year and when I saw that Coursera, one of the largest MOOC providers, would be offering modules in English law I was excited to see how they’d pan out – I even emailed all my colleagues to share my excitement.  I had no idea at the time that I’d soon be designing content for a course that could potentially be studied by millions but right now I’m in the middle of something thrilling.

In some quarters though the academic community has been cautious in its acceptance of these alternatives to traditional teaching, in this weeks Times Higher Educational Supplement (THES) Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, who is vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, was reported as claiming that MOOCs:

will challenge the nature of higher education

Sir Borysiewicz was dismissive of what he describes as:

less prestigious universities

that focused on teaching, rather than research, and argued these were most at threat, concluding:

Will they change what happens at Cambridge? No

Whilst I do not agree with his premise that being different from Cambridge makes institutions less prestigious – and I am well placed to argue the toss having worked at red brick as well as post-1992 institutions and currently lecturing in the for-profit sector – that is not the focus of this blog.

As the pot of research funding has diminished those institutions without a strong research output were denied their piece of this once lucrative cake and many responded by focusing their attentions on teaching.  Widening participation has forced those of us in Higher Education to focus on how we inspire, motivate and teach those from backgrounds that were traditionally excluded from enjoying the benefits of Higher Education and I doubt anyone outside of the self-styled prestigious institutions would describe education as

the knowledge-transfer system

as Sir Borysiewicz does.

It is outside these ivory towers of research excellence that I believe we see models of Higher Education best placed to withstand whatever threat, if any at all, is posed by MOOCs precisely because it is this challenging educational environment where it is best understood that education is so much more than a knowledge-transfer system.  Teaching focused institutions are generally excellent at what they do and have withstood more severe threats than putting lecture videos online.

Sir Borysiewicz asks

Why do a course costing £9,000 when you could sit the MOOC offered by MIT?

I would like to take this opportunity to answer that question and ask Sir  Borysiewicz, if Higher Education teaching is about nothing more than knowledge transfer, Why do a course costing £9,000 when you read the book written by a Professor at MIT?

When I first started teaching my videos were lectured and recordings kept in the University’s law library, some staff were worried that this would diminish lecture attendance and ultimately, if videos could replace lectures, do us out of jobs.  Videos can’t replace lectures though and whilst it may have killed the radio star lecturers remain on every institution’s payroll.  Videos, like books, Virtual Learning Environments (VLE) or MOOCs are a great way of transferring knowledge and if my job were simply knowledge-transfer then my career aspirations would have died when William Caxton invented the printing press.

Education is about communication, it is a two way process.  A video, book, VLE or MOOC cannot educate because it is not receptive to the receiver and education is more than the dissemination or transfer of knowledge.  MOOCs, like books, are a great resource and that’s why we should be excited about them, rather than feel threatened.  Some people will use MOOCs and never study for a University degree, others will read books.  For those who want to be motivated by an enthusiastic expert to truly understand a topic, rather than just know it, and obtain the skills to be able to use and apply their knowledge the traditional degree has a lot going for it, as Andrew NG, co-founder of Coursera said in a separate interview with the THES 

I don’t think this will ever be as valuable as a degree

 

I’m really enjoying designing a MOOC and nothing I’ve written should detract from the fact that they offer an incredible opportunity to many, but I’m not threatened by them and if Sir Borysiewicz would like to see why I’d welcome him into my classroom.

I haven’t blogged this year because I haven’t taught yet – that all begins on Monday.  Alongside marking, updating materials and preparing lessons I have spent some of my time considering how I teach.

I didn’t come straight back to work after my Christmas break, I went instead on a training course to reflect, with other experienced lecturers, on what we do and consider how we improve.  One colleague shared an excellent metaphor he uses in teaching which was as relevant to me as to his students.

Usain Bolt was the metaphor – possibly the greatest athlete ever, undeniably gifted yet we can be certain he still has to practice.  However much we understand about what we do we cannot excel unless we practice.  It is not enough for my students to know and understand, they need to have experience of using this knowledge and this comes from practice.  Similarly years of experience and an understanding of the theory that underpins my teaching do not enable me to best support my students without practice – I benefit from pausing and reflecting on what I do and the constructive input from peers is invaluable.  Inspired I am looking forward to getting back into the classroom and putting my recently honed skills to (hopefully) good effect, I’m also embracing the opportunity to share my experiences and 2013 will be a year where I disseminate my recent learning and teaching experiences at academic conferences.  It’s all very exciting!

Last week all of my students were sitting assessments so there was no formal teaching and therefore no Star of the Week, however this week I am making up the deficit by announcing two Stars of the Week.

My Stars of the Week are Celine and Naphta who combined forces and beat off strong opposition to win the last debating competition of the year.  The competition resumes in the second week of teaching next semester.

Well done both of you.

The Leveson inquiry into press standards has concluded, and the publication of his report has given bloggers plenty to dwell on.

There is plenty to say about the content of his report  but this has been undermined by his decision to resort to lazy research methods.  Lord Justice Leveson did what we tell our students never to do – he’s used wikipedia as a source of information and hasn’t checked it.

Like students who rely on wikipedia he’s been  shown to have poor research methods and been embarrassed because he has copied mistakes across from wikipedia into his official report.  College friends of Brett Straub had played a prank, editing wikipedia pages to name his as the inventor of Coca Cola and the founder of the Independent newspaper and Leveson trusted wikipedia and in his report named Brett, a recent US college graduate who’s never heard off the Independent, as the newspaper’s founder.   The last word should go to Brett who told the Telegraph:

I graduated college eight months ago and the biggest thing we learned is don’t trust Wikipedia for facts.

Friday was the last day of Movember and those of us who had grown our Mos marked the occasion by donning sequined stetsons and spending our working day dressed as cowboys.  It was also my day to announce my first Star of the Week and I was so impressed with the effort of my students that the honour was shared.  In year 0 I asked students to work in groups and produce client care letters, the group dubbing themselves ‘insidious’ (a reference to popular culture I’m too old to appreciate) produced work of an exceptional standard, nailing the legal issues and communicating clearly to their client.  Insidious share Star of the Week with Amey, one of my Public International Law students who, after her seminar, showed me her written preparation for comment which showed a great deal of effort and some glimpses of deep understanding of the issues.  Well done!

A fortnight ago I had the honour of attending our student award’s ceremony.  Despite over a decade working in Higher Education I had never before attended an award’s ceremony distinct from a graduation ceremony and our College is unusual, if not unique, in rewarding student achievement in this way.  The event was a huge success in both recognising individual student achievement and promoting a sense of community.  It is important that we remember to recognise all achievements, both the major successes of receiving an academic award and the milestones along the way.  I was again reminded of this last week when I was invited to attend my 4-year-old son’s celebration assembly where he was recognised as Star of the Week for his numeracy work.  The children applauded their peers who received awards, either for academic achievement, good behaviour or effort.  The effect on the students of this positive recognition was dramatic and the whole school community had a buzz about it, beyond this one, incredibly proud, Dad.

I have spent the past week reflecting on how I can better recognise the positive impact of the students I teach beyond simply marking their work.  I feel that sometimes my attention is drawn to negative behaviour, chastising lateness or unpreparedness when I should be rewarding effort.  I have decided that each week I will be recognising one of the students I teach as my Star of the Week to applaud their effort and thank them for their effort.  The first Star of the Week will be announced on Friday here and on Twitter @kaplan_nc

During the recent American election campaign the doctrine of ‘ exceptionalism’ loomed large.  Mit Romney believes strongly in American exceptionalism and criticised Barrack Obama for not being fully committed to it.  American exceptionalism is the idea that America has an exceptional place within the world and that this position, ordained by God, should be exploited to promote American values across the world.  The belief is not unique to Americans, a belief in British exceptionalism was what David Livingstone, the renowned Scottish missionary, believed justified the Victorians in trying to promote “civilisation, commerce and Christianity” across the world and led the British to use its naval might to blockade the Atlantic, halting the slave trade.  The doctrine however is not a popular one, the values America is trying to export are not uniquely American and not everyone accepts that, for example, democracy and liberty are universal values that justify military intervention or other infringements of the sovereignty of other States.

I believe it is wrong to unquestioningly accept that my moral values are more important than any others and to use dominance to force my view on others, however I also believe that it is wrong to surrender my strong moral beliefs because they conflict with those of others; this is why I am proud to be a citizen of country that yesterday refused to extradite Abu Qatada to Jordan.  I agree that he should face a fair trial in Jordan for the alleged crimes he has committed but I do not think this justifies us surrendering our commitment that torture in all circumstances is both morally and legally unacceptable.  The issues in this case have been misrepresented by the popular press; Qatada is not a terrorist who has been freed to walk the streets of Britain.  He has been convicted of no crime in Britain and if he were suspected of any crime or of posing a threat to the British public we have a robust criminal justice system that would and should deal with this.  He is currently on bail, electronically tagged, subject to myriad restrictions on his liberty and under constant surveillance.  It is also worth noting that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission did not block his extradition to Jordan indefinitely, he will likely be deported within months once the Jordanians have made a minor amendment to their criminal code ensuring, beyond doubt, that torture evidence is not admissible in court.  Circumstances gave Britain an exceptional position to use her influence to promote the view that torture is wrong and she was able to do this without recourse to sanctions or the use of force; in these circumstances it is right for us to cling to the cherished notion that torture is always wrong and Britain should continue to steadfastly refuse to extradite those who will face torture or execution or against whom torture evidence will be used.