Andrew
Murray
Cite
as Murray A., “The value of
analogue educational tools in a digital educational environment”,
in European
Journal of Law and Technology, Vol 6, No 1, 2015.
There
is a powerful rhetoric in all aspects of tertiary education today in
favour of
the adoption of, and increased role for, digital platforms and virtual
learning
environments in the design of course curricula. We are told that these
tools
will have a transformative effect and will lead to a blended learning
experience. This paper argues that these platforms may not be the
panacea
suggested, and may in fact lead to a conflict of pedagogical values
between
local vocational, or Shulman, values and the wider pedagogical values
behind
the design of the platform or VLE. Using as a case study an
alternative,
analogue, supplementary educational platform used in the Cyberlaw class
at the
London School of Economics in 2013/14, the author argues that pedagogy,
and
indeed andragogy, must drive curriculum design not the availability of
technology platforms or their adoption at institutional level.
Keywords: Legal Education;
Pedagogy; Andragogy; Blended
Learning; Digital Platforms; Course Design.
The
value of digital educational tools such as educational platforms (e.g.
Blackboard and Moodle), MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), VLEs
(Virtual
Learning Environments) and TLEs (Transactional Learning Environments)
in legal
education are not in doubt. Professor Paul Maharg, one of the
UK’s pioneers of
the use of VLEs and gaming in the study and teaching of legal skills,
has an
unbroken record of research in this area going back over more than ten
years which
clearly shows the benefits that may be reaped.[1]
The benefits of digital educational tools in teaching Generation Y (or
Millennials) who have grown up surrounded by digital technology are
plentiful. Bernier
& Greene for instance point out that technology in the classroom
facilitates “a broader capacity for the student to access methods
of
complementing their learning style to the teacher’s teaching
style”[2]
and in addition note that VLEs can be “constructed to affect the
exposure of
the students to work experiences and environments which would not
normally be
possible in the real world of the law student.”[3]
This last point is of course one area where Maharg established his
reputation.
The development of his Ardcalloch TLE for use by students at the
Glasgow
Graduate School of Law (GGSL) is probably the best-known case study of
this
type of digital legal education tool.[4]
The story of the original Ardcalloch is told fully in Maharg &
Owen’s 2007
paper Simulations, learning and the
metaverse: changing cultures in legal education.[5]
This paper describes the development of the TLE environment, which
began as a
simple web platform built by Maharg and others at the GGSL using
ColdFusion, SharePoint
and Visual Basic, before becoming a much more complex build following a
successful grant application in 2005. This
led to Ardcalloch ver.2.0, based upon a platform called SIMPLE
(SIMulated
Professional LEarning). Maharg then takes up the story of this
development in
his later book chapter Simulation: a
pedagogy emerging from the shadows.[6]
Here Maharg completes the Ardcalloch story by taking us through the
difficult
birth of Ardcalloch 2.0 which involved a two-year complete redesign of
the
software to provide “a toolset with which academics could
construct complex
simulations, and a platform upon which they could run the simulation
with
students.”[7]
The final result of all this effort was the excellent, although
apparently no
longer supported, Simshare project[8]
an Open Education Resources (OER) web platform for the development of
simulation resources.
Why
did Maharg and colleagues spend so much
time building the Ardcalloch TLE? Educators have hobbies as much as the
next
person and some may dismiss Ardcalloch as either a hobby activity, or
as a
petri dish that allowed Maharg to study his theories of game based
education
and the use of simulation in the teaching and study of law. There is no
doubt
Maharg did extract a lot of value from his studies of the Ardcalloch
TLE as his
list of publications demonstrates,[9]
but to suggest that Ardcalloch was simply an experimental resource is
to ignore
the clear pedagogy employed by Maharg. As he explains in Simulations,
learning and the metaverse: changing cultures in legal
education there were six guiding principles for transactional
education at
the root of both versions of Ardcalloch. These were (1) Transactional
learning
as active learning: in transactional learning students are involved in
activities within legal actions, rather than standing back from the
actions and
merely learning about them (as the Socratic method reinforces); (2)
Learning to
do legal transactions: students take part in the transaction, thus they
learn
about the transaction itself; (3) Reflection: the ability to rise above
detail,
and see all of (and thus reflect upon) a transaction; (4) Collaborative
learning: the opportunity to break down the isolation and alienation of
what
might be regarded as isolated or cellular learning; (5) Holistic
process
learning: giving professional studies students a more holistic
understanding of
legal process and legal procedure as distinct from the
“chunking” process often
found in undergraduate teaching; and (6) Ethical and professional
learning: the
dynamic practice of ethical learning.
Ardcalloch
was designed around these six
foundational values; a set of principles which Maharg notes,
“have become
guiding principles for our practice.”[10]
This is good pedagogical practice; in essence Maharg designed
Ardcalloch to, through
a digitally mediated virtual environment, fulfil Professor Lee
Shulman’s “signature
pedagogies of the legal profession”. Shulman has made extensive
study of the
distinctive pedagogies of a number of professional educational
programmes from
medicine and engineering to psychiatry and law. In so doing he has
identified
signature pedagogies suited to the different vocations students are
being
prepared to enter. His study of law is found in several of his
publications but
none explain it more clearly than his 2005 paper Signature
Pedagogies in the Professions.[11]
Here Shulman notes: “a signature pedagogy has three dimensions.
First, it has a
surface structure, which consists of
concrete, operational
acts of teaching and learning, of showing and demonstrating, of
questioning and
answering, of interacting and withholding, of approaching and
withdrawing. [It]
also has a deep structure, a set of
assumptions about how best to impart a certain body of knowledge and
know-how.
And it has an implicit structure, a
moral dimension that comprises a set of beliefs about professional
attitudes,
values, and dispositions.”[12]
In
legal education Shulman sees the
application of these principles in the mostly Socratic pedagogy found
in US law
schools. As Shulman notes:
This
signature pedagogy’s surface structure
entails a set of dialogues that are entirely under the control of an
authoritative teacher; nearly all exchanges go through the teacher who
controls
the pace and usually drives the questions back to the same student a
number of
times. The discussion centres on the law, as embodied in a set of texts
ranging
from judicial opinions that serve as precedents, to contracts,
testimonies,
settlements, and regulations; in the legal principles that organize and
are
exemplified by the texts; and in the expectation that students know the
law and
are capable of engaging in intensive verbal duels with the teacher as
they
wrestle to discern the facts of the case and the principle of
interpretation.[13]
Here
we see clearly that the employment of the Socratic method in the
teaching of
law is no historical artefact. The skills taught in this method
including,
self-discipline, self-reflection, criticism, interpretation and
contextualisation are extremely valuable to students entering the legal
profession, and related professions, to hone the skills required for
both
inductive and deductive reasoning, principally the skills applicable to
the
deductive analysis of legal principles and to apply the results to
instant
cases. Shulman goes on, “the deep structure of the pedagogy rests
on the
assertion that what is really being taught is the theory of the law and
how to
think like a lawyer, the subject matter is not black-letter law, as,
for
example, in British law schools, but the process of analytic reasoning
characteristic of legal thinking.”[14]
Aside from the clear implication that the traditional UK model of legal
education is outdated, a fact that has long been acknowledged by a
number of UK
legal education theorists,[15]
Shulman here demonstrates that, as highlighted, the pedagogy of North
American
law schools is as much about the skills one needs to practice as a
lawyer as
they are about learning the academic subject of the law. Finally
Shulman turns
his attention to implicit structures: “the implicit structure of
case dialogue
pedagogy has several features. We observed several interactions in
which students
questioned where a particular legal judgement was fair to the parties,
in
addition to being legally correct. The instructor generally responded
that they
were there to learn the law not to learn what was fair – which
was another
matter entirely. This distinction between legal reasoning and moral
judgement
emerged from the pedagogy as a tacit principle. Similarly, the often
brutal
nature of the exchanges between instructor and students imparted in
rather
stark terms a sense of what legal encounters entail.”[16]
This provides a different but equally valuable set of transferable
skills for
the lawyer; personal detachment, self-confidence and stolidity in the
face of
criticism.
Returning
briefly to Maharg & Owen’s
six guiding principles for TLE we can see symmetry between these and
Schulman’s
signature legal pedagogy. Like Schulman, Maharg and Owen’s
principles are
designed to equip students with the skills needed to enter the
profession and
the Ardcalloch TLE is designed to as closely as possible, mirror the
vocational
experiences of a new solicitor working in Scotland. Transactional legal
education may thus be seen as an operationalization of signature legal
pedagogy
with a different focus. While Socratic pedagogy, as used in North
American law
schools, instils in students the skillset needed to become an effective
practicing lawyer (and does not as Maharg and Owen suggest merely teach
students about legal actions from a distance) the transactional
pedagogy
focuses on the narrower vocational skills of the modern lawyer –
how to
transact, collaborate and learn processes.
By examining these two approaches side by side we develop a
fuller picture
of the rounded pedagogical model that best prepares law students for
life as a
legal practitioner. To be a lawyer requires both an interpersonal and a
vocational skillset. The Socratic pedagogy instils the necessary
interpersonal
skills: self-discipline, self-reflection, criticism, interpretation,
contextualisation, personal detachment, self-confidence and stolidity
in the
face of criticism. This though does not
form a complete lawyer. In addition to these interpersonal skills the
necessary
vocational skills require to be developed. These are transactional
skills such
as collaboration, drafting, negotiation, legal process skills and more
mundane
skills found in the Ardcalloch model such as time management and
planning. A
wholly rounded legal educational training relies on both skillsets
being taught.
Once you recognise this, a fuller picture of the complete pedagogy for
legal
skills training emerges which contextualises TLE. The Ardcalloch model
was
developed for students at the Glasgow Graduate School of Law. This
operated the
vocational programme, the Diploma in Legal Practice (now the Diploma in
Professional Legal Practice), a one-year postgraduate Diploma course
required
for entry into the Scottish legal profession.
The Diploma takes students who already have been instilled (one
hopes)
with the necessary interpersonal skills as part of their undergraduate
LLB
degree and complements these with advanced professional transactional
skills.
Ardcalloch was therefore ideally designed for its function; a role
often
fulfilled in North American law school through vocational clinic work
and
editorial positions on student law reviews.
What
we see emerging is a complete pedagogy
for legal training, a mixture of interpersonal and vocational skills
taught by
a variety of instructional techniques. Interpersonal skills are usually
taught
through traditional classroom pedagogy. The use of techniques such as
Socratic
instruction reinforces these skills. A good law degree programme will
not be
simply a “black letter” experience, although as Duncan
Kennedy notes a badly
designed programme may fall precisely into this trap: “the modern
law school
seems intellectually unpretentious, barren of theoretical ambition or
practical
vision of what social life might be. The trade school mentality, the
endless
attention to trees at the expense of forests, the alternating grimness
and
chumminess of focus on the limited task at hand…The actual
intellectual content
of the law seems to consist of learning rules, what they are and why
they have
to be the way they are, while rooting for the occasional judge who
seems
willing to make them marginally more humane.”[17]
Hopefully since 1982 when Kennedy wrote this most legal education in
the UK and
North America has improved and today a good legal education will mix
the
interpersonal and vocational at all levels with a tilt towards one or
other
depending upon the programme in question, thus the Diploma in
Professional
Legal Practice (or its English equivalent the Legal Practice Course) is
tilted
toward the vocational/transactional skills while an undergraduate LLB
is tilted
towards the interpersonal. Whichever programme one examines though
there is not
exclusivity in favour of one or other. Extracurricular and clinical
programmes
used in LLB courses develop the vocational and transactional skills
alongside
interpersonal skills. At Strathclyde University (where Paul Maharg
worked while
developing the Ardcalloch model) the LLB develops vocational and
transactional
skills though a number of routes open to undergraduates, including the
option
of a full clinical LLB degree available to students who join the law
clinic.
For those wanting a more traditional LLB experience with some
vocational
aspects, they may choose to supplement their degree programme from a
number of
extracurricular activities including volunteering at Strathclyde
University’s
award winning law clinic or mediation clinic, roles within the student
law
review or through the mooting society. The Ardcalloch TLE may be seen
as part
of this framework: a vocational skills training tool similar to
vocational
programmes such as clinical programmes, mooting or negotiation
workshops. In
fact as someone who underwent the Diploma in Legal Practice in 1994/95
the
author recognises much of the transactional legal educational programme
found
in Ardcalloch: the exercise of negotiation workshops in personal injury
case
studies; the drafting of conveyancing documents; the creation and then
winding
up of imaginary companies; and more such as drafting civil court pleas,
delivering criminal pleas in mitigation as well as mock trials were all
part of
the curriculum of the postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice. Thus it
was well-established
analogue practice to use experiential simulations, “simulations,
often
collaborative, based upon case studies or scenarios, which include
role-play
and activity, in an authentic environment that in some way or other
re-constructs aspects of real-life tasks”[18]
to train students for the next stage of their legal career. In essence,
and not
to belittle the achievement of Ardcalloch which was extraordinary, what
was
achieved at GGSL through the Ardcalloch model was the integration and
digitisation of simulations already implanted into the curriculum.
Rather than
a piecemeal programme of simulation exercises embarked upon though a
number of
modules, and with no overarching narrative, Ardcalloch created a single
narrative and virtual environment for those simulation exercises. It is
argued
that in effect the success of Ardcalloch was the learning resource
itself not
the principles of transactional education for the transactional
educational principles
were already in place through analogue, classroom-based, simulations
already
employed. This is the first thesis argued in this paper: that
digitisation is
rarely of itself transformative of the educational experience if there
is
already good underlying pedagogy, or andragogy, in curriculum design.
That is
not to say that curricula cannot be improved or that the careful
application of
digital educational tools such as VLEs, TLEs or educational platforms
alone
cannot improve the student experience merely to highlight they are mere
tools
of the teacher that if used well (as with Ardcalloch) can produce an
improvement
in student experience.[19]
The
disruptive effects of digital technology have been discussed
extensively in the
literature and it is clear that, as with all aspects of modern life,
digital
technology has the capacity to alter instructor delivery methods both
in the
classroom and of supplementary materials, as well as the communications
dynamic
between instructor and class members.[20]
The contributions of digital platforms, MOOCs, VLEs and TLEs should not
be
underestimated. As higher education passed through a transitional
phase, both
in terms of delivery of content and in terms of an expanded and more
heterogeneous student body, delivered though processes such as widening
participation, teachers face new and difficult challenges.
As
Hicks, Reid, & George note there are
demands for universities to “provide for a larger and more
diverse
cross-section of the population, to cater for emerging patterns on
educational
involvement which facilitate lifelong learning and to include
technology-based
practices in the curriculum.”[21]
This growth in demand, increase in heterogeneity of the student body
and drive
for universities to remain relevant in the modern world has driven the
adoption
of digital tools as a core part of the learning experience. This is a
process
that Garrison & Kanuka labels “blended learning”.[22]
They describe blended learning as “both simple and complex. At
its simplest,
blended learning is the thoughtful integration of classroom
face-to-face
learning experiences with online learning experiences. There is
considerable
intuitive appeal to the concept of integrating the strengths of
synchronous
(face-to-face) and asynchronous (text-based Internet) learning
activities. At
the same time, there is considerable complexity in its implementation
with the
challenge of virtually limitless design possibilities and applicability
to so
many contexts.”[23]
As can be seen the core of this concept is a mix of traditional and
modern
techniques, or for the purposes of this paper, analogue and digital.
Blended
learning is therefore not the use of technology platforms to deliver
education
as with MOOCs or virtual distance learning, nor it is merely the
delivery of
traditional lectures and classes supplemented by digital tool such as
PowerPoint
or Prezi. Blended learning is taking the best of both and, by careful
application, developing an enhanced experience for students.
For
each teacher and each class the optimum
balance of traditional delivery and digital delivery will be different,
but Garrison
& Kanuka give us a roadmap of the beneficial advantages of each.
Digital
tools offer interactivity in an asynchronous environment: this
“facilitate[s] a
simultaneous independent and collaborative learning experience. That
is,
learners can be independent of space and time – yet
together.”[24]
In addition, digital tools will emphasise and reinforce the
student’s reading
and writing skills: this is valuable for “[u]nder certain
circumstances,
writing can be a highly effective form of communication that encourages
reflection and precision of expression.”[25]
Garrison & Cleveland-Innes warn of the dangers of over-reliance on
interactions carried out over digital platforms.[26]
They emphasise the value of instructor-student interaction in the
digital
environment finding that “teaching presence in the form of
facilitation is
crucial in the success of online
learning…‘instructor-to-student interaction
was the stronger of the two interaction measures [student–student
the other] in
terms of predicting effectiveness for both types of delivery.’
The primary
reason is that instructors are more concerned with fulfilling
interaction
needs.”[27]
The role of the instructor thus remains central to the action of
learning.
There is a key distinction between dialogue and learning, which
Garrison &
Cleveland-Innes pick up on: “interaction is not equivalent to
critical
discourse or sufficient for sustaining a community of inquiry.”[28]
Left undirected there is a risk that discourse leads only to surface
learning:
the deep learning one hopes to instil from a course of higher education
must
come from directed discourse: “higher-order learning emerges in a
community of
inquiry.”[29]
To achieve this, students must have time free from distraction and with
the
direction of instructors for “contextual factors such as workload
and time
constraints, type of learning evaluation, the opportunity for
metacognition,
the shift of learning management to the students themselves, and
instructor
explanation, enthusiasm, and empathy have all been indicated in the
development
of deep learning.”[30]
To achieve this one can use digital tools but the quality of student
experience
is likely to be more limited by any number of factors such as
connection
speeds, environmental distractions and a feeling of separation from the
instructor and fellow students. Much better, and this is the message of
blended
learning, to pair digital tools, which allow asynchronous
interactivity, with
traditional classroom teaching which fills in these blanks. As Garrison & Kanuka note this provides
the stabilizing and cohesive functions that are perhaps missing from
digital
interaction.[31]
Any
good university teacher today will use traditional classroom-based
education
supplemented by digital platforms. In this paper I will be using as a
case-study students enrolled in the LLM option in Cyberlaw at the
London School
of Economics. This is a model of how I imagine many instructors teach
Masters
level courses in the UK. The programme is of considerable size; in fact
by
single year student numbers it is larger than the LSE’s (and
many) LLB
programmes. In 2013/14 it attracted over 360 students choosing from a
menu of
over ninety half-unit modules of which Cyberlaw is one. The programme,
and
course, attracts students from all corners of the globe. In 2013/14 of
fifty-five students who took the course 19 were European (including
Russia)
with 4 of these being from the British Isles including Eire, 9 North
American,
8 were South East Asian (including China), 8 were South American or
Caribbean,
4 were African, 3 from the Indian subcontinent, 2 Australasian and 2
from the
Middle East. The only continent not represented was Antarctica. The LSE
LLM
programme thus represents about as diverse a student body as you would
find
anywhere. They are equally diverse in terms of skills and life
experiences.
Some students come straight from an LLB or JD degree (or equivalent)
while
others come from practice having spent usually between 2-5 years in a
post
qualification seat. In addition this particular group is slightly more
diverse
in skills and experiences than most other LSE LLM courses in that we
welcome
students from the MSc Media and Communications Regulation and the
Master of
Public Administration programmes. These tend to be non-legally trained
students
with a background in communications. The
class is taught by traditional Socratic instruction by mid-size seminar
groups
(maximum group size 30 students). Due to the diverse experience,
education and
cultural background and familiarity with English Language instruction
and
Western Socratic method found within the group the class is taught an
accordance with blended learning techniques. In addition to weekly
seminars
students are supported through a Moodle page that includes a
“capture” of each
seminar allowing for later revision, reflection and asynchronous
learning. In
addition group work is used with groups, where possible, being commixed
to
ensure that cultural and language hegemonies are disturbed.
Interestingly
although Moodle has a native discussion tool it has been discovered
that the
rigidity of the nested discussion system fails to foster student
discourse,
even with instructor participation. Instead given that it provides a
point of
shared cultural reference and experience for most students a closed
Facebook
group is used for discursive activities. Here students post news
stories of
interest to the group, pose and answer questions, interact with
instructors,
and giving an added value not available in Moodle or Blackboard can
interact
with class alums who now work in the profession but who have retained
membership of the group. This is a very simple model which blends
virtual
platforms, in this case Moodle, Echo360 and Facebook with class
instruction and
discursive to produce a blended experience.[32]
This is probably a pretty standard model
for many UK Masters Level courses (absent the Facebook group), a mix of
standard Socratic classroom instruction with digital resources, perhaps
seminar
capture and an online environment such as Moodle or Blackboard which
allows for
student interaction, self-testing and reflection. In many cases these
digital
platforms have simply been bolted on to a traditional classroom based
course of
instruction, leading to students experiencing poorly designed,
digitally
enhanced classroom courses. Worse, as evidenced by the experience of
LSE
Cyberlaw students, the most commonly used tools, usually Blackboard or
Moodle,
may fail to provide the correct support for a positive student
experience and
lack the correct pedagogical design needed for a true blended
educational
offering.[33] Not everyone has the time or money to build
from the ground up a digital platform like Ardcalloch.
Herein
is the problem with digital
educational platforms and tools. If you want your course or programme
to be
genuinely transformative, a course of instruction which fully employs
blended
learning, then you must, as Paul Maharg did with Ardcalloch, put the
pedagogy
(or andragogy) first. Instead what seems to occur with depressing
frequency in
law schools across the UK (and probably further afield) is that
instructors,
usually following some institutional instruction or guide, integrate
VLE
platforms like Moodle, Blackboard and Echo360 quite mindlessly into
their
course offerings. Instead of using old-fashioned reading lists digital
readings
are provided. Instead of seeing students in office hours an online
drop-in
session is organised and instead of distributing handouts PowerPoint
slides are
uploaded. There is no consideration of whether they are making the
correct
educational use of the platform in question. The question of whether,
say
Moodle’s pedagogy accords with theirs, is never addressed. Worse
still as most
academics have to make use of an institutionally pre-selected VLE
platforms
they are forced to bend their pedagogy to fit the platform’s
pedagogy (or allow
the two to conflict). This is that well-known problem of technological
determinism.
Technological
determinism in its simplest form is the argument that technology shapes
society.[34] The theory is not new, nor in any way
exclusive to the digital telecommunications world. In 1922 William
Ogburn was
one of the first advocates of the “impact theory” the
theory of technology
impacting (and thus shaping) society, in much the same way that a
billiard ball
hits another, thereby pushing the other in motion.[35]
More recently, and in particular following the development of modern
telecommunications media, we have seen the development of a school of
thought
on technological determinism in communications media and culture. Most
famously
Marshall McLuhan stated, “the medium is the message” in his
1967 book of the
same name.[36]
This is the extreme of the hard deterministic stance where technologies
take on
the mantle of message themselves. McLuhan’s branch of determinism
sees little
scope for autonomy from technology. As one of his followers John Culkin
famously declared “we shape our tools and thereafter they shape
us.”[37]
Theories of technological determinism have become more sophisticated
over time.
Now most scholars talk of hard and soft determinism. McLuhan is at the
leading
edge of hard determinism. This holds that “agency (the power to
effect change)
is imputed to technology itself, or to some intrinsic attributes; thus
the
advance of technology leads to a situation of inescapable necessity. In
the
hard determinist’s view of the future, we will have technologized
our ways to
the point where, for better or worse, our technologies permit few
alternatives
to their inherent dictates.”[38] At the soft end of the spectrum human
autonomy is reasserted: “soft determinism is related to the
philosophical
notion of compatibilism that holds out the prospect of free will in a
deterministic universe (i.e., a universe where every event is causally
related
to past events). Compatibilism accepts that human choice is constrained
by the
fact that everything outside the mind (the natural environment,
parental, and
peer influences, etc.) and everything inside the mind (genetics)
constrains
individual decision-making. Yet compabitilism suggests we can still
exert free
will as long as we do not act out of compulsion by another
person.”[39]
Hard determinism seems difficult to support unless one believes that
the
constraint of technology is such that individualism and free will is so
constrained as to render one subject to the technology that frames our
society.
Nevertheless there remain strong advocates of this movement.[40]
Whichever
flavour of determinism the reader
wishes to ascribe to the effect on traditional pedagogy of digital
platforms
and VLEs is clearly deterministic. As Castells attempts to tease a
middle
ground between soft and hard determinism (an approach which probably
reflects
the truest reflection of our relationship with technology) he places
people and
their artifacts in a mutually bound relationship. He believes that you
cannot
move a technology or the conception of a technology from the network of
relations which bind it. Equally you cannot remove the relationship
humans have
with technology from the network. Thus both humanity and technology are
bound
by these relationships.[41]
In this way neither drives the other instead both are entwined.[42]
The use of “off the peg” VLEs for university education is
deterministic. It
drives all pedagogy towards the inbuilt pedagogy of the platform or VLE
creating a hegemonistic pedagogical approach. This is extremely
undesirable
for, as demonstrated by Shulman, different forms of professional
education (and
indeed different academic disciplines) have unique signature pedagogies.[43] To use the same platform to design and
deliver a course in advanced legal skills and a course in advanced
biochemistry
or complex mathematics is as ridiculous as suggesting all professions
from
Doctors to Fireman by way of Lawyers and Sanitation Engineers wear the
same
clothes to work. We design bespoke clothing for each profession and we
have
developed bespoke pedagogy for each unique academic discipline. Why do
we
continue to pedal the false belief that all can use the same digital
tools and
platforms in programme design and delivery?
It
is proposed that traditional analogue platforms and systems can offer
the
instructor greater flexibility on curriculum design and allow for
Shulman
values to be emphasised. To test this hypothesis an extracurricular
programme
designed around analogue tools was instituted for students taking the
option in
Cyberlaw on the LLM programme at the LSE in the 2013/14 academic year.
The
programme was a simple book club centred on three texts, which would
introduce
themes, and contexts, which would be developed and explored in formal
classes.
The book club was designed to meet two distinctive demands. The first
was to
provide a community building exercise. As already noted, the Cyberlaw
class is
heterogeneous in terms of geographical spread and cultural background
but also
in terms of knowledge and experience. The book club assignments, and
meetings,
were designed as a shared cultural experience for the group. If they
had little
else in common they could discuss the texts and as the texts selected
were ones
which commonly students may have read in school or recreationally as
teenagers,
George Orwell’s 1984,[44]
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World[45]
and Franz Kafka’s The Trial,[46]
they would allow the class to further unearth cultural commonalties
from their
secondary education experience which otherwise may remain undiscovered.
I
assigned the texts to be read, as a purely voluntary exercise, over the
course
of the ten weeks of the Cyberlaw course with book club meetings in
weeks three,
five and eight. The books assigned matched themes discussed in class so
1984 in week three matched a discussion
of regulation through power and sanction (direct regulation); Brave New World in week five matched
with a discussion of regulation through influence and choice
(self-regulation),
while The Trial coincided with a
discussion of regulation through bureaucracy and competition. I
suggested to
students that they obtained hard copies of the books rather than
digital copies
as I felt the physical copy gave them a common artefact and a shared
purpose.
In addition the use of analogue/physical, copies provided two further
benefits.
Firstly they were a social equaliser. Although most students today have
either
a laptop or tablet computer, not all do. While not all can afford a new
piece
of hardware for class, all can afford a cheap (second-hand if
necessary)
paperback copy of a book or can rely on a library copy. Secondly, in
the book
club meeting, physical copies would be picked up and put down again,
students
would not keep the books open and in front of them in the way that they
do with
laptops and tablets. In this way the physical barrier between the
student and
the rest of the group was removed creating an open arena for discussion
as the
barrier of the screen was broken down and removed. Most did obtain
physical
copies, a few used digital copies, no remedial action was taken against
those
who used digital copies as it was felt this would harm the open group
dynamic.
These classic works of literature, and the discussion of them in book
group
meetings, quickly became common points of language and culture among a
diverse
and heterogeneous student body and provided simple points of reference
that
both the students and myself could use in class.
While
this was in itself valuable, the
experiment was not about foundational reference points: it was designed
to
provide, for students unfamiliar with it, entry, via familiar and
shared artefacts,
into the pedagogy of a Western European LLM programme and more
importantly to
give students the tools for self-led and self-evaluated education using
principles of andragogy.
The
pedagogical design of the Cyberlaw course is to develop six general
skillsets
as well as to specifically educate students on the structures and
designs of
state and decentred regulation in the Internet environment. The six
skillsets
are: (1) self-reflection; (2) critical analysis; (3) interpretation;
(4)
contextualisation; (5) internalisation and ordering of complex
arguments and
concepts; and (6) presentational and oral skills. Self-reflection is
the
ability to establish one’s own strengths and weaknesses and to
determine
internally which skills and knowledge one possesses, and more
importantly
lacks, to tackle a problem, transaction or situation. This is a vital
skill for
a lawyer to possess in the workplace, but equally is a vital skill for
students
to possess if they are to get the most from their educational
experience.
Critical analysis is again a general skill common to good lawyers and
good
students. One must have the ability to weigh up evidence, and argument,
in a
critical manner. If an argument is made that copyright infringement
costs the
creative industries in the United States $58 billion per annum,[47]
a critical lawyer or student will question the methodology which led to
this
result.[48]
Like self-reflection a successful lawyer must have critical analysis in
their
life skills toolbox. Interpretation and contextualisation go together.
Interpretation is the ability to read and interpret complex arguments
and
presentations; to draw out the key facts, messages and figures.
Contextualisation is the ability to place that information in context,
both the
context it was placed in the original, or source, document and the
context you
are giving it in your analysis or argument. It is vitally important
both as a
student and as a practicing lawyer that information is not taken or
used out of
context as this may undermine the application of the information to
that
analysis or argument. Internalisation and ordering is the ability to
manipulate
the information from a source document to apply it to your output
argument or
document. This is the vital processing skill that both student and
lawyer must
have: the ability to remove part of an argument or document, in
context, and to
apply it in their output argument or document. This above all else is
the key
transferrable skill of the law student and the lawyer, the ability to
turn
source material into a winning position, argument or essay. Finally the
presentational and oral skills are the key skill of being able to
present your
output in a way to ensure success for your argument, position or
message. Taken
together these skills are a mixture of Shulman’s surface
structure and deep
structure pedagogies but with some significant differences. Firstly the
book
club is specifically designed to be an informal, student-led
environment. It
does not see in Shulman’s words “a set of dialogues that
are entirely under the
control of an authoritative teacher”.[49]
This is a deliberate pedagogical, or rather andragogical, choice
designed to
meet the specific needs of LLM students.
As has
already been discussed the LLM
students on the Cyberlaw course are a heterogeneous group.
They have though a few things thing in
common: (1) all are students who have achieved a good undergraduate
degree and
are therefore taking their second or even third degree and; (2) due to
commonality (1) they are slightly more mature with all being over
twenty-one
and with a median age of twenty-six. In addition a substantial majority
of the
group (around 65%) have worked in professional practice before taking
the
course and are therefore experienced in a way undergraduate students
are not.
This is the driver behind the decision to place responsibility for
direction,
discourse and outcomes within and resulting from book club meetings
with the
student rather than the instructor. Shulman’s model of the
authoritarian
teacher fulfilling the role of judge or senior partner, useful as a
pedagogical
model for recent undergraduate and less mature students, is not as
effective
when one is dealing with mature, life-experienced adults. Here we must
abandon
pedagogy for andragogy or teaching strategies focused utilising the
life
experience of more mature students through engaging with their
pre-existing
learning experiences. Jean Sheridan, referring to the pioneering work
of
Malcolm Knowles, describes andragogy as “an interactive
student-driven
classroom in which content is embedded in activities designed to engage
students cognitively, emotionally, and socially.”[50]
In essence andragogy places the learner in control of their learning
experience. This is extremely important for more mature and life
experienced
students who often react poorly to traditional lecture/class/seminar
structures
with their emphasis on the teacher a power figure/source of knowledge.
In fact
as Easteal has pointed out such an approach “does not evoke the
tools and
self-confidence that promote lifelong independent learning. Ironically,
the
opposite may be engendered even in classes that actually aim to
challenge
students to question the ‘Conventional Wisdom of the Dominant
Group (COWDUNG)’
by paradoxically spending much time telling the students how to do
it.”[51]
Thus the problem with using pedagogical techniques with adult learners
is that
pedagogical techniques are designed for students with less life
experience, as
a result they reinforce the teacher as dominant figure: this both
marginalises
the life experience students bring to the class and reinforces a
conventional
wisdom (the teacher as oracle) which we, at Masters level, are seeking
to train
students to challenge.
The
andragogy model employed in the book
club is a development of that established by Malcolm Knowles in 1970.
In his ground-breaking
book, The Modern Practice of Adult
Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy[52]
Knowles set out the key distinction and differences of assumptions
between
pedagogy and andragogy. The key
distinction is the application of the learner’s experience and
knowledge. As
Knowles notes:
To
children, experience is something that
happens to them; it is an external
event that affects them, not an integral part of them. If you ask
children who
they are, they are likely to identify themselves in terms of who their
parents
are, who their older brothers and sisters are, where they live and what
school
they attend. Their self-identity is largely derived from external
sources. But adults derive their
self-identity from
their experience. They define who they are in terms of accumulation of
their unique
sets of experiences. So if you ask adults who they are, they are likely
to
identify themselves by describing what their occupations are, where
they have
worked, where they have travelled, what their training and experience
have
equipped them to do, and what their achievements have been. Adults are what they have done.[53]
For
Knowles this makes the educational experience different for adults:
Because
adults define themselves largely by
their experience, they have a deep investment in its value. And so when
they
find themselves in situations in which their experience is not being
used, or
its worth minimized, it is not just their experience that is being
rejected –
they feel rejected as persons. These differences in experience between
children
and adults have at least three consequences for learning: (1) adults
have more
to contribute to the learning of others; for most kinds of learning
they are
themselves a rich resource for learning; (2) adults have a richer
foundation of
experience to which to relate new experiences (and new learnings tend
to take
on a meaning as we are able to relate them to our past experience); (3)
adults
have acquired a larger number of fixed habits and patterns of thought,
and
therefore tend to be less open-minded.[54]
Due
to this key distinction in the approach of the learner we must modulate
a
number of our assumptions about them. As Knowles notes the pedagogical
concepts
of the learner as dependant, inexperienced and ready to learn must be
replaced
with the assumptions that the learner is independent experienced and
looking to
augment their already developed skills and knowledge.[55]
The key is to “create a learning environment where students
develop the
confidence and skills needed to challenge accepted views and
norms.”[56]
This is the vital role of the book club. As students are coming
(mostly) to the
complex subject of Internet governance and regulation as inexperienced
and
dependant students it would not be suitable to replace a pedagogical
approach
with an andragogical approach throughout. The seminars, by employing
traditional Socratic methods provide the pedagogical support needed by
students
to meet the challenge of absorbing and contextualising these complex
academic
and policy arguments. The book club, being an environment that plays
upon the
familiarity of the texts in discussion, employs andragogical techniques
to
soften the impact of pedagogy on adult learners. It places the students
and
their experiences at the heart of the learning experience. It was
commonly
observed during meetings that students would begin discussion of the
text in an
anecdotal form: “I once had a case which…”;
“back home in [country] we have a
problem like this…” or “in college we discussed this
in a different way..”.
This employment of the anecdotal is andragogy in practice: the student
bringing
their life experience into the classroom. The benefit of this
andragogical
educational platform was then felt in the classroom where formal,
pedagogical,
discussion of concepts, authors and authorities would often play out
against
the backdrop of discussions had and lessons learned in book club. In
this sense
the integration of the books chosen for book club and the structure of
classes
was essential. For this reason 1984
was discussed early where it could provide a backdrop to discussions of
regulation and control by power and hierarchy in class through set
texts such
as Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of
Cyberspace[57]
and Wu’s The Master Switch.[58]
Huxley’s Brave New World was placed in the centre of the
programme where it
could be used to discuss regulation through community controls set
against
Murray’s The Regulation of Cyberspace[59]
and Reed’s Making Laws for Cyberspace.[60]
Finally Kafka’s The Trial was placed
towards the end of the course where it could provide a backdrop to
discussion
of regulation by design and competition and set texts such as
Benkler’s Wealth of Networks[61]
and Goldsmith and Wu’s Who Controls the
Internet?[62]
There
remain two key questions: (1) was the experiment a success? and (2)
were
analogue tools preferable to digital platforms? The answer to the first
question, based on available evidence, seems to be yes. Despite having
a full
academic programme, and despite the book clubs being voluntary, a
strong
turnout was recorded at each meeting. The strongest turnout was for 1984 and the weakest was for Brave New World.
This would seem to
reflect 1984’s position and the
pre-eminent text on dystopia and abuse of power and also its instant
recognition among the student body. Many students had read it at school
or
college and felt instantly comfortable discussing its themes and
concepts. The
turnout for Brave New World was
markedly lower than for the other two texts. This may reflect its
relative lack
of recognition outside of the English language world. Certainly the
take up for
that meeting was higher among students who came from English speaking
nations
and it was students educated in English language institutions,
especially in
the United States, where recognition of the novel was strongest. Take
up for The Trial was stronger than for Brave
New World, but not quite as strong
as 1984. This meeting was
particularly popular with students from German speaking nations,
perhaps
unsurprisingly, and from Scandinavian students. Concepts discussed in
book club
meetings would frequently be referred to in class and anecdotal
evidence from
students was that they found the more complex concepts of set text
authors such
as Lessig, Wu and Benkler easier to contextualise with the broader
concepts
found in the book club texts. In class assessments, both formative and
summative, a small improvement in performance was recorded but not
enough to be
statistically significant and in any event data from one year is
insufficient
to establish a pattern or cause. What we do have is strong feedback
from
students in class evaluation forms. These anonymous teaching feedback
forms
contain a blank free comment space that attracted a number of positive
comments
on the book club experiment including “more book clubs
please”, “The
extracurricular activities (guest lectures and book clubs)[63]
were a particularly positive addition to the course”, “I
particularly enjoyed
the book club”, “Class integration and book club was very
well done and very
enjoyable”, and “Loved/enjoyed the book groups as they
provided a different
approach to applying information learned in class.” Perhaps
equally importantly
no negative feedback comments were received on the book club
experiment. Taking
all this on board the book club experiment will be repeated with the
addition
of a fourth book specifically about rhetoric and control, and the only
book in
the selection that discusses the power of the Internet specifically,
Dave
Egger’s The Circle.[64]
This leaves a final question, the
question that has been behind all this discussion. Why adopt
traditional
analogue educational techniques to supplement the learning experience
of
students in class? Could a technological platform not provide a much
rounder
and richer experience integrating discussion boards, video and audio
content,
self-tests and group work? In other words why book club and not MOOC
club?[65]
It is argued that any digital platform, absent one designed and built
from the
ground up like Ardcalloch, would simply repeat the pedagogical
weaknesses of
any instructor-centric learning environment. Digital educational
platforms
reinforce pedagogy over andragogy and rely upon the role of instructor
or
teacher as organiser and designer. In addition it would depersonalise
the
discourse. The particular, andragogical, value of physical meetings and
physical artefacts is that it encourages the sharing of experiences, a
deeply
personal act but central to andragogy. Digital platforms in short
depersonalise
and reinforce traditional pedagogical learning culture. This is
everything that
the book club was designed to escape from.
There is clearly a place for digital
learning platforms and tools in the modern blended educational
environment. It
is not the place of this paper to suggest otherwise. Used well and
innovatively
they add layers of instruction and educational value, which provide a
more
rounded and fuller educational experience for students and staff alike. This paper is merely a reminder of the
pedagogical and andragogical value of traditional tools and artefacts.
In the
rush to embrace the new we must not forget the value of established
educational
tools and techniques. Sometimes they can do something quite different
to the
digital tools available: this is the value of analogue educational
tools in a
digital educational environment.
[1]
There is an
extensive body of literature produced and edited by Professor Maharg. A
beginner may wish to start by reading Part 3 of his book Transforming
Legal Education (Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, 2007);
his contribution (with Sara de Freitas) “Digital Games and
Learning: Modelling
learning experiences in the digital age” in Digital
Games and Learning, eds Mahard & de Freitas (Bloomsbury,
London, 2011);
his chapter “Simulation: a pedagogy emerging from the
shadows” in Educating the Digital Lawyer, eds
Goodenough & Lauritsen (LexisNexis New Providence, NJ, 2012) or his
early
work such as his chapter (with Abdul Paliwala) “Negotiating the Learning Process with Electronic
Resources” in Effective Learning and Teaching in Law,
eds Burridge, et al. (London, Kogan Page, 2002).
[2] B.L. Bernier & F.D. Greene “Law School Reset -
Pedagogy, Andragogy & Second Life” in Goodenough &
Lauritsen Educating
the Digital Lawyer, above n.1 at 527.
[3] ibid, 528.
[4] The Ardcalloch page may be accessed at: http://www.ardcalloch.ggsl.strath.ac.uk/introduction/index.htm.
[5]
2007(1) Journal of information, Law and Technology: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2007_1/maharg_owen/
[6] Above n.1.
[7] ibid, 404.
[8] J. Priddle et al, Simshare
Final Report, May 2010. Available from: http://78.158.56.101/archive/law/files/downloads/558/1091.147db4fd.SimshareFinalReportprintedversion.pdf
[9] See e.g. Simulation:
a pedagogy emerging from the
shadows, above n.1; Simulations, learning and the metaverse: changing
cultures
in legal education, above n.5; “Virtual communities on the web:
transactional
learning and teaching”, in Aan het werk met ICT in het
academisch onderwijs,
ed Vedder (Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2004); “Cyberdam and
SIMPLE: a
study in divergent developments and convergent aims” in Learning
in a
Virtual World: Reflections on the Cyberdam Research and Development
Project,
eds Warmelink, & Mayer (Nijmegen, Wolf Publishers,
2009) (with Emma Nicol).
[10]
Simulations,
learning and the metaverse: changing cultures in legal education, above
n.5 at
[15].
[11] L.
Shulman,
Signature Pedagogies in the Professions, 134(3) Daedalus
52 (2005).
[12] ibid, 54-55 (emphasis in the original).
[13] ibid, 55.
[14] ibid, 55.
[15] See e.g. F. Cownie, “Alternative Values in Legal
Education”, 6(2) Legal Ethics 159
(2003); R. Collier, “We’re All Socio-Legal Now - Legal
Education, Scholarship
and the Global Knowledge Economy - Reflections on the UK
Experience”, 26 Sydney Law Review 503 (2004); F.
Cownie,
“Exploring Values in Legal Education” [2011] 2 Web
Journal of Current Legal Issues: http://www.bailii.org/uk/other/journals/WebJCLI/2011/issue2/cownie2.html.
[16]
Shulman, above
n.11, 55.
[17] D. Kennedy, ‘Legal Education and the Reproduction of
Hierarchy’ 32 Journal of Legal Education
591 (1982) at 591, 594.
[18]
Maharg and
Owen, above n.5; P. Maharg, “Authenticity in
Learning: Transactional Learning in Virtual Communities.” (2006).
Available
from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2432596.
[19] See D.R. Garrison & H. Kanuka, “Blended
learning:
Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education”, 7 The Internet and Higher Education 95
(2004); R. Lasso, “From the Paper Chase to the Digital Chase:
Technology and
the Challenge of Teaching 21st Century Law Students”,
43 Santa Clara Law Review 1 (2002), 47-52.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol43/iss1/1.
[20] See e.g. G. Conole et
al, “‘Disruptive technologies’,
‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new?
Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception
of technology”,
50 Computers and Education 511
(2008); B. Somekh, “Taking the Sociological Imagination to
School: An Analysis
of the (Lack of) Impact of Information and Communication Technologies
on
Education Systems”, 13(2) Technology,
Pedagogy and Education 163 (2004); M. Sharples, “Disruptive
Devices: mobile
technology for conversational learning”, 12 International
Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning
504
(2003).
[21] M.
Hicks, I.
Reid, & R. George, “Enhancing on-line teaching: Designing
responsive
learning environments”, 6(2) The
International Journal for Academic Development (2001) 143, 143.
[22] Garrison & Kanuka, above n.19, 96.
[23] ibid.
[24] ibid, 97.
[25] ibid.
[26] D.R. Garrison & M. Cleveland-Innes,
“Facilitating
Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not
Enough”, 19(3) The American Journal of Distance
Education
133 (2005).
[27] ibid, 136. Quoting Hay et
al, “Interaction and virtual learning”, 13 Strategic
Change 193 (2004).
[28] ibid.
[29] ibid, 137.
[30] ibid, 138.
[31] Garrison & Kanuka, above n.19, 97.
[32] It
is arguable
that this represents an enhanced experience rather than blended. An
enhanced
classroom uses tools like Echo360 and Moodle to enhance the standard
educational experience through asynchronous delivery and digitisation
of a
standard model course option. Blended education “represents a fundamental reconceptualization and
reorganization of the
teaching and learning dynamic, starting with various specific
contextual needs
and contingencies.” [Garrison & Kanuka, above n.19, 97]. As this course has been designed since
inception to use digital tools for critical discourse and analysis, and
for
group work and group discourse and as all formative assessment is
carried out
through digital platforms I argue this is a blended not enhanced course.
[33] The
design and
development of Moodle is guided by a "social constructionist
pedagogy". Students are empowered to construct new knowledge as they
interact with their environments and to construct knowledge for one
another,
collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artefacts with
shared
meanings. [https://docs.moodle.org/27/en/Philosophy].
However as we
have seen, left undirected there is a risk that discourse leads only to
surface
learning. Often Moodle is seen as a simple digital add-on to existing
courses,
this often means the pedagogy of Moodle and the pre-existing pedagogy
of the
course design fail to compliment each other or even conflict with one
another.
[34] See V. Mayer-Schönberger.
“Demystifying
Lessig”, (2008) Wisconsin Law Review
713, 737.
[35] W.F. Ogburn, Social
Change with Respect to Culture and Original Nature (B.W. Huebsch,
New York,
1922).
[36] M. McLuhan & Q. Flore, The Medium is the
Message (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1967).
[37] J. Culkin “Each culture develops its own sense
ratio
to meet the demands of its environment.” in McLuhan:
Hot and Cool, ed G. Stearn (New American Library, New York, 1968),
60.
[38] L. Marx & M.R. Smith, “Introduction” in Does Technology Drive History?: The Dilemma
of Technological Determinism, eds M.R.
Smith & L. Marx (MIT Press,
Cambridge Mass., 1994), xii.
[39] A.J. Cockfield, “Individual Autonomy, Law, and
Technology: Should Soft Determinism Guide Legal Analysis?” 30(1) Bulletin of Science, Technology &
Society 4, 6.
[40] D. Pereboom, Living
without free will (Cambridge, CUP, 2001).
[41] M. Castells, The
Rise of the Network Society, 2 ed. (Oxford, Blackwell, 2000),
500-502.
[42] Cockfield, above n.39, 6.
[43] Shulman, above n.11.
[44] London, Secker & Warburg, 1949.
[45] London, Chatto & Windus, 1932.
[46] Berlin, Verlag Die Schmiede, 1925. Trans. London,
Victor Gollancz, 1937.
[47] S.
E. Siwek, The True Cost of Copyright Piracy to the US
Economy, Policy Report 189, Institute for Policy innovation, Center
for
Technology Freedom, October 2007. Available from: http://www.ipi.org/docLib/20120515_CopyrightPiracy.pdf.
[48] See
e.g. K.Y. May, The Numbers Behind the Copyright Math,
TED Blog, March 20 2012: http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/20/the-numbers-behind-the-copyright-math/; J.
Sanchez, How Copyright Industries Con Congress,
CATO at Liberty, 3 January 2012: http://www.cato.org/blog/how-copyright-industries-con-congress.
[49] Schulman, above n.11, 55.
[50] J.
Sheridan,
“Lifelong Learning in a Postmodern Age: Looking Back to the
Future through the
Lens of Adult Education”, (2007) 2 The
Lifelong Learning Institute Review 4. Available from: http://www.faithformationlearningexchange.net/uploads/5/2/4/6/5246709/lifelong_learning_in_a_postmodern_age.pdf.
[51] P. Easteal, “Teaching About the Nexus Between Law
and
Society: From Pedagogy to Andragogy”, 18 Legal
Education Review 163 (2008), 164. Electronic copy available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429185.
[52] New
York: New
York Association Press, 1970.
[53] ibid, 50 (emphasis in the original).
[54] ibid.
[55] ibid, 43-44.
[56] Easteal, above n 51, 168.
[57]
Ver2.0, New
York, Basic Books, 2006.
[58] New York, Knopf, 2010.
[59] Abingdon, Routledge, 2007.
[60] Oxford, OUP, 2012.
[61] New Haven, Yale UP, 2006.
[62] Oxford, OUP, 2006.
[63] In addition to the book club the Cyberlaw course
employs a series of practitioner and guest seminars. These are given by
a mix
of professionals in practice and visiting academics on subjects
relevant to the
course. These are intermixed with the book club meetings to ensure
students do
not have two extracurricular events in one week wherever possible. As
these do
not form part of the case study in this paper they have not been
discussed.
[64] New York, Random House, 2014.
[65] The
author
understands MOOCs could not provide the kind of education experience of
the
book club but prays you indulge this play on words. In essence the
question is
actually why use analogue platforms rather than any one of the variety
of
digital educational platforms that would allow for an interactive
online
experience similar to the book club experience with similar pedagogical
design.