Who?
Lisette Langedijk-Schuurman, lecturer in labour law and coordinator of Law Bachelor’s 2 and 3 at the Erasmus School of Law. Coordinated the transition to problem-driven teaching in the second and third year of the Law Bachelor’s at Erasmus University.
The case
Erasmus School of Law has been working with problem-driven learning since the 2012-2013 academic year: groups of 10 to 11 students apply themselves to a concrete legal problem and then search for solutions independently in books, journal articles and digital sources. Naturally the problems don’t always conform to the traditional categorisation in legal specialisations. But what exactly should Law students know and be able to do? Once they have completed a subject, at the end of an academic year and at the end of the entire programme? And how does this all match neatly?
The problem
Langedijk: “In the transition to problem-driven teaching, a peculiar range of subject objectives had arisen: one subject had three, another subject had 18. Some were so abstractly formulated that they had little power of expression, while others in turn were so concrete that they bore too much of a resemblance to the learning objectives the students had to formulate in the teaching groups. This made comparing the content and levels of the various subjects extremely difficult. At the same time, the connection to the programme’s final qualifications was unclear. In formulating the subject objectives, the teachers appear to have asked themselves mainly: “What should the student know from my discipline?” And not how education in their discipline should contribute to achieving the programme’s final qualifications. A major educational review was linked to the introduction of Problem-driven Education, so that the programme was entirely renewed and streamlined. In that context, improving the harmonisation between subject objectives and final qualifications deserved attention.”
The ambition
Partly in light of the examination committee’s wish to achieve a test plan for the programme, I wanted to start by creating a link between subject objectives and final qualifications, which would be supported by all the teachers. I didn’t want to produce simply a ‘checklist’ diagram: a sort of matrix where the associated subject objectives were ticked off against the final qualifications, generally created in the context of an imminent accreditation. I wanted to work with the teachers in considering all the final qualifications and all the subject objectives, with one eye on a broadly-agreed basis for a testing plan.”
The concern
“My biggest concern was: how do I get my colleagues on-board? This really did involve a cultural change. I wanted to avoid us only springing into action if an accreditation was imminent. The quality of the education had to be an ongoing and intrinsic point of attention."
The innovation
Langedijk: I did a number of things:
- In a working group in which all the subject sections were represented, I drew up a proposal for reformulating the programme’s final qualifications, and this was adopted by the board.
- I wrote a manual with the educational requirements for the subject objectives, and with examples from the programme itself.
- I organised workshops for all subject coordinators, in which they re-examined their subject objectives on the basis of the manual, and modified them where necessary.
- In the working group, I created a link between the new final qualifications and the new subject objectives, creating a broadly-agreed basis for a testing plan. This means you could now also hold people to account for gaps, in other words insufficiently covered final qualifications. Thus we now all agree that a multidisciplinary view of the law is extremely important, but that in the teaching this still can be, and needs to be, fulfilled.
Challenges
The resistance really wasn’t too bad, and in fact the involvement and willingness shown by fellow-teachers was significant. However the challenge now is to keep that involvement going. To secure this, work is now underway in the faculty on setting up a permanent committee to oversee the quality of the teaching. You might see this as a curriculum commission, as this already currently exists within many other programmes. This would be an ideal place for an ongoing ‘check’ on the harmonisation of subject objectives with final qualifications, and also for discussions with the examination committee, on the testing plan. Up to now that has been occurring mainly within the various Bachelor’s years and at an informal level. With such a committee, ongoing protection of the teaching quality is secured and we don’t live from accreditation to accreditation.”
The next step
Langedijk: “The next challenge is actually drawing up the testing plan, and thus also providing an insight into how we test the subject objectives and final qualifications. We can move forward with the foundation which now exists, in collaboration with teachers and the examination committee.”
Added value in completing this course with LDE colleagues
“Particularly exchanging experiences, for example in the intervision groups. It works differently everywhere, as you can see in the other faculties of your own university.”