O where are you going? O do you imagine? Reproduction and response : a reflexive sociology of scholarship of teaching and learning in practical legal training

My doctoral research studies Australian PLT practitioners’ engagement with scholarship of teaching and learning. I argue that many PLT practitioners are motivated to engage with scholarship of teaching and learning in their work. There are, however, individual and extra-individual impediments.
PLT practitioners are lawyers that teach in institutional practical legal training (“PLT”). Satisfactory completion of mandatory PLT is an eligibility requirement for admission to the Australian legal profession. The PLT requirement is additional to academic legal qualifications. PLT is undertaken at a post-graduate level with, or after, the academic law degree.
My study investigates PLT practitioners’ motivations and capabilities to engage with scholarship of teaching and learning (“SoTL”). I study organisational symbolic support for SoTL in PLT, and organisational allocation of resources to SoTL in PLT.
The study involves individual and extra-individual domains of PLT practitioners’ work. It considers how social structures (e.g. “the juridical”) are inscribed into individuals’ practices (“teaching”) and, conversely, whether practices influence social structures.
My research adopts qualitative methodologies. These involve inter-disciplinary exchanges between law, legal education, practice research, sociology of law, cultural theory, and theory and practice of teaching and learning. My theoretical framework draws on Pierre Bourdieu’s “reflexive sociology”, and Michel de Certeau’s “heterological science”.
I sourced data from documents, and semi-structured interviews with 36 Australian PLT practitioners. Documentary sources include statutory instruments, speeches, reports, practice directions, histories, and scholarly publications.
To analyse the data I adopted Kelle’s characterisation of “theoretical sensitivity”, drawing on “explicit” and “emergent” analysis strategies derived from “grounded theory”. The explicit strategies were based on my theoretical framework. The emergent strategy involved sensitivity to non-explicit concepts and theories that emerged from the data. Computer-aided qualitative data analysis software expedited these methods.
My findings to date question dominant legal structures’ readiness for change, the implications of this for teaching and learning in PLT, and in particular for PLT practitioners’ engagement with SoTL in PLT.
The espoused rationale for mandatory PLT (in statutes) is improvement for the protection of clients, the administration of justice, and to assure quality legal services. The tacit rationale is improved quality of legal education, and experiences, for lawyers-to-be. My thesis argues dominant structures in legal education impede the espoused and tacit objectives, and impede PLT practitioners’ engagement with scholarship of teaching and learning.

Rethinking copyrights for the library through Creative Commons licensing

Two recent and related social developments of note for libraries are an upsurge in cultural participation enabled by Web 2.0 media and calls in government policy for enhanced innovation through education. Ironically, these have occurred at the same time that increasingly stringent copyright laws have restricted access to cultural content. Concepts of governmentality are used here to examine these tensions and contradictions. In particular, Foucault’s critique of the author figure and of freedom as part of the will to govern within liberal democratic societies is used to argue for better quality copyright education programs in school libraries and library information science education programs. For purposes of teaching and research, copyrights are defined as agglomerations of legal, economic, and educational discourses that enable and constrain what can and cannot be done with text in homes, schools, and library media centers. The article presents some possibilities for renewal of school libraries around copyright education and Creative Commons licensing.

Trouble and autoethnography in assessment genre : a case for postnational design in online internationalized pedagogy

This chapter is interested in the difference between local places with implicit codes and more global spaces with explicit directions, through the case study of the design and conduct of assessment in an online internationalized MBA unit. Online learning is understood to offer new ways of belonging in 'postnational' communities less reliant on locality for their frames of reference. This study reports and analyses firstly a series of troubles which erupted over the international students' desire for more explication of the desired genre for their assessment task. Then it analyses the different, 'autoethnographic' genre structure that emerged when students started to acknowledge the diverse backgrounds within the class.The chapter then offers practical considerations for the design of online internationalized programs.

Re-imagining and re-imaging the nation through the history curriculum.

Nationalism is not a naturally occurring sentiment, but rather needs to be carefully nurtured and sustained in the social imaginary through the production and circulation of unifying narratives that invoke the nation’s imagined community. The school curriculum is crucial in this process, legitimating and disseminating selected narratives while de-legitimating and marginalising other accounts and their voices. Certain watershed events in nations’ histories have always posed political problems in history curricula (Cajani & Ross, 2007) –however the pressures and concerns of current times now suggest political solutions in history curricula. This paper briefly examines recent political debates in Australia to argue that the school history curriculum has become a site of increasing interest for the exercise of official forms of nationalism and the production of a nostalgic, celebratory national biography. The public debates around school history curriculum are theorised as nostalgic re-nationalising efforts in response to the march of cultural globalisation and its attendant uncertainties.

What is the relationship between social governance and schooling?

The most frequently told story charting the rise of mass schooling should be fairly familiar to most of us. This story normally centres around the post-enlightenment social changes of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and details how society slowly became more caring and more humane, and how we all decided that rather than simply being fodder for the mills, all children – including those from the working-classes - had the right to an education. The more civilised we became, the more we pushed back the school leaving age, until we eventually developed schools which clearly reflected the values and ambitions of the wider community. After all, are school not simply microcosms of society at large? In addition to this, the form that modern schooling takes is regarded as an unproblematic part of the same story. Of course we should organise our learning in the way we do, with the emphasis on formalised learning spaces, graded curricula, timetables of activities, various forms of assessment, and a clear hierarchy of authority. These features of the contemporary education merely reflect the fact that this is self-evidently the best system available. After all, how else could education possibly be organised?

From the panopticon to the playground : disciplinary practices

It is easy to take many of the practices that constitute the contemporary school for granted. Timetables, academic records, rows of desks, playgrounds, guidance counsellors now all seem a natural and inevitable part of an optimal learning environment. However, the evidence suggests that they did not appear by chance. Instead, they were put in place, albeit often in a piecemeal and haphazard way, as part of the process by which a new type of institution was constructed. By understanding the school as a disciplinary society, constituted through a variety of diverse practices, it becomes possible to re-interpret the way we have come to educate ourselves. No longer is the modern school some kind of pedagogic inevitability—simply the best and most obvious way to educate, the end result of two thousand years of trying to finally get it right. Rather, mass schooling, as we know it, is an historical by-product of changes in the way society was organised. It is a contingent collection of particular forms of government, deployed at different historical moments, often for quite different administrative and educational reasons.

New routes for the field trip

As with the broader field of education research, most writing on the subject of school excursions and field trips has centred around progressive/humanist concerns for building pupil’s self-esteem and for the development of the ‘whole child’. Such research has also stressed the importance of a broad, grounded, and experiential curriculum - as exemplified by subjects containing these extra-school activities - as well as the possibility of strengthening the relationship between student and teacher. Arguing that this approach to the field trip is both exhausted of ideas and conceptually flawed, this paper proposes some alternate routes into the area for the prospective researcher. First, it is argued that by historicising the subject matter, it can be seen that school excursions are not simply the product of the contemporary humanist desire for diverse and fulfilling educational experiences, rather they can, in part, be traced to eighteenth century beliefs among the English gentry that travel formed a crucial component of a good education, to the advent of an affordable public rail system, and to school tours associated with the Temperance movement. Second, field trips can be understood from within the associated framework of concerns over the governance of tourism and the organisation of disciplinary apparatuses for the production of an educated and regulated citizenry. Far from being a simple learning experience, museums and art galleries form part of a complex of disciplinary and power relations designed to produce a populace with very specific capacities, aspirations and styles of public conduct. Finally, rather than allowing children ‘freedom’ from the constraints of the classroom, on the contrary, through the medium of the field-trip, children can become accustomed to having their activities governed in the broader domain of the generalised community . School excursions thereby constitute an effective tactic through which young people have their conduct managed, and their social and scholastic identities shaped and administered.

Pathologising difference, governing personality

Recent research has stressed the integral part played by teachers in both preliminary diagnosis and ongoing treatment of a range of conduct and personality disorders. Teachers are not only required to be aware of a variety of new categories of difference (Attention Deficit Disorder, Selective Mutism, Borderline Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, to name but a few), but are also now lauded for extending the role of education into new areas of social management. This paper will take issue with this understanding on two counts: first, teachers have always sought to mould the personalities of students, and the pathologisation of specific forms of conduct is simply a new tactic within a very old and familiar strategy. Second, schools do not simply discover disorders such as ADD as objective facts of nature. Rather, they are part of the process through which such differences are created, and by which individuals can be more effectively governed.

Setting limits to teacher responsibility

The purpose of this article is to raise some concerns over ongoing changes to the nature and scope of the teaching profession. Teaching is a responsible profession, and teachers have always been charged with the job of turning out the next generation of citizens—educated, healthy in mind, and healthy in body. The question is: how far should this responsibility extend? Just what should schools be responsible for? This article proposes some limits to teacher responsibility.

Too great expectations?

Teachers have always been charged with the task of turning out the next generation of citizens—educated, healthy in mind, and healthy in body. The central question here is: how far should this responsibility extend? Just how much can we reasonably expect teachers to be responsible for? And just what should schools be responsible for? Obviously, teachers ought to be responsible for the fundamentals of learning, but should they be held accountable for what the children eat, or how they choose to behave, or for every single risk, direct or indirect, that could conceivably occur within the school grounds? These are precisely the kinds of expectation that have become part of educational life. Bit by bit, new forms of responsibility are being added to the site of the school and, more specifically, to the professional life of the teacher. The intention here is not necessarily to challenge any of these diverse changes, but rather to express concern about their cumulative effect on the ability of the school to do its primary job effectively.