Morris, R J (2010) The teaching of law to non-lawyers: An exploration of some curriculum design challenges. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 2(3), pp. 232-245. ISSN 1756-1450
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to explore the role of outcomebased education, criteriareferenced assessment, and workintegrated education in the teaching of law to nonlaw students. The difficulties inherent in the use of such techniques in this particular context have not yet been thoroughly articulated or theorized because it is not clear what we want of our students: to think like lawyers, to do like lawyers, to be like lawyers – or none of the above. The paper proposes some answers. Design/methodology/approach – Discussion within the paper draws on theories articulated within the established literature relating to the issues under consideration. Findings – The paper reveals several gaps that need to be addressed by proposed empirical and longitudinal research projects to answer specific research questions. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the developing theory of teaching law to nonlaw students.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | curriculum development; knowledge management; law; teaching |
| Index terms: | lawyer, exploration, methodology, knowledge management, curriculum development |
| Subjects: | curriculum development, environmental resource management, profession, professional development, research methods |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Sustainability, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here