process of mooting involves students taking part in simulated court proceedings – drafting briefs or memorials and then participating in oral pleadings .
The seeds for this idea were planted as part of my studies on the Masters in Higher Education Practice here at Keele . The design and development component required that I select and critically evaluate a module , including its assessment . I chose a second-year undergraduate module , Introduction to Public International Law , of which I am a core member of the teaching team . This is an elective for students at Keele , but compulsory for students from the Beijing Foreign Studies University ( BFSU ) with whom Keele has signed a partnership to deliver a joint undergraduate degree . As stands , the assessment is 100 % examination ( 24-hour online open book ), comprising two equally weighted parts – in the first part , students are asked to write a legal memo on the international law issues raised in a fictitious scenario and , in the second part , they are asked to answer several short knowledge-based questions on various aspects of international law . While not inauthentic , particularly the legal memo , I submit that mooting would be a more authentic and as such preferential assessment practice . This finds support in the literature . Wild and Berger ( 2015 ) have reported a direct and positive correlation between exposure to authentic assessment techniques , including mooting , and improved law degree academic performance . It is therefore worth trialling in future academic years . To briefly outline my suggestion for the amended assessment , this is as follows :
1 . Two memorials researched and prepared as a team , arguing both sides of a fictitious international law dispute ( 55 % of total mark );
2 . Individual performance in a moot ( 10 % of total mark ); and
3 . An individual reflective portfolio , comprising two parts – the first part will detail the process of research and preparation of the memorials and the second part will reflect upon the nature of the moot itself , involving self-appraisal of the student ’ s performance ( 35 % of total mark ).
In determining the ‘ authenticity rating ’ of this assessment , Ashford-Rowe , Herrington and Brown ( 2014 ) have identified eight essential characteristics or critical elements – the more of which are fulfilled , the more authentic an assessment may be regarded to be . These characteristics , formulated here as questions , are as follows :
1 . Does the assessment activity challenge the student ?
2 . Is a performance or product required as a final assessment outcome ?
3 . Does the assessment activity require the transfer of learning has occurred by means of demonstration of skill ?
4 . Does the assessment activity require that metacognition is demonstrated by means of critical reflection , self-assessment or evaluation ?
5 . Does the assessment require a product or performance that could be recognised as accurate by a client or stakeholder ?
6 . Is fidelity required in the assessment environment and the assessment tools ?
7 . Does the assessment activity require discussion and feedback ?
8 . Does the assessment activity require that students collaborate ?
Hopefully , it is possible to see how many of these characteristics are fulfilled by my suggested assessment . There is a clear element of challenge and a crafted outcome is produced in the form of the two memorials and moot . The skills in research , communication , critical thinking and teamwork that are demonstrated can be applied by the students in other areas , thus evidencing the transfer of learning , and metacognition is demonstrated by the reflective portfolio , comprising the two distinct parts . Since many universities profess that mooting is a vital part of every law student ’ s education because it gives a taste of ' real life ' as a lawyer , the assessment is likely to be recognised as accurate by a legal professional and , rather than taking place in a featureless classroom , inauthentic to the settings encountered in practice , Keele Law School benefits from a bespoke moot court . This means that it should also be possible to ensure a high level of fidelity in the environment within which the assessment
46