occurs . Students will complete work towards the assessment over the course of the module meaning formative feedback can be provided along the way to shape their development and collaboration has been incorporated in recognition of the fact that getting students to investigate in groups as well as individually , and then to present their findings , can be very beneficial to them . As much as this assessment method seems to tick quite a few boxes on paper , however , I do have a few concerns .
The group work element – while a key aspect of mooting that gives students an opportunity to engage ( Biggs and Tang , 2011 ) – holds a number of potential challenges . A particular challenge is ensuring that all students contribute rather than the more active members of each group doing all of the work . One way to try and overcome this is to take the opportunity at the start of the module , together with the students , to discuss the standards of behaviour that are expected to ensure a respectful and collaborative environment ( Advance HE , 2013a ). Just because expectations are developed and agreed , however , does not mean that they will be heeded . Gordon ( 2010 ) suggests that students should be required to apply them through self and peer assessment . A tool which provides a way to automate this process is WebPA ( 2008 ). This provides an interface for students to anonymously mark themselves and their peers within their group against defined criteria . These marks provide a weighting that is used to attribute to each individual student an adjusted version of the overall group mark .
Another concern with group work , looking at things specifically from an inclusivity perspective , is that students may be inclined to work with others from a similar background rather than people who are different from themselves ( Advance HE , 2013a ; Advance HE , 2013b ). This is a particular worry with the Introduction to Public International Law module . I sense that BFSU students will choose to work with other BFSU students and Keele students will choose to work with others from Keele . To try and remedy this , I will consider allocating teams for group work rather than allowing self-selection ( Advance HE , 2013a ; Advance HE , 2013b ). This could actually be a way that I can add further to the authenticity of the environment by mimicking the diversity and lack of choice that students are likely to encounter in the workplace and I will share this with them . I will also consider asking them to reflect on how they have worked with difference in their portfolios , encouraging them to think about the impact diversity has had on what they have produced ( Advance HE , 2013a ; Advance HE , 2013b ).
A final , more general concern is that , while many students see mooting as ‘ fun ’, it can also be extremely daunting and some may be afraid of the public speaking element , especially as it carries here the additional burdens of having to advocate , remember the etiquette and respond to direct questioning which are not found in many other forms of student presentation ( Gillespie , 2009 ). This makes me wonder whether , or at least how , the moot itself should be assessed , specifically whether this element should feed into formative rather than summative assessment . The reason I am disinclined to take this approach to things is that students best enhance their communication skills by expressing their learning in different forms to different audiences and , if they do not receive formal marks for their moot performance , they may be less motivated to properly throw themselves into this assessment task ( Fung , 2017 ). Moreover , particularly for those students seeking to become barristers , verbal communication is perhaps the most vital element of the job .
In terms of evaluating the proposed change once implemented , I will collate student responses to questionnaires completed upon conclusion of the module and also student performance data which I will compare with previous years . My findings will hopefully be similar to those of Wild and Berger ( 2015 ) who , as already noted , reported a direct and positive correlation between exposure to authentic assessment techniques , including mooting , and improved law degree academic performance . The main difference between the two studies is that they focused on the use of mooting in extra and co-curricular activities while I am looking at using mooting within the curriculum as a learning and assessment tool . It has been noted by Gillespie ( 2009 ) that the potential of mooting as a learning and assessment tool is often not fully appreciated and I think this is a real shame . Mooting clearly helps students to develop important skills , but it is also a useful way of encouraging them to think about and apply the law . With this in mind , and by way of conclusion , I hope that I have provided here inspiration as to how mooting can be used as a method of assessment which could be adapted to suit a variety of law modules both within and beyond Keele .
Article # 4 47