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