The teaching of law to non‐lawyers

Abstract

PurposeThe paper aims to explore the role of outcome‐based education, criteria‐referenced assessment, and work‐integrated education in the teaching of law to non‐law 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/approachDiscussion within the paper draws on theories articulated within the established literature relating to the issues under consideration.FindingsThe paper reveals several gaps that need to be addressed by proposed empirical and longitudinal research projects to answer specific research questions.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to the developing theory of teaching law to non‐law students.

Towards a higher-order knowledge of law in the built environment: Delphi analysis of a quantity surveyor's scenario-based legal advice

“…More specifically the study evidence makes a case for Ainul and Siti's (2011) stance, who suggested that the teaching of law modules in professional disciplines, needs to go beyond the surface learning of facts, through to a deeper understanding of issues involved, the links and associated complications. This study, therefore, reinforces the call for a change in teaching delivery styles to non-lawyers as reiterated by earlier studies such as Gerber (2009), Morris (2007Morris ( , 2010 as well as Ainul and Siti (2011), who were of the view that built environment students need specific and subject-relevant modules designed to meet their needs as they enter their chosen professions, with emphasis should be given to the introduction of case studies and scenarios.…”

“…The authors asserted that beyond having knowledge of the law relating to ethical issues and the practice of their profession, built environment professionals need to: have knowledge of the relevant sources of law and know how to efficiently locate them; be aware of what possible changes may occur in the relevant areas of law as it pertains to the built environment and the socio-economic impacts such changes may have on their country; Move beyond the superficial learning of law to a more in-depth learning of legal issues; and be able to understand problems within their professional scope, identify legal issues and provide informed reasoning, necessary to handle complications and conflicts. Morris (2010) further emphasizes that a strong understanding of the law is important to built environment professionals because it facilitates intelligent engagement with legal professionals (lawyers) on projects and serves as a preventive and protective mechanism in their practice. Morris (2010, pp.…”

“…Morris (2010) further emphasizes that a strong understanding of the law is important to built environment professionals because it facilitates intelligent engagement with legal professionals (lawyers) on projects and serves as a preventive and protective mechanism in their practice. Morris (2010, pp. 239) thus recounted the syllabi for non-law school law courses for built environment students, which often state that: “students are expected to learn the law of the subject (for example, property law”), and to “evaluate and apply” such knowledge to “factual situations” to “solve legal problems.”…”

“…However, the extent of such legal knowledge remains a point of concern, which has sparked debates, primarily hinging on teaching practices (Bradney, 1998; Khariruddin, 2002; Allen, 2006; Morris, 2010). There are arguments surrounding the scope of law taught to non-law students at higher institutions.…”

“…Typically, Allen (2006) argued that legal knowledge and its application should not be considered the exclusive preserve of legal practitioners or law students. Morris (2010) was of the view that methods of student engagement and module delivery to non-law students need to be more proactive and aligned with practical applications, given the centrality of law and legal knowledge in professional practice. Counterarguments are however evident in literature, with assertions that law and legal thinking are a form of “higher-order thinking”, and that non-law students may not possess the competence required to handle law subjects which are specialized and require certain skills (Solomon, 1992; Rosen, 2001; Monseau, 2005).…”