By: Ozcan
THE LHR ELECTRONIC RESOURCE PAGE Webbing the Pacific—Teaching an Intercontinental Legal History CourseOZCANLegal education has always responded to, perhaps even been driven by, available technologies of information dissemination. At the start of the twenty-first century law teachers find themselves in an unprecedented period of technological change: available means of presenting and distributing information are daily transforming. The “information age” seems, genuinely, to be upon us. The present is difficult to comprehend, the future beyond imagination.1 Newly developing communication technology (DCT) collapses both time and space. It holds forth the promise of liberating researchers, teachers, and students from the limitations imposed by time and space. There is hope of developing both interinstitutional and intercontinental teaching exchanges and of fostering student community across huge spaces, cultural differences, and, perhaps eventually, languages. Huge resources of pent-up pedagogical creativity might be unleashed when we transcend the constraints of printed page, bricks and mortar.2 All dreams cast a dark shadow, however, and there is a danger that DCT might not merely fail to attain its potential but might actually subvert both scholarly community and quality, imaginative education. The outlines of a futuristic nightmare can be dimly perceived: the high costs of using technology creatively, the specter of corporate control of the internet (and hence knowledge), the possibility that as teachers we may become caught up in an intense downward spiral of ever-more-time-consuming tasks for ever-diminishing educational returns. It does seem that the most valuable education is self-learned, that time spent on the old-fashioned tasks of reading, thinking, and writing with care is more productive than time spent clicking mouse buttons or staring at flashing images on a screen. The intense, face-to-face, intellectual exchange possible in real as opposed to virtual communities has a quality about it that is impossible to replicate, even in endless hours spent pecking at a keyboard, firing meaning-packed electrons into the void.3 Even taking full account of the possible dangers and leaving aside possible pedagogical advantages, there are compelling reasons to explore the use of DCT in law teaching. The first is simply that, in an era of “globalization,” aspiring lawyers should have some exposure to the global legal community during the course of their university training. DCT can make this a basic part of legal education much more fully and routinely than even the best educational exchange programs, summer schools, or comparative seminars. Second, in an era of shrinking faculty resources, DCT opens opportunities to draw on a vast, yet dispersed, pool of expertise to provide outstanding instruction in an array of fields that no faculty could provide on its own.4 Given these opportunities, it is surprising that few law teachers have taken advantage of the full potential DCT seems to offer. Though course Web sites are now relatively common, it remains rare for law teachers to develop cooperatively courses of instruction that use DCT to link students and faculty in more than one country—seemingly the area with most to gain.5 Ozcan—The Program This essay outlines the creation of an intercontinental program in legal history developed at the Australian National University in Canberra (ANU), British Columbia’s University of Victoria in Victoria (U Vic), and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver (UBC) during 1997. Surprisingly, perhaps, the course was developed by legal historians at each of the three institutions, no one of whom had any particularly strong affection for computers, modern communication technologies, computer-assisted legal education, or “law and technology.” The impetus for the course was less the appeal of technology than the urge to collaborate, to share ideas, and to teach well. Ours is the only such law course of which we are aware.6 The program was offered to students for the first time during the late summer and early fall of 1997. It was repeated for U Vic and UBC students in the spring of 1999. 1 To avoid possible bureaucratic problems associated with constructing a common course at three universities, three distinct courses were offered, each following the rules of its home institution. However, course content and, to a lesser extent, evaluation, were similar for students at each institution. Students in all three courses received Web-based instruction and were required to participate in Web-based discussions. The resulting course was unique in several ways:7 1. Four faculty members at three institutions separated by many thousands of kilometers created the course.2. Collaboration produced an innovative course, the first we are aware of that explores comparative legal history between two former British Dominions. This would have been unlikely or impossible without the spur of collaborative teaching.3. The three classes were linked through the Internet, and students from each institution participated in the learning process as a single group.4. The trans-Pacific seminar enabled students to learn about each other’s countries on the basis of shared course material and, most importantly, through intercontinental discussion among themselves in the virtual classroom. 8This article reflects upon the conception, creation, and delivery of the program, with particular attention to the possibilities and limitations of DCT in physical and virtual classrooms. In discussions leading to the program its architects saw a firm pedagogical and scholarly basis for the link between Australian and Canadian legal history. Comparing the experience and cultures of two British “settler” colonies allows exploration of similarity and difference along several historical and socio-legal trajectories. If one mission of historical study is to “render the past familiar and the present strange,” then the task of comparative legal history—particularly between similarly situated colonies of the same Imperial and legal metropolis—is doubly worthwhile. Notwithstanding the inheritance of English legal tradition, continued fealty to its case authority, subordination to the Privy Council, and other mechanisms of metropolitan “policing” of law in empire, the legal cultures of the colonies were refracted, rather than reflected, through the prism of local needs and conditions. Settlers may have sought to emulate the practices at “home,” but the law and its institutions were challenged by situations and contexts that had no parallel in British experiences, and on which British authority was either lacking or inappropriate.9 Furthermore, the study of English law’s transformations in colonial contexts directs attention to the complexity and diversity of formal and informal law within the United Kingdom, raising questions about which of many possible “British” influences were felt in which colony and at what time. A comparative examination of the choices made by the various colonial authorities reveals the natures, values, and power structures of those societies—not only as they existed in the past, but also as they became and, hence, as we experience them now. As a study of the application of law in particular local settings, comparative colonial legal history necessarily becomes a study in legal pluralism, usefully conducted from within the framework of understandings developed by postcolonial scholars. From this comparative base, we built an approach to law that we believe both central to the understanding of legal history in colonial contexts and a necessary reference to understanding modern law and contemporary reactions to it. Law was deeply implicated in the expansion of imperial control, from an initial assertion of sovereignty against other European princes, through mercantile trade monopolies and the assertion of juridic authority over original inhabitants, to the regulation of the lives of all inhabitants within the sovereign’s territory. In addition, the processes by which law became concerned with reconstituting the subjectivities of its subjects so as to render them capable of (liberal) self-governance became a central focus of the course as it developed.10 Constructing the Program The program benefited greatly from technical support provided by U Vic’s Learning Technologies Group and funding from its Innovative Teaching Program and UBC’s Distance Education Fund. With this support in place, program construction began in earnest, the collaborators working at three universities in three cities separated by the Pacific Ocean and sixteen time zones. As our interest grew and the technological possibilities unfolded, we worked toward constructing a Web page that contained all the course materials, including text, pictures, maps, links, questions, and the course readings in various formats. Moreover, rather than merely replacing teachers, classrooms, and books, we hoped that the Internet would provide a unique medium to inform and engage students, not only through teacher-led instruction, but also through student-to-student communication.11 Course Content First, a series of “contextual modules” intended to provide students with a background in comparative legal history was developed. The modules grew around a theoretical framework of critical human geography and critical legal histories, weaving together an analysis of the cultural construction of space and law. Drawing together literature, maps, photographs, and other visual material, the first two modules examined the legal construction and appropriation of space by European settlers in the two countries. The cultural assumptions made by settler society about the indigenous inhabitants were then contrasted with the understandings of land and resources held by indigenous peoples. One underlying message through the early modules was the centrality of land in colonial societies, as a mark of economic and social status, as an asset for exploitation, and as a base for commodification of resources on or under the land, or, as in the case of livestock, sustained by it.12 Using a similar blend of sources, the next three modules examined in sequence: British imperial policy and law and colonization with emphasis on both its pragmatic and reactive dimensions; the state of English law and its culture at the end of the eighteenth century; and the process of how English immigrants and their notions of the rule of law penetrated these vast land masses, with stress upon the agency of governors and colonial bureaucrats, judges and the magistracy, lawyers and police. All three modules emphasized that colonists themselves were the standard bearers of competing notions of British constitutionalism and English law and that they carried their standard into lands that were already occupied by other peoples, settled by other immigrants, and subject to competing claims. In some cases the British settlers themselves resisted narrow interpretations of constitutional rights and the rule of law and the centralizing forces of the colonial state. The final two contextual modules related these themes to the colonial experience in two pairs of Australian and Canadian colonies: New South Wales and Upper Canada, and South Australia and British Columbia.13 The draft modules were shared between the academic and technical planning group for comment and reaction. This was particularly important because of an ever-present need to balance readily available Canadian material and sources with similar Australian sources. The contextual modules provided students with a rich multimedia exposure to a substantive knowledge base that would enable meaningful student interaction about specific problems or issues in comparative legal history. They represented a necessary prelude, a laying of the groundwork on which to build a trans-Pacific interactive seminar. All of us hoped that the core of the course would be the development of a virtual seminar wherein student discussion would produce deep thought and thoughtful exchanges, with instructors playing a background role.14 The latter objective would be secured by the interactive modules. These modules, as their name suggests, were designed to facilitate interaction between students and faculty at the three universities. The interactive modules presented a focused analysis of themes in legal history, assigned readings were kept deliberately “light,” instructors’ “text” (the Web equivalent of lectures) was sparse and provocative. The modules developed four areas of historical and theoretical writing that seemed both well enough studied in both countries and intrinsically interesting enough to sustain student discussion. The four themes wereAboriginal-settler relations (the “aboriginal other”)Ethnicity, immigration, and citizenshipCrime/sexLabor, class, and industrial relations 15Each of these topics has also generated a literature that fits within general themes relating to the legal technologies of governance during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (often experienced as increasing state intervention in the lives of individuals). Law was thoroughly immersed in the project of “making good citizens,” sometimes out of difficult material. Crudely, what each of these modules addressed was the attempt to remake rough subjects into citizens capable of self-governance: that is, conforming loosely to the standards of the Victorian Christian, respectable middle class, modeled on a patriarchal, heterosexual family. Each interactive module contained three readings, two of which were historical studies of Australia and Canada, and one reading of a more explicitly theoretical nature. A short and deliberately provocative commentary, peppered with questions, accompanied the readings in each interactive module. Designed to initiate a critical analysis of the texts, a somewhat irreverent approach was developed in a deliberate attempt to ensure that these “provocations” would not be taken by students to represent an “authoritative summary.” Moreover, they were designed to encourage students to think creatively and critically about the material and to draw links from many sources. Links to other Web sites placed in the text encouraged this process further16 Integrating Content and Technology Considerable time and experimentation went into planning how best to apply the available technology. The first decision was to use a Web site as a means of distributing course material and readings. The site, which became much more elaborate than any of us had imagined in the beginning, contained the contextual and interactive modules and all the required readings. It was our casebook: the OZCAN Webster. The second, and more difficult decision, was how best to facilitate student discussion. We wanted students to be able to respond quickly and easily to the readings and to each other, but also in a focused manner so that those who wanted to address the issues in one reading did not have the clutter of comments on another topic. A “threaded” discussion list software enabled us to structure discussion by designating specific “topics” or “conferences” under which students could post messages. Other students could respond to a previous message, creating a genealogy of discussion within a conference. Alternatively, they could post a new message, creating another thread under the same or a different conference. Each required reading within the interactive modules was designated as a conference on the discussion list Web site, and that site was linked to the OZCAN Web site. This meant that once students were in an interactive module on the OZCAN Web site, they could read the instructors’ introduction and provocation, read or download the required readings, and then post their thoughts to the relevant conference. We chose an easily accessible system that accommodated these needs—Web Board.17 Several things were clear about the “interactive” components of the course. First, taking account of the expectation that lateral education would take place through student interactions, readings had to be shorter and more focused than in the “contextual” portions (which were more closely analogous to lecture courses than seminars). Second, if student exchanges were to develop in any meaningful way, the substantive focus of the readings had to be engaging and provocative. Third, our job as teachers was to move to the background more than in the contextual portion of the course. We wanted to say enough to provoke student thoughtfulness and creativity but not so much as to either dominate the discussion or tell them what to think.18 Teaching in the Program It was agreed that students at the three schools would work from the same course materials posted on the OZCAN Web site, but to accommodate several major and potentially disabling differences, the pedagogic approach and evaluation would be left to each institution. Because of the large class size, the course was taught at ANU as an exercise in group-centered and inspired learning ranging from theater to mini-lectures. Those students who presented were also responsible for posting their thoughts to the discussion list to initiate trans-Pacific student discussion. Students were graded on their class presentations and on a research essay.19 Given smaller classes, the course at U Vic and UBC assumed a somewhat more traditional seminar approach, with varying degrees of reliance on the classroom or virtual seminar. At U Vic the emphasis lay in the virtual seminar, conducted partly in the computer laboratory. A separate, shorter seminar outside the lab was used to discuss outstanding questions arising from the materials and discussions. Each student was graded on a critical comment on an interactive module, which was posted, and on a major research paper in which they were required to do work in primary materials and encouraged to compare aspects of the two legal cultures.20 At UBC the focus remained in the physical classroom. The class met once a week for two hours to discuss the material and to develop ideas already broached on the discussion list. In addition, the computer lab was reserved for two one-hour sessions each week, but attendance was not required and most students chose to make their discussion list contributions outside class time or from home. Students were evaluated on their participation, both in the classroom and on the discussion list, and by a major research paper.21 Evaluating the Program Each university conducted its standard end-of-course evaluation to gather student feedback on course content and methods of instruction. The following comments are based on these surveys.22 Overall, the course was very favorably received and assessed by students, particularly for its content, but also for its innovative use of available technology. Student comments focused on four areas: course content, technology, teaching styles, and evaluation. The latter two were particular to each instructor and receive little attention in the following discussion. The first two, course content and technology, were essentially the same at each university. Thus, this report concentrates on the student response to both.23 Student comment on course content varied considerably, but some strong themes emerge. Many enjoyed the comparative aspect, particularly the exposure to the histories and legal systems of another country, and the light that exposure cast on their understanding of the legal systems and histories with which they were more familiar.24 Students at all three universities remarked on the positive learning climate, their interest in the material, and the encouragement to critically evaluate the required readings. The course fared less well on the relevance of instructional materials and least well in course planning and organization. One of the course’s great strengths was that it combined the energy and intellectual ability of four faculty members with diverse research interests and areas of expertise. Having four instructors, as one Australian student observed, provided more opportunity for student-faculty interaction “than could be achieved by a lone lecturer.” However, it also resulted in a course that was somewhat less focused than if it had been under the direction of one person.25 A course that combines the physical classroom and the virtual classroom is a much different creature than either a traditional classroom seminar or a course taught entirely through DCT. Integrating physical and virtual classrooms was not an easy task, and as the surveys indicate none of the law schools was entirely successful. The physical classroom tended to remain the focus of the course for students, particularly at ANU. This was a function, in part, of the course delivery at ANU (group-led classroom discussion) and of technological growing pains that were particularly severe for the Australian students who met at the beginning of each week, ahead of their Canadian counterparts. Furthermore, they reported insufficient technical support, something that is definitely required in the early stages of DCT. For a few students at each university, this course presented a first opportunity for intensive use of the Internet. Those who participated did so with enthusiasm, stressing the excitement and value of the trans-Pacific interaction.26 Other students thought the participation rate on the discussion list should have been higher. This led to some frustration for the students at UBC but even more at U Vic where the virtual classroom was the focus of the course. Participation was uneven, and although some students from U Vic and UBC contributed frequently to the discussion list, general participation was not as extensive as it might have been. This pointed to another, more general difficulty of creating a coherent seminar from students with very different backgrounds, at three universities, at various stages of their university careers, and involved in three courses that, although using the same course material, were using it very differently.27 However, it was not clear that we were prepared for heavy student participation. Seventy students were enrolled in the course across the three institutions. If each student contributed only a few sentences each week (and some contributed much more), it would quickly create large volumes of additional reading. As it was, students noted that the reading load was excessively heavy and were perhaps resisting additional work by minimizing their discussion list participation.28 Despite difficulties for some students, the opportunity to communicate with students and faculty through a discussion list added another means of communication for those who felt less comfortable speaking in class. The regular contributors to the list were not necessarily the same as those who spoke most frequently in live sessions. Discussion lists, however, are not a complete cure for shyness or other sources of reluctance to speak in class. They offer a valuable record of discussion and a useful reference tool for those who want to review earlier contributions. In this they are exceedingly useful, but it is precisely the creation of a record that dissuades others who worry about undue regulation and surveillance of learning modes. In order to provide students with a sense of security, the discussion list was password protected, allowing only those who were participating in the course to read and contribute to the discussion. Nonetheless, the instructors’ gaze remained, as did that of other students who, but for the Web page interaction, were strangers. There is no doubt that DCT creates a new range of communication possibilities, but it also creates dangers to privacy that must be considered carefully.29 Many students appreciated the access to course readings through the Web site, in part because it saved them the cost of a casebook. The readings could be viewed on the site, or downloaded, to be viewed on another computer or printed. Many students chose the latter option, preferring not to read large quantities of text on a computer screen.30 Lessons Learned As with all new academic ventures, there were academic design flaws in the course, a product, as already indicated, of the tight timelines within which the team had to work, and the reality of five cooks stirring the broth. Some of the contextual modules looked and read too much like lecture notes with only occasional forays into other forms of communication. They were at their best where there had been a more conscious effort to blend short, often provocative and sometimes conflicting quotations raising theoretical questions, and compact expository paragraphs with dramatic, thought-provoking visuals, be they art work, photographs, documents, or maps. The modules were less engaging where the expository paragraphs lengthened, and the visuals were purely illustrative.31 This lesson about constructing a Web site that balances information and intellectual challenge has been taken to heart by the contextual module designers. The length of the expository sections has been reduced. At the same time the site is being enriched by the use of a wider range of demonstrative material, including more artwork such as photos, sketches, and portraits, literary allusions, short biographies, folk songs and ballads. Greater efforts have been made to encourage students to access some of this material by links with other Web sites.32 Web-based courses do not reduce workload. The creation of the course itself is a labor-intensive process involving considerable creative energy and technical expertise. Once the Web site is built, technical assistance is required to ensure that the site and discussion list continue to operate and that students are introduced to the site and to the communication software. Moreover, e-mail communication creates the possibility of extending discussion beyond the spatial and temporal boundaries of the classroom. Students can post messages and respond on their own time. This is the great advantage of the technology, and one of its hazards. What was once a three-hour seminar has the potential to become all consuming, both for students and instructors, if not carefully structured.33 Ways and means of organizing interactive communication more carefully are being considered and tried. In the 1998 version of the course, which involved just UBC and U Vic, the instructors sought to construct the groups considering the interactive modules early so that each member knew who he or she would be working with. We also sought to get all the students in the two schools involved in interactive communication while making their way through the contextual modules. This was to prime them for the later discussion on the interactive modules. The latter proved hard going in the early stages as some students took longer than others to get used to the course methodology and technology. The former expedient seemed to work well in making for a more ordered process of discussion in the interactive modules, starting with group members and then moving out to a more general discussion, ultimately getting everyone involved in some very lively exchanges. This experience no doubt benefited from the much smaller number of students involved. In the academic year 1999-2000 when ANU rejoins the program (and UBC will be resting) the challenge will be to construct workable interactive groups, matching the greater numbers at the Australian school with the much smaller cadre of students in the U Vic seminar. The sense of intimacy and immediacy created could be enhanced by video technology now available, a feature that ANU is investigating. Hopefully we shall be able to organize discussion groups very early on in the program, the members of which will undertake to go through the contextual materials together, get to know each other, and work toward group postings for the interactive modules. Ideally, we would like these to be chat groups, that is, involving simultaneous discussion. However, this is difficult because of the time difference between eastern Australia and the west coast of Canada, and the very limited window of opportunity available for instant responses. The answer may be to continue the present practice of rolling discussions using Web Board, but with groups being actively encouraged and assisted to communicate with each other very early in the course. Joint sessions would be much less frequently reserved for circumstances when we could all get together for a more structured and time-sensitive session. For example, a presentation by a guest scholar might be videotaped. Thus, we could all benefit from using resources otherwise available at only one of the participating schools.34 Consideration and respect for the views of others must be emphasized when the course involves extensive use of DCT. Internet communication brings a new ease and informality to communications with strangers. This, of course, is one of its great advantages, but it can pose problems. Postings can be extremely hurtful even when not intended to be, and the possibility that ideas are misconstrued grows exponentially when the personal context is removed. One must take care at the beginning to introduce generally accepted principles of “Netiquette,” especially while the technology is young. Although there were no serious problems in the course, perhaps because students were reminded at the outset about the importance of vigorous yet respectful discussion, the potential for harm is there and must be addressed. We also need to be upfront with students about the fact that their views as expressed on the Web will be subject to scrutiny and response by colleagues and faculty. This is not a course for those who wish to remain anonymous.35 The numbers of students involved in this project at the three sponsoring schools make it difficult, we think, to contemplate adding further partners. We have not, however, ruled out the possibility of adding one more school from the Antipodes. A rather more practical plan, perhaps, which has already garnered interest, is that of “burning on” all or part of the course on CD Roms, which could then be used by instructors elsewhere who want to incorporate comparative colonial legal perspectives into their courses. We shall be looking at the feasibility of this as we engage in the process of further revision. We also believe that what we are trying with this program has broader application for law teachers at different schools, including those in different countries. It can be used for pooling resources, knowledge, and expertise to provide comparative insights in a whole range of law school subjects. For those who might want to access our visitor’s site, it is http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/courses/lawdemo/36 Ozcan is: Simon Bronitt (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Australian National University); Doug Harris (Ph.D. candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto); Ian Holloway (Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, ANU); John McLaren (Lansdowne Professor of Law, University of Victoria, B.C.); Wes Pue (Nemetz Professor of Legal History, University of British Columbia). All have contributed to this article. Lyndsay Campbell was a member of the group in 1998-1999, but has not had an opportunity to comment on this paper. Its technical support group is the U Vic Learning Technologies Group (LTG): Katy Chan, Kate Seaborne, and Judy Somers.Notes 1. For now ANU only offers its comparative legal history course once every two years. Thus, the two Canadian schools operate on their own in the intervening year. It is hoped that all three schools will soon be on an annual teaching cycle. Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder. |