Student-active lectures in legal education

ABSTRACT

This mixed methods study examined the experiences of first-year law students attending online and on-campus lectures at a Norwegian university. Interviews with six students and a survey completed by 261 students revealed a preference for on-campus lectures, citing higher lecture quality, better focus and better retention. Online lectures faced technical challenges and disengagement, although students found the use of instant messaging for questions beneficial. In on-campus lectures, students favoured some form of student involvement, such as digital multiple-choice questions or digital open questions with short peer discussions, as opposed to lectures without student activity. Group work was deemed more suitable for other course components. The findings suggest that incorporating well-designed digital questions combined with peer discussions can enhance student engagement, attention, self-assessment and learning. Additionally, the study emphasises the importance of holistic planning when designing a course, ensuring alignment between different components.

KEYWORDS:

• Online lectures
• on-campus lectures
• student-active lectures
• response systems

1. Introduction

To effectively prepare law students for their future roles as legal practitioners, it is crucial that they develop the ability to comprehend intricate rule of law requirements and engage in critical and independent analysis of legal issues across diverse arenas. Arguably, the most important skill for a law student to acquire throughout their studies is the ability to resolve legal problems. This proficiency cannot be attained solely through textbook reading or passive lecture attendance. The only viable approach to developing problem-solving abilities in law is through direct exposure to real legal problems, accompanied by appropriate facilitation and guidance.¹

However, the traditional approach to legal education in Norway has predominantly focused on conveying legal doctrine rather than prioritising problem-solving skills and cultivating an interactive discourse regarding the underlying rationale and the process of legal reasoning. To foster the development of practitioners capable of effectively assessing legal problems and independently addressing them, a shift from passive to active learning approaches among law students is essential.² To address this challenge, the research and development project “Better learning, better legal practitioners” was initiated during the academic year 2021/2022 at the Faculty of Law, University of Bergen. The main objective of this project was to facilitate a culture of active learning among students at the Faculty of Law, thereby supporting their development of critical and independent legal reflection.

During this first-year period new assessment forms and approaches to student-active learning were implemented for a group of 300 first-year students. Among these measures, significant efforts were made to enhance student engagement during lectures by introducing student response systems (SRS). SRS are digital tools that enable large groups of students to participate by answering multiple-choice or open-ended questions using laptops, tablets, smartphones or wireless remote controls. These systems facilitated the posing of questions, initiating peer discussions and group work, and collecting student responses during lectures.

The initial focus of this study was to examine the students’ experience of student-active lectures utilising SRS, comparing them to more conventional lectures that lacked student involvement. Simultaneously with the commencement of the project, however, there was an occurrence of periodic campus closures in the autumn of 2021 due to COVID-19. Consequently, some of the lectures were conducted online. As a result, first-year law students were exposed to both online lectures and traditional on-campus lectures. While this posed a challenge for the lecturers to adapt their teaching methods, it also presented an opportunity to examine both modes of delivery. Therefore, our research aimed to investigate the student experience of active lectures on campus as well as fully digital online lectures. The primary focus of the study was to explore the following research questions:

How do first-year legal students experience various forms of lectures, and do the students experience that the use of questions and student involvement during lectures support their learning?

2. Previous research

2.1. Student response systems (SRS) and student-active lectures outside legal education

The predominant approach to employing SRS involves presenting subject-related questions during lectures, which students can answer anonymously. The students’ responses are then displayed on a large screen for all participants to view. These questions are sometimes accompanied by peer discussions, with two primary approaches: the “classic approach” and the “peer instruction approach”.³ In the classic approach, students engage in discussions with their peers before providing individual answers. Conversely, in the peer instruction approach, students individually respond to questions, discuss their answers with peers, and subsequently re-answer the same question. In both cases, the teacher typically follows up on student responses through a plenary discussion.

Studies conducted in various disciplines outside legal education have demonstrated that the utilisation of SRS (often in combination with peer discussions) can enhance student attention,⁴ retention and learning.⁵ A review conducted by Wood and Shirazi revealed that students also perceive the use of SRS as enjoyable, engaging and conducive to their willingness to participate in lectures (owing to the anonymity provided by the technology).⁶ Furthermore, research has shown that the incorporation of SRS alongside peer discussions makes students more aware of their understanding of the subject matter (feed back), facilitates identification of key learning points (feed up), and guides their focus on further study (feed forward).⁷

2.2. Student response systems (SRS) and student-active lectures in legal education

Compared to other disciplines, there has been relatively little research on the use of student response systems (SRS) or similar technology to promote student engagement in legal education.⁸ Legal education has historically been criticised for its resistance to incorporating new technology and modernising its curriculum.⁹ Nonetheless, a few previous studies have explored the use of student-active lectures in legal education.

In a seminal study on the use of SRS in legal education, Caron and Gely found that the technology had a positive impact on classroom engagement by activating every student present.¹⁰ They also observed an increase in lecture attendance when SRS were used. The researchers concluded that, when used appropriately, SRS can help students appreciate the complexities of the law and understand that there may not always be a single “right” answer to a question, but rather a range of possible answers.¹¹ Caron later elaborated on these findings, arguing that the use of SRS can help students gain a deeper understanding of the nuances of the law.¹²

The results of Caron and Gely’s study are consistent with later research indicating that law students find student-active lectures more engaging and enjoyable than traditional lectures. Skoyles and Bloxsidge used Mentimeter questions interspersed throughout their lectures and found that this approach increased student engagement, promoted interactivity and inclusivity, and added value to the lecture experience.¹³ Similarly, Habel and Stubbs found that the use of multiple-choice questions increased student engagement and facilitated learning.¹⁴ Steventon, Panesar and Wood obtained similar results when they used SRS in lectures on Criminal Law and Criminal Evidence Law. They also observed that the anonymity of the responses encouraged participation and that students found peer discussions prior to repolling the questions to be valuable.¹⁵ However, Steventon and others cautioned that the design of the questions is crucial and suggested that multiple-choice questions should be designed in a way that requires students to think deeply about the possible outcomes.¹⁶ These cautions were echoed by Park and Farag, who found that while 88% of their students preferred lectures using SRS compared to lectures without the technology, the design of the questions was critical. They discovered that basic content questions could cause students to disengage and find the questions dull. Conversely, they found that questions that asked students to apply legal principles to solve actual legal problems often led to engaging discussions among students, especially when addressing complex topics that instructors knew students found challenging.¹⁷

Despite the findings of these studies, it is worth noting that some law students may not consider the time spent on use of SRS to be a valuable use of their time. Habel and Stubbs found that nearly one in five students felt that the use of SRS took up too much time and that the time could be better spent by the lecturer delivering more content.¹⁸ These findings were echoed by Easton, who argued that misconceptions about the value of SRS use among students could be reduced by developing a sound pedagogical framework that addresses the use of interactive technology. Furthermore, Easton emphasised the need for meticulous planning to facilitate effective use of SRS.¹⁹ Similarly, Park and Farag stressed the importance of fully understanding the pedagogical goals of the lecture and the course before drafting questions and underscored the importance of using SRS, including the design of the questions used, in a way that aligns with these goals.²⁰

3. Course design

Legal education in Norway, like in many other countries, has traditionally placed significant emphasis on self-study through textbooks and teacher-centred lectures, primarily aimed at imparting information to students.²¹ Despite the inclusion of certain student-centered learning activities over the years, such as seminars and workgroups, the lectures have largely kept their traditional, teacher-centered format. However, a shift occurred with the initiation of the project “Better Learning, Better Legal Practitioners” during the academic year 2021/2022.

As a consequence of an educational reform in 2021, the first year of the Master’s programme in law at the University of Bergen comprises six distinct courses, each ranging between eight and 14 ECTS-credits,²² with a duration of seven to 12 weeks. The organised learning activities are typically distributed throughout the course, often beginning with lectures and gradually shifting the focus towards self-study as the course progresses.²³ Regularly throughout the course, students gather in workgroups of 10–12 students, led by an advanced-level student. Within these groups, students engage in discussions concerning various assignments, subsequently submitting written responses. Students then provide written feedback to their peers on these assignments. Finally, the advanced-level student offers written feedback to specific students within the group, adhering to a predetermined pattern. This iterative process spans one week and repeats almost weekly throughout the duration of a course.

Approximately every other week, students convene in seminars with an average class size of approximately 30 students, facilitated by a faculty member. These seminars serve the purpose of engaging in discussions on more intricate topics that surpass the scope of workgroup interactions, while also assisting students in synthesising the knowledge acquired through self-study, lectures and workgroup activities. To further enhance student learning, all courses employ Canvas (in a local variant called “Mitt UiB”) as a platform for delivering course materials, multimedia resources, and quizzes. While the depth of resources on Canvas may vary across courses, it is utilised to some extent in all of them.

Across the six courses, a diverse range of summative assessments is employed. Two courses involve traditional school exams, each lasting six hours. Two courses include partial exams, while one course incorporates portfolio assessment. Additionally, one course employs a semester project as its form of summative assessment.

3.1. Instructional designs used in lectures

One of the goals of the project “Better Learning, Better Legal Practitioners” was to facilitate increased student engagement during lectures. Starting in autumn 2021, faculty members involved in the project received guidance and support from the project group on how to incorporate student involvement in lectures and utilising the student response systems. The project group also provided technical assistance to ensure smooth implementation of the response systems. While some lecturers were using these systems for the first time, others had prior experience with their usage.

All lectures followed a standard format, consisting of a 90-minute duration with a 15-minute break in the middle, and all lecturers had the freedom to choose their preferred teaching methods. Based on the diverse teaching approaches employed by the lecturers, six distinct instructional designs were identified:

1. Traditional lecture without student involvement: Lecturer monologue.

2. The classic approach without peer discussions: Mini-lectures (approximately 10–20 minutes) followed by a multiple-choice question addressing a key topic, individual answer using response system, and follow-up by the lecturer.

3. The classic approach with peer discussions: Mini-lectures (approximately 10–20 minutes) followed by a multiple-choice question addressing a key topic, peer discussion, individual answer using response system, and follow-up by the lecturer.

4. Open questions without peer discussions: Mini-lectures (approximately 10–20 minutes) followed by an open question, individual written answer using response system, and follow-up by the lecturer.

5. Open questions with peer discussions: Mini-lectures (approximately 10–20 minuttes) followed by an open question, peer discussions, individual written answer using response system, and follow-up by the lecturer.

6. Group work: Primarily used in the context of fully digital lectures, this approach involves mini-lectures lasting 10–20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of group discussion on a broader topic using breakout rooms in Zoom. Each group is then tasked with generating bullet points on Padlet, which serve as the basis for a plenary discussion lasting 10–15 minutes.

These instructional designs represent the different ways in which the lecturers structured their lectures, fostering various kinds of student engagement and interaction.

4. Methods

4.1. Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of first-year law students in online and on-campus lectures with different forms of student involvement, as described above. The research questions focused on understanding how these students perceive various lecture formats and whether they believe the use of questions and student involvement enhances their learning.

4.2. Research design

A sequential mixed methods design was employed to address the research questions. This design involved two distinct strands: a qualitative strand consisting of semi-structured interviews, followed by a quantitative strand using a survey. Sequential designs allow the results of one strand to inform the subsequent strand, enhancing the depth and validity of the findings.²⁴ In this study, the qualitative interviews provided a foundation for developing the survey, ensuring that the quantitative data collection instruments were informed by the specific experiences and themes revealed during the interviews.

4.3. Participants

The target population for this study comprised approximately 300 first-year students enrolled in a Master’s programme in law at the University of Bergen. Six students participated in the semi-structured interviews, providing in-depth insights into their experiences. Additionally, 261 students completed the survey, offering a broader perspective on student perceptions.

4.4. Recruitment

Participants for the semi-structured interviews were recruited through an email distributed to the entire target population. All students expressing interest were interviewed and were offered a token of appreciation in the form of a 15-euro gift certificate. The survey was disseminated to the entire target population, allowing for extensive participation. To encourage engagement, a random draw was conducted among survey participants, with three individuals selected to receive a 100-euro gift certificate. This incentive aimed to motivate survey completion and enhance the overall response rate.

The recruitment strategy for both semi-structured interviews and the survey was designed to ensure inclusivity and minimize potential biases. However, it is important to acknowledge the inherent limitations and potential biases associated with certain aspects of the recruitment process. For the interviews, those inclined to share their experiences may have been more likely to volunteer, potentially introducing a bias towards individuals with stronger opinions or experiences. Similarly, for the survey, the individuals that were motivated to participate might have different perspectives than those who chose not to do so. While recognizing these potential biases, we believe that the large percentage of students participating in the survey (approximately 87 %) contributes to a comprehensive understanding of student experiences.

4.5. Data collection and analysis

The qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of the target population and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were imported into NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software. A thematic analysis approach was applied to the interview data, involving the identification and categorisation of meaningful themes and patterns that emerged from the students’ responses.

The survey, administered to a larger sample of students, yielded quantitative data. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies and percentages, were computed to summarise and present the survey findings.

4.6. Ethical considerations

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the interviews, ensuring that they willingly participated and were aware of the study’s purpose. Additionally, measures were implemented to maintain the confidentiality of participants’ responses. The survey collected anonymous data to safeguard the privacy of the participants.

5. Results

5.1. Online vs. on-campus lectures

According to the survey results, 66% of the students prefer on-campus lectures, while 23% of the students prefer online lectures (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Do you prefer fully digital or on-campus lectures?

During the interviews, students emphasised that on-campus lectures generally were of a higher quality than the online lectures. They also reported better focus and retention of content during on-campus lectures. However, they expressed a desire for on-campus lectures to be recorded and shared with students afterwards.

Regarding online lectures, students encountered technical difficulties such as missing PowerPoint presentations and poor sound quality. In terms of student involvement, the use of “breakout rooms” posed challenges. Randomly dividing students into groups for collaborative problem-solving during the lecture was demanding because working with unfamiliar peers on screen proved difficult, and many students logged off when group work commenced. This resulted in time loss and was perceived negatively by the students.

On a positive note, students appreciated the use of instant messaging as a “back channel” for asking questions during online lectures. They particularly valued the opportunity to freely ask questions and receive written answers from a teaching assistant during the lecture. The students also found it beneficial when the teaching assistant prompted the lecturer to address relevant questions that emerged in the messaging feed.

5.2. Students experience of different forms on-campus lectures

The students were surveyed about their experiences with different forms of on-campus lectures and which form they found most helpful for supporting their learning (see Figure 2). They were given the option to choose multiple forms. Out of the total of 261 students surveyed, 40% indicated that lectures without student involvement were most helpful. However, it is important to note that half of these students combined their answer with various student-active options. Therefore, the actual percentage of students who solely chose lectures without student involvement was 20%.

Figure 2. Which of these lecture formats is best for your overall learning? (You can choose multiple options).

In terms of various forms of student-active lecturing, 50% of the students chose lectures with digital multiple-choice questions, 47% chose lectures with digital multiple-choice questions and short peer discussions, 27% chose lectures with digital open questions, 31% chose lectures with digital open questions and short peer discussions, and 13% of the students chose lectures with group work.

During the interviews, students expressed a positive attitude towards the use of multiple-choice questions and short discussions during lectures. They found these interactive elements to be engaging and helpful for their learning. However, when it came to group work, students considered it unnecessary within the context of lectures. They felt that group work activities, such as analysing law cases, in-depth discussions and extensive written answers, were more suitable for other components of the course, such as workgroups and seminars.

One student, however, highlighted the value of written answers to open questions, as it facilitated a discourse that was more relatable to her own language and understanding. Through this process, she gained exposure to different interpretations from her peers, which she found to be more comprehensible than solely relying on the lecturer’s monologue. Furthermore, she emphasised that when lecturers addressed students’ written answers, their explanations became more understandable and meaningful.

5.3. The use of digital questions compared to lectures without student involvement

In the survey, students were asked about the impact of using digital questions during lectures on their learning, attention, motivation, self-assessment and lecture preparation. Responses were collected on a 5-point Likert scale (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. In comparison to lectures without student involvement, to what extent does the use of digital questions during the lecture enhance you?

Regarding learning, 63% of the students reported that the use of digital questions helped them remember the lecture content to a large or very large extent, while 17% indicated little or no impact on their memory. Furthermore, 71% of the students felt that digital questions enhanced their understanding of the content to a large or very large extent, while 15% reported little or no improvement in comprehension.

Concerning attention, 76% of the students experienced increased focus to a large or very large extent during lectures when digital questions were used, while 12% observed little or no change in their attentiveness.

In terms of motivation, 56% of the students found that digital questions boosted their motivation to understand the lecture material to a large or very large extent, whereas 19% reported little or no impact on their motivation.

Regarding self-assessment, 78% of the students experienced that digital questions increased their awareness of their own understanding of the content (feed back) to a large or very large extent. In contrast, 9% reported little or no impact. Additionally, 66% of the students felt that digital questions enhanced their awareness of what is important to learn in the course (feed up) to a large or very large extent, while 14% experienced little or no impact. Furthermore, 75% of the students reported that digital questions helped them identify areas that they needed to work on further (feed forward) to a large or very large extent, while 10% did not perceive a significant effect in this regard.

Regarding student preparation, 27% of the students acknowledged that the use of digital questions improved their preparation prior to lectures to a large or very large extent, while 42% reported little or no change in their preparation habits.

During the interviews, students expressed their appreciation for the anonymity provided by digital questions, as it reduces the fear of answering incorrectly. They emphasised that when lecturers put questions to the entire group and require oral responses, only a few students tend to participate, whereas digital response tools enable everyone to actively engage.

One positive aspect mentioned was that the use of digital questions transforms students from passive spectators to active participants. Many students noted that the questions sharpened their attention, and one student specifically mentioned becoming more attentive after answering a question incorrectly. Students also highlighted that the multiple-choice questions prompted them to actively make decisions and engage in self-assessment, allowing them to evaluate their understanding of the topic and identify areas for improvement.

In terms of the question format, students particularly appreciated multiple-choice questions with several correct options but with one option being more correct than the others. This approach made them aware of differences, contrasts and nuances related to the topic. The number of correct answers also served as feedback to lecturers, with students noting that many incorrect responses often spurred lecturers to become more engaged.

Regarding the overall coherence of the course, some students perceived a high degree of integration between the lecture content and the course as a whole. However, others felt that the content and activities in lectures and seminars were not always well-coordinated.

The only negative aspect mentioned regarding the use of digital questions was the potential loss of lecture time. However, students’ perception of this as a problem depended on how appropriate they found the questions. If the questions were deemed “good”, the time spent on them was considered valuable. Conversely, if students felt the questions were “poor”, they believed the time would have been better spent on the lecturer’s monologue.

The students did not provide examples of what they considered to be “good” or “poor” questions. However, the dataset offers some insights into their perceptions. Questions that were overly simplistic, and to which the overwhelming majority of students knew the answer, were often deemed “poor”. For instance, a question inquiring, “Are oral agreements legally binding under Norwegian contract law?” saw 95% of the students correctly answering “yes”. Conversely, questions that allowed for multiple academically sound viewpoints were regarded as “good”. An example of this is a question asking, “Is a statement in a commercial, stating that a trader sells goods at a specified price, considered a contractual offer directed at the public under Norwegian contract law?” This question resulted in a nearly even split among the students between three answers, each representing academically sound viewpoints under different circumstances: “yes”, “no”, and “only as far as the stock lasts”. Such questions foster a dialogue between the students and the lecturer, encouraging the students to explore which option holds the most compelling justification under varying circumstances.

6. Discussion

6.1. Most students prefer on-campus lectures as opposed to online lectures

Overall, the majority of students tend to favour on-campus lectures compared to online lectures, although this preference may be influenced by the inconsistent quality of online lecture experiences. Furthermore, their negative perception of online lectures may be tied to their expectations of teaching within a master’s program that traditionally emphasizes on-campus activity. However, the utilisation of instant messaging as a means for students to ask questions during online lectures, coupled with written responses from a teaching assistant, proved to be valuable. It is worth noting that these benefits can also be attained in on-campus lectures by implementing a response system.

6.2. Students prefer to be involved, particularly in the form of multiple-choice questions

The findings suggest that a significant portion of students, around 80%, find some form of student involvement using digital questions helpful in supporting their learning in on-campus lectures. This aligns with previous research conducted on law students, where over 80% of participants expressed a preference for lectures featuring student response systems (SRS) compared to those without such technology.²⁵

Around 50% of students prefer multiple-choice questions, either with or without peer discussions, while approximately 30% of students prefer open-ended questions, also with or without peer discussions. Other studies have indicated that incorporating multiple-choice questions with peer learning can enhance students’ overall learning outcomes.²⁶ However, the current study did not examine the impact of peer learning on students’ overall learning outcomes.

Regarding group work, only 10% of the students found it useful for their learning during lectures. This is because they believed that group work activities were better covered in seminars, and therefore they did not consider it necessary in the lecture setting. This highlights the importance of considering a holistic approach when designing a course.

In interviews, most students expressed a positive attitude towards multiple-choice questions compared to open-ended questions. However, one student emphasised the importance of open-ended questions in lectures. They argued that open-ended questions provide insight into other students’ understanding of a topic and facilitate conversations between students and the lecturer, bridging the gap between their different levels of expertise. This viewpoint is supported by the research literature, which suggests that balancing the lecturer’s monologue with student activities, such as peer discussions and written responses to open-ended questions, can help students develop their own professional understanding and engage with the language of the discipline.²⁷

6.3. The use of digital questions enhances students’ self-assessment, learning, attention and motivation

The findings from the survey highlight the positive impact of using digital questions in on-campus lectures on students’ self-assessment, learning, attention and motivation. These findings are consistent with studies conducted outside law teaching, indicating the potential generalisability of these results across different disciplines.

In terms of self-assessment, the survey results align with previous research indicating that increasing students’ awareness of important concepts, providing feedback on their understanding, and guiding their focus on further learning enhances their overall learning outcomes.²⁸ The use of digital questions combined with peer discussions in university lectures has been found to contribute to this aspect.²⁹ Some studies, however, find that although students become more aware of what is important to understand, their own understanding, and what they need to focus on further, it is not necessarily so that the students use this information in their studies outside the lecture hall.³⁰ This discrepancy between experience and use is mainly because of two reasons: (1) the students use the information passively as an indication of progress but lack the strategies to integrate it in their studies; and (2) the students’ use of the information depends on the opportunity to use it in the near future in organised course activities.³¹ In other words, if the questions in the lecture do not correlate with the other course activities the students’ likelihood to use information from the interventions is based on the students’ own learning strategies and orientation towards learning.³² Another interrelated aspect concerning self-assessment is that a one-sided use of factual questions could undermine a deeper conceptual understanding because students become too oriented towards facts.³³

Regarding learning, the survey shows that a majority of students reported improved retention (63%) and understanding (71%) of the lecture content when digital questions were utilised. These findings align with research on the testing effect, which suggests that incorporating questions in lectures contributes to better content retention.³⁴ Furthermore, the combination of questions with peer discussions and the lecturer’s explanations has been shown to enhance students’ overall content understanding.³⁵

The survey also highlights the positive impact of digital questions on students’ attention and motivation during lectures.³⁶ Given the limited attention span and short-term memory capacity of individuals, the incorporation of digital questions serves as a cognitive break, enhancing students’ attention.³⁷ Previous studies have also shown that the use of questions in lectures promotes student engagement, participation, emotional support and improved understanding, leading to increased motivation.³⁸

However, it is worth noting that the survey findings diverge from general research findings regarding students’ preparation for lectures using digital questions. While previous studies have reported that students tend to prepare better for lectures featuring digital questions,³⁹ this survey indicates that only a minority of law students reported improved preparation for such lectures.

This contrasting result suggests that the role of digital questions in students’ preparation may be less significant among law students, potentially due to their already high level of preparedness for lectures. This interpretation is supported by a previous study comparing student preparation at the law faculty with preparation by students from other faculties within the same university. The findings indicated that a significantly smaller percentage of law students (11%) reported not reading any of the recommended literature for the lecture, compared to students from other faculties (60–70%).⁴⁰ This indicates that law students may already engage in thorough preparation for lectures, which diminishes the impact of digital questions on their preparation process. A similar proportion of law students who completed the required pre-reading prior to lectures featuring SRS technology was reported by Habel and Stubbs,⁴¹ but their study did not provide a comparison to the proportion of students who completed the pre-reading for traditional lectures.

6.4. Digital questions give instructors an opportunity to get feedback from the students and to take advantage of “teachable moments”

The utilisation of SRS does not only facilitate the provision of feedback to students, it also enables lecturers to receive feedback by analysing the students’ responses and correct answer rates. This feedback mechanism provides lecturers with valuable insight into the level of understanding among their students, which in turn allows for identification and resolution of conceptual misunderstandings.⁴² Furthermore, several students in our study say that the use of questions sharpens attention. Our study also reports that several of the students surveyed noted the increased engagement of lecturers when students answered questions incorrectly, suggesting that the lecturers were mindful of the “teachable moments” that could arise during such instances.⁴³

6.5. Crafting purposeful and aligned questions is essential for achieving course learning objectives

This study underscores the significance of appropriately designing questions used during lectures to enhance student learning. Students express appreciation for multiple-choice questions that offer several correct options but emphasise one option as more accurate than the others. They highlight that such questions promote awareness of differences, contrasts and nuances related to the topic at hand. By providing questions where multiple options can be correct but some possess stronger justifications than others, one illuminates how uncertainty characterises legal problem-solving.⁴⁴ Subsequently, engaging in discussions that deliberate which answer choices fall within the realm of academically sound viewpoints and possess the strongest justifications can yield diverse perspectives. Even among instructors, differing opinions may emerge, aiding students in recognising the breadth of possible arguments more distinctly. Previous research supports the idea that the use of SRS can be a valuable tool in highlighting the absence of a single “right” answer in law and facilitating nuanced understanding.⁴⁵ Our findings corroborate these perspectives.

During the interviews, students offered valuable insights by explaining that the perceived quality of the questions plays a pivotal role in shaping their perception of the activity’s usefulness for their learning outcomes. Considering these comments alongside previous student feedback, it becomes evident that effectively facilitating student learning outcomes requires the avoidance of overly simple questions and the incorporation of intricate inquiries that stimulate higher-order thinking, following the principles of Bloom’s Taxonomy. This finding is consistent with earlier research.⁴⁶

Additionally, our findings indicate the importance of aligning the use of student-active lectures with the overall learning design. While some students perceive a high degree of coherence, others find a lack of coordination between lecture and seminar content and activities. A notable example is the students’ perspectives on group work during lectures. Many students do not value group work during lectures, considering it redundant as they believe the activity is adequately covered in seminars. This emphasises the need for holistic planning when designing a course, ensuring alignment between different components.

6.6. Students appreciate that their answers are anonymous

It seems to be widely accepted that law students often are reluctant to express their lack of understanding to their peers.⁴⁷ The participants in our study seem to confirm this, noting that they value the anonymity provided by digital question tools. They highlighted that only a few students respond when the lecturer addresses questions to the whole group and they must raise their hand and answer orally, whereas digital response tools allow for greater participation. This corresponds with findings from other research where students report that they appreciate responding to questions anonymously.⁴⁸ Similarly, in studies where students answered digital questions while not anonymous, they requested the option to answer anonymously.⁴⁹

6.7. Some students express worry about loss of lecture time

The students’ main concern regarding the use of digital questions during lectures is the possible loss of valuable lecture time. This finding is consistent with prior research on the utilisation of digital questions and (SRS) in legal education.⁵⁰ Our research, however, indicates a correlation between students’ perception of lecture time loss as an issue and the quality of the questions posed. The higher the quality of the question, the less they perceived this to be a problem. This highlights the significance of designing high-quality questions that align with the course objectives to enhance the overall student experience. Furthermore, as observed by Easton and Park/Farag, students’ concerns underscore the importance of establishing a sound pedagogical framework surrounding the use of SRS. Integrating the use of SRS with a flipped classroom strategy ensures that the content removed from the lecture to accommodate the use of SRS can be disseminated to the students through alternative mediums, such as brief texts or videos. By engaging with these materials prior to the lecture, students may be better equipped to discuss the questions posed, thereby enhancing the value derived from the time dedicated to the use of SRS.

One could also add that loss of lecture time not necessarily is a tenable argument from a student learning perspective in itself. The pivotal consideration should be the actual learning outcomes for the students, not merely the volume of subject matter delivered during a lecture. One could argue that the educational benefits derived from the utilization of SRS outweigh the value of exposing students to additional content. In a review of research on active learning, Prince concludes that students will remember more content if short activities are introduced to the lecture.⁵¹ In addition, Hrepic and others argue that students are more likely to understand the content of a lecture when it is defined, explicit and repeated several times.⁵² It may therefore be appropriate to reduce the amount of content covered and highlight a few key questions, rather than cover as much content as possible within 90 minutes. However, since the use of questions and student activity reduces the length of the lecture, the lecturer must prioritise what is most important to cover and which questions are most relevant to ask. This relates to the intentions of both the lecture and the course as a whole.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, the research findings suggest that the first-year legal students generally prefer on-campus lectures over online lectures, citing higher quality and better focus and retention of content in the on-campus setting. However, students express a desire for recorded on-campus lectures to be made available after the class. Online lectures were found to have technical difficulties and challenges with student involvement, particularly in breakout room activities.

Regarding different forms of on-campus lectures, most students found some form of student involvement, such as digital multiple-choice questions or open questions with short peer discussions, to be helpful in supporting their learning. Only a small percentage of students preferred lectures without student involvement. The use of multiple-choice questions and short discussions during lectures was generally viewed positively, while group work was seen as unnecessary since it was covered in other parts of the course.

The use of digital questions during lectures was found to have a positive impact on students’ self-assessment, learning, attention and motivation. Students reported increased awareness of their understanding, better retention of content, improved attention during lectures, and higher motivation to learn when digital questions were used. The anonymous nature of digital responses was appreciated by students, as it reduced fear of answering incorrectly and encouraged participation. However, the loss of lecture time due to the use of digital questions was seen as a potential drawback.

Overall, the findings align with previous research indicating that student involvement with digital questions supports student learning and self-assessment. The findings also highlight the importance of balancing the lecturer’s monologue with student activities and providing opportunities for peer discussions. It is suggested that incorporating well-designed digital questions into lectures can contribute to student engagement, participation and understanding of the subject matter. However, careful consideration should be given to the coordination of lecture content with other course activities to ensure a holistic learning experience.

Additionally, it’s important to recognize that, even though integrating digital questions into lectures enhances student participation, it can introduce potential exclusivity concerns. Relying on personal smartphones, tablets, or laptops may inadvertently create disparities, particularly for students without ready access to these devices. Although our study did not specifically investigate this limitation, it warrants consideration to foster inclusivity in lectures. Addressing this, possible solutions could include providing loan devices for students without personal technology, organizing collaborative group participation with shared devices, or implementing student response systems that include hardware for answering digital questions. We encourage further research and practitioners to be attentive to this issue.

8. Limitations

While our study provides valuable insights into the experiences of first-year law students attending both online and on-campus lectures, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations that affect the scope of our findings. One notable limitation lies in the specific focus of our investigation, which centered on a particular course within a single university and operated for a duration of one academic year. Future research endeavors should consider expanding the scope to encompass multiple courses and universities to enhance the applicability of our insights. Another contextual limitation pertains to the timing of our study, which took place during the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. While this period offered a unique lens into the challenges and adaptations in legal education, it may also introduce a temporal bias. As we acknowledge this limitation, it is important to explore how the insights gained during the pandemic can be extrapolated to the post-COVID-19 era.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This work is part of the project “Better learning, better legal practitioners” that was supported by the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills under grant [AKTIV-2019/10212].

Notes

¹ Rohan Havelock, “Law Studies and Active Learning: Friends Not Foes?” (2013) 47 The Law Teacher 382, 385.

² Chad Habel and Matthew Stubbs, “Mobile Phone Voting for Participation and Engagement in a Large Compulsory Law Course” (2014) 22 Research in Learning Technology Gerald F Hess, “Principle 3: Good Practice Encourages Active Learning” (1999) 49 Journal of Legal Education 401, especially 401; Havelock (n 1) 385–87.

³ Kjetil L Nielsen, Gabrielle Hansen and John B Stav, “How the Initial Thinking Period Affects Student Argumentation During Peer Instruction: Students’ Experiences versus Observations” (2016) 41 Studies in Higher Education 124.

⁴ See Jeff Cain, Esther P Black and Jürgen Rohr, “An Audience Response System Strategy to Improve Student Motivation, Attention, and Feedback” (2009) 73 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Article 21; Bonnie R Rush and others, “The Effect of Differing Audience Response System Question Types on Student Attention in the Veterinary Medical Classroom” (2010) 37 Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 145; Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun, “Influence of Polling Technologies on Student Engagement: An Analysis of Student Motivation, Academic Performance, and Brainwave Data” (2014) 72 Computers & Education 80.

⁵ See Yu-Ta Chien, Yueh-Hsia Chang and Chun-Yen Chang, “Do We Click in the Right Way? A Meta-Analytic Review of Clicker-Integrated Instruction” (2016) 17 Educational Research Review 1 for a detailed review.

⁶ Ruth Wood and Shaista Shirazi, “A Systematic Review of Audience Response Systems for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: The Student Experience” (2020) 153 Computers & Education, Article 103896.

⁷ See Kjetil Egelandsdal and Rune Johan Krumsvik, “Clicker Interventions at University Lectures and the Feedback Gap” (2019) 14 Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 70; Kjetil Egelandsdal and Rune Johan Krumsvik, “Clickers and Formative Feedback at University Lectures” (2017) 22 Education and Information Technologies 55; Kristine Ludvigsen, Rune Krumsvik and Bjarte Furnes, “Creating Formative Feedback Spaces in Large Lectures” (2015) 88 Computers & Education 48; Rune Johan Krumsvik and Kristine Ludvigsen, “Formative E-Assessment in Plenary Lectures” (2012) 7 Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 36.

⁸ See Habel and Stubbs (n 2); Elizabeth Anne Kirley, “Are We Ethically Bound to Use Student Engagement Technologies for Teaching Law?” (2015) 49 The Law Teacher 219, especially 229; Susan Park and Denise Farag, “Transforming the Legal Studies Classroom: Clickers and Engagement” (2015) 32 Journal of Legal Studies Education 47, especially 48–49.

⁹ Cormac McGrath and others, “Making the Case for Virtual Law Cases: Introducing an Innovative Way to Teach Law” (2021) 55 The Law Teacher 198.

¹⁰ Paul L Caron and Rafael Gely, “Taking Back the Law School Classroom: Using Technology to Foster Active Student Learning” (2004) 54 Journal of Legal Education 551.

¹¹ Caron and Gely (n 10) 565.

¹² Paul L Caron, “Teaching with Technology in the 21st Century Law School Classroom (The Future of Law Libraries Symposium, Thomson-West, 2006) (2006) U of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No 06-11.

¹³ Alison Skoyles and Erin Bloxsidge, “Have You Voted? Teaching OSCOLA with Mentimeter” (2017) 17 Legal Information Management 232.

¹⁴ Habel and Stubbs (n 2).

¹⁵ Beverley Steventon, Sukhninder Panesar and Jane Wood, “Moving the Law School into the Twenty-First Century – Embedding Technology into Teaching and Learning” (2014) 38 Journal of Further and Higher Education 107.

¹⁶ Steventon, Panesar and Wood (n 15) 126.

¹⁷ Park and Farag (n 8) 63 and 81–82.

¹⁸ Habel and Stubbs (n 2).

¹⁹ Catherine Easton, “An Examination of Clicker Technology Use in Legal Education” (2009) 3 Journal of Information, Law & Technology.

²⁰ Park and Farag (n 8) 82.

²¹ Lars Skjold Wilhelmsen, Juridisk fagdidaktikk (Fagbokforlaget 2014) 209; Kirley (n 8) 219; Marcus Smith, “Integrating Technology in Contemporary Legal Education” (2020) 54 The Law Teacher 209, 209.

²² The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) serves as a framework for comparing academic credits across higher education institutions within the European Union and other collaborating European nations. ECTS credits represents students’ learning achievements, based on defined learning outcomes, and their associated workload. Notably, 60 ECTS credits correspond to the equivalent of one year of full-time study. See https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/inclusive-and-connected-higher-education/european-credit-transfer-and-accumulation-system (visited 11.03.2024).

²³ Student self-study primarily involves reading textbooks and academic articles, as well as working on various assignments.

²⁴ Charles Teddlie and Abbas Tashakkori, Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (SAGE 2009) chapter 8 “Mixed Methods Research Designs”.

²⁵ Park and Farag (n 8) 90, Table 2.

²⁶ Hable and Stubbs (n 2).

²⁷ Zdeslav Hrepic, Dean A Zollman and N Sanjay Rebello, “Comparing Students’ and Experts’ Understanding of the Content of a Lecture” (2007) 16 Journal of Science Education and Technology 213, 222–23; Philip H Scott, Eduardo F Mortimer and Orlando G Aguiar, “The Tension between Authoritative and Dialogic Discourse: A Fundamental Characteristic of Meaning Making Interactions in High School Science Lessons” (2006) 90 Science Education 605.

²⁸ John Hattie and Helen Timperley, “The Power of Feedback” (2007) 77 Review of Educational Research 81; Kirley (n 8); Caron (n 12).

²⁹ See Kjetil Egelandsdal and Rune Johan Krumsvik, “Peer Discussions and Response Technology: Short Interventions, Considerable Gains” (2017) 12 Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 19; Egelandsdal and Krumsvik, “Clickers and Formative Feedback at University Lectures” (n 7); Egelandsdal and Krumsvik, “Clicker Interventions at University Lectures and the Feedback Gap” (n 7); Krumsvik and Ludvigsen (n 7); and Ludvigsen, Krumsvik and Furnes (n 7).

³⁰ Egelandsdal and Krumsvik, “Clicker Interventions at University Lectures and the Feedback Gap” (n 7) 82–83.

³¹ Anders Jonsson, “Facilitating Productive Use of Feedback in Higher Education” (2013) 14 Active Learning in Higher Education 63.

³² See also Valerie J Shute, “Focus on Formative Feedback” (2008) 78 Review of Educational Research 153 for a review on feedback and students orientation towards learning.

³³ See Amy M Shapiro and others, “Clickers Can Promote Fact Retention but Impede Conceptual Understanding: The Effect of the Interaction between Clicker Use and Pedagogy on Learning” (2017) 111 Computers & Education 44.

³⁴ Henry L Roediger III and Jeffrey D Karpicke, “The Power of Testing Memory: Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice” (2006) 1 Perspectives on Psychological Science 181.

³⁵ Egelandsdal and Krumsvik “Peer Discussions and Response Technology: Short Interventions, Considerable Gains” (2017), (n 28); MK Smith and others, “Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions” (2009) 323(5910) Science 122; MK Smith and others, “Combining Peer Discussion with Instructor Explanation Increases Student Learning from In-Class Concept Questions” (2011) 10 CBE – Life Sciences Education 55.

³⁶ This finding is consistent with previous studies in legal education, emphasising the benefits of student-active lectures; see Habel and Stubbs (n 2).

³⁷ Evan F Risko and others, “Everyday Attention: Variation in Mind Wandering and Memory in a Lecture” (2012) 26 Applied Cognitive Psychology 234; Cain, Black and Rohr (n 4); Rush and others (n 4); Sun (n 4).

³⁸ Christy Boscardin and William Penuel, “Exploring Benefits of Audience-Response Systems on Learning: A Review of the Literature” (2012) 36 Academic Psychiatry 401; Robin H Kay and Ann LeSage, “Examining the Benefits and Challenges of Using Audience Response Systems: A Review of the Literature” (2009) 53 Computers & Education 819; Shawn M Keough, “Clickers in the Classroom: A Review and a Replication” (2012) 36 Journal of Management Education 822; Michael E Lantz, “The Use of ‘Clickers’ in the Classroom: Teaching Innovation or Merely an Amusing Novelty?” (2010) 26 Computers in Human Behavior 556.

³⁹ Boscardin and Penuel (n 37); Kay and LeSage (n 37); Keough (n 37); Lantz (n 37).

⁴⁰ Kjetil Egelandsdal, “Universitetsforelesningen og Responsteknologi” (2020) 43 UNIPED 117, 123.

⁴¹ Habel and Stubbs (n 2).

⁴² See Easton (n 19) section 2.2.3.

⁴³ See also Park and Farag (n 8) 78.

⁴⁴ Wilhelmsen (n 21) 210.

⁴⁵ Caron (n 12) section I.

⁴⁶ Park and Farag (n 8) 65–67.

⁴⁷ Caron (n 12) section I.

⁴⁸ Caron (n 12) section I; Park and Farag (n 8) 85.

⁴⁹ Easton (n 19) section 2.2.2.

⁵⁰ See eg Habel and Stubbs (n 2); Kirley (n 8).

⁵¹ Michael Prince, “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research” (2004) 93 Journal of Engineering Education 223, 229.

⁵² Hrepic, Zollman and Rebello (n 26) 222.