The value which law teachers can gain from engaging with practical educational literature has been discussed in published articles. For example see KiftSally, ‘My law school: Then and now’ (2005–2006) 9Newcastle Law Review1, and KeyesMary and JohnstoneRichard, ‘Changing Legal Education: Rhetoric, Reality and Prospects for the Future’ (2004) 26(4) Sydney Law Review537. Please note however, that these articles also advocate that law teachers should actively engage with educational theory. This is not something I advocate. Communication of practical ideas in teaching as opposed to theorising is what I am emphasising here.
3.
See further: KearneyMary Kate, ‘Reflections on Good (Law) Teaching’2001(3) Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law835, 844.
4.
Le BrunMarlene and BondCarol, ‘Law Teaching Reconceptulised’6(1) Legal Education Review23, 34.
5.
KearneyMary Kate, ‘Reflections on Good (Law) Teaching’2001(3) Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law835, 842.
6.
JamesNick, ‘The Good Law Teacher: The Propagation of Pedagogicalism in Australian Legal Education’ (2004) 27(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal.
7.
However, I acknowledge that also these inaccurate ways of measuring teaching quality may result in some beneficial feedback to the academic in question.
Generally, evaluating teaching in Australian law schools (for about the past 20 years) has become a pedagogical analysis that involves compliance with a range of set criteria. This approach has standardised what has been viewed previously as mostly a subjective exercise in measuring something that has been traditionally thought of as unquantifiable. See: James, above n 6.
10.
See further LodishRichard, ‘The Essence of Good Teaching’ (2002) 37(3) International Society of Barristers Quarterly389, 340.
