This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 09 October 2014, At: 08:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Law TeacherPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ralt20

Engaging school pupils inuniversity study to informdegree intentionAdelyn L.M. Wilson aa Lecturer in Law and Legal History, Director of theCivil Law Centre , University of Aberdeen School ofLaw , Taylor Building, Aberdeen , AB24 3UB , UKPublished online: 24 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Adelyn L.M. Wilson (2013) Engaging school pupils inuniversity study to inform degree intention, The Law Teacher, 47:2, 215-233, DOI:10.1080/03069400.2013.790157

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2013.790157

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Law Teacher, 2013Vol. 47, No. 2, 215–233, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2013.790157

Engaging school pupils in university studyto inform degree intention

Adelyn L.M. Wilson*

Lecturer in Law and Legal History, Director of the Civil Law Centre, University ofAberdeen School of Law, Taylor Building, Aberdeen AB24 3UB, UK

Selection of an inappropriate degree intention is a principal cause of stu-dents withdrawing from university study. Law schools face particular prob-lems because most applicants will not have studied law previously and socannot form informed opinions about whether it is a suitable degree inten-tion for them. The University of Aberdeen School of Law piloted a schemewhereby nine final-year school pupils attended a compulsory module ofthe LLB programme, allowing them to study on-campus as if they werefirst-year law students. This experience was successful in allowing them tomake informed decisions regarding their degree intention (thus aiding stu-dent retention), with two-thirds going on to matriculate as law studentsand a third deciding law was not appropriate for them after all. The pupilsalso noted various other benefits, including increased confidence in theirability to transition into university effectively. The scheme also promotedthe university to the pupils, all but two of whom have come to Aberdeenfor their degree. This pilot project thus has implications for retention, tran-sition, and early engagement of students. It may also serve as a mechanismfor blending school and university study with the view to saving repeatlearning at e.g. Scottish Curriculum and Qualifications Framework (SCQF)level seven.

1. Introduction

The selection of an appropriate degree intention is a choice critical to thefuture of a university applicant. Yet, because law is generally taught neither inschools nor further education colleges, a typical applicant to the law degreehas no experience of legal study. He therefore has no basis for making aninformed decision or forming reasonable expectations about the degree pro-gramme; this has implications for the student and the university. The Universityof Aberdeen School of Law runs a pilot scheme whereby local school pupilsattend a core module of the LLB programme. Initial findings support the con-clusion that this method of engagement with university-level legal study canbe successful in assisting pupils in deciding whether law is a suitable degree for

*Email: adelyn.wilson@abdn.ac.uk

© 2013 The Association of Law Teachers

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

216 Adelyn L.M. Wilson

them, and in forming realistic and informed expectations as they transition intouniversity study.

2. Importance of the selection of degree intention as a factor in studentretention

The Higher Education Statistics Agency anticipates that fewer than 80% ofBritain’s undergraduate students will complete their degree programme.1

Selection of an inappropriate degree programme has frequently been found tobe an important factor in students withdrawing from their studies. Smith andNaylor concluded, from student records information for 1990–1992 drawn fromthe pre-1992 universities, that this “increased significantly” the likelihood thata student would withdraw.2 A more recent analysis by Claire Carney of with-drawal forms at the University of Glasgow showed that 10% of leavers citedacademic grounds, most frequently that “they had either chosen the wrongcourse or they were not enjoying the course they were on”.3 Carney notesthat, of the respondents to a post-withdrawal questionnaire, “wrong choice ofcourse, course not meeting expectations, the way course was taught and notenough academic support outside of lectures were the most influential [factors]in deciding to withdraw from university”.4 Steve May and Mary Bousted alsofound that analysis of retention figures at Kingston University “show[ed] thatwithdrawn students cited course related issues as the strongest factors lead-ing to their withdrawal from University”.5 Bernard Longden and Mantz Yorkefound that selection of an unsuitable degree intention was a particular prob-lem with younger students when compared with mature students;6 this is inkeeping with the earlier findings of Yorke and others.7

Part of this problem relates to the student having unmet expectations.Indeed, Carney found that 42% of her respondents said that study at the uni-versity had not met their initial expectations.8 May and Bousted concludedthat this was most likely to cause a student to withdraw from their studies in

1Higher Education Statistics Agency, “Non-Continuation Rates (Including Projected Outcomes)”,especially at Table T5. Available at http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2064&Itemid=141 (accessed 25 June 2012).2J.P. Smith and R.A. Naylor, “Dropping Out of University: A Statistical Analysis of the Probability ofWithdrawal for UK University Students” (2001) 164(2) Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A389–405, at p. 403.3C. Carney, “Withdrawn Student Analysis” (2004), at pp. 3–4, 14–15. Unpublished, but available atwww.gla.ac.uk/media/media_9244_en.doc (accessed 30 April 2013).4Carney, supra n. 3, at pp. 5, 19–21.5S. May and M. Bousted, “Shall I Stay or Shall I Go? Students Who Leave Kingston University inSemester One” (2003) 4(2) Educational Developments 19–21, at p. 19.6B. Longden and M. Yorke, The First-Year Experience of Higher Education in the UK , Higher EducationAcademy Final Report (York, Higher Education Academy, 2008) at p. 45.7M. Yorke, M. Bell, A. Dove, E. Haslam, H. Hughes-Jones, B. Longden, C. O’Connell, R. Typuszak andJ. Ward, Undergraduate Non-Completion in Higher Education in England, Higher Education FundingCouncil for England Report 97/29 (Bristol, Higher Education Funding Council for England, 1997).8Carney, supra n. 3, at pp. 5, 19–21.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Law Teacher 217

the first semester of their first year.9 But it is not always clear that a student’sexpectations of their subject and degree programme are reasonable or accu-rate. Longden and Yorke note that choosing the correct course necessitates “asignificant level of personal research”. However, even institutional visits, con-sultation of the National Student Survey (NSS), league tables, and other toolsmay fail to give the applicant sufficient information to allow him to make a fullyinformed decision as to his degree intention and choice of institution.10

Applicants to law degrees are even more unlikely to have an accurate under-standing of what legal study entails because law is generally not taught inschools or further education colleges. Applicants are thus peculiarly unableto make informed decisions about their degree intention. Although initiativesacross Britain aim to introduce potential applicants to the various careers withinlegal practice,11 these still do not demonstrate the realities of studying lawat university. This difficulty is reflected in the withdrawal rate of students: theHigher Education Statistics Agency found that 6.2% of entrants under 24 yearsof age to full-time law degrees as their first degree in 2009–2010 were nolonger in higher education in 2010–2011.12 Although lower than that of someother disciplines, the rate of student withdrawal from law degrees is still wor-ryingly high given it can be “one of the most difficult, traumatic, saddest anddisappointing periods of their lives”.13

3. Engagement of school pupils at the University of Aberdeen Schoolof Law

A recent review at the University of Aberdeen showed that the student reten-tion rate for the LLB degree programme is favourably comparable to thenational averages just discussed: the aggregate annual withdrawal rate (of stu-dents under 24 years of age and mature students) is 1 in 13, circa 7%.14 Inline with the research set out above, common reasons cited by leavers fromAberdeen include that the programme did not match expectations, lack of

9S. May and M. Bousted, “Investigation into Retention through an Analysis of the First YearExperience of Students at Kingston University”, at p. 1. Unpublished, but available at www.staffs.ac.uk/access-studies/docs/Amster-paperSM(1).doc (accessed 25 June 2012).10Longden and Yorke, supra n. 6, at pp. 45–47.11For example, 2000 pupils participate annually in the Bar National Mock Trial Competition, in whichschool teams act as advocates (courtroom lawyers) and other court personnel in mock criminalcases; see http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/main/comps.php?21 (accessed 5 April 2012).Lawyers in Schools is a different scheme, which promotes partnerships between schools and localfirms of solicitors (a different branch of the legal profession) to engage pupils with certain areas oflaw; see http://www.lawyersinschools.org.uk/ (accessed 5 April 2012).12Higher Education Statistics Agency, supra n. 1, especially at Tables SN1 and SN2. The Agencyfound that 16.3% of mature entrants were not in higher education a year later. Further study maybe required to determine whether the findings of Yorke and others are correct for law students.13Carney, supra n. 3, at p. 6.14University of Aberdeen Management Group Report: Undergraduate Student Retention(2008), unpublished but available at www.abdn.ac.uk/cref/uploads/files/umg%20140108%20%20Retention.doc (accessed 25 June 2012).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

218 Adelyn L.M. Wilson

enjoyment of the subject, or the perception that it was overly challenging.15

These problems can in many cases be regarded as aspects of the selection ofan inappropriate degree intention and uninformed expectations.

The School of Law thus launched a scheme to engage local final-year schoolpupils with university-level legal study. The pupils are admitted into a com-pulsory level-one course from the LLB programme. The course is taught in thefirst semester, which runs from mid-September to mid-December. Pupils’ directexperience of studying at the university and participating in student life canthen be used to make informed decisions as to their future degree intentionwhen applying to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) intime for the January deadline. They will also have formed realistic expectationsof what legal study entails and learned the legal knowledge and study andrevision skills that they need to transition effectively.

The course, Foundations of Private Law, teaches learners the principles ofproperty law, contract law and delict (tort in England and Wales). It also pro-vides them with an understanding of the framework and system of private law,and shows them how to apply legal rules to complex legal situations. Learningfoundational principles and the system of private law will provide the pupilswith a platform of knowledge on which to build when embarking on a full lawdegree. They will also have learned a method of applying legal principles andauthorities to resolve legal problems. The course is compulsory for the degreeprogramme at Aberdeen and feeds directly into the learning on core modules.However, it is not a qualifying course and is not prescribed by our accredit-ing body, the Law Society of Scotland. Studying this course will therefore notconflict with qualifying or compulsory courses on law programmes at other uni-versities should the pupils go on to study law elsewhere. That this course standson its own makes it a particularly good choice for the purpose of the scheme.

The course is taught on campus, so the pupils attend lectures and tutorials.The pupils are integrated fully into the 250-strong class of students, compris-ing LLB students, MA Legal Studies students, and students studying otherprogrammes who take the course as an enhanced study elective under theuniversity’s reformed curriculum.16 This gives participating pupils a realistic,authentic impression of life as a typical law student and allows the pupils tobuild contacts within the law and wider student community.

Indeed, pupils participating in the scheme have the opportunity to expe-rience fully student and campus life. They are registered within the existingframework as “associate students” at the university. As such, they have access toall university facilities – libraries, careers services, support services, IT facilities,sports facilities, etc. – and are free to join student societies to make contacts

15D.L. Lessels, “Retention in the School of Law”, paper presented at the 12th Annual College of Artsand Social Sciences Learning and Teaching Forum, University of Aberdeen, 30 June 2010.16On which, see the University of Aberdeen Curriculum Reform Project, available at http://www.abdn.ac.uk/curriculum-reform (accessed 26 June 2012).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Law Teacher 219

and get a flavour of wider student life. They are also allocated an adviser ofstudies, a member of academic staff within the law school who supervises theircurriculum and offers pastoral and other support if and when required.

Participation in the scheme should provide significant benefit irrespectiveof whether the pupils then choose to continue with legal study. They can iden-tify whether law is a suitable degree intention. More generally, they will knowwhether university and on-campus study suit them, whether at Aberdeen orelsewhere. Without participating in this scheme, they might only have learnedthis after matriculating on to a full degree; participation would thus have savedthem the cost and stress of a false start at university. Presuming they decideto enter university education, they will have already had the opportunity tolearn methods of study generally applicable across the disciplines, such astaking lecture and tutorial notes. Finally, their application to any universitywill be strengthened by their having already proved themselves capable atstudying at university level. Indeed, should they pass the course, the pupilswill receive 15 credits which can be transferred to any degree programme atany European university under the European Credit Transfer and AccumulationScheme (ECTS).17

This scheme can be contrasted with the A-level in law. This has been referredto as a “soft” or “non-preferred” A-level subject, and has received a mixedresponse from university admissions departments. It can be on a list of A-levelswhich are “not necessarily perceived as the best preparation, due to [their]vocational content”.18 However, it does appear to be an exaggeration to statethat having an A-level in law precludes entry into a leading university,19 andattitudes to the A-level in law seem to be changing.20 These issues do notarise with Aberdeen’s scheme. Highers, the qualifications on which universi-ties assess Scottish applicants, are earned in the penultimate school year. Thus,Aberdeen’s course is taken in addition to rather than as one of the coursesrequired for entry. The selection criteria for entrance on to the scheme ensurethat the participating pupils are already admittable on to the LLB programme.

17On which, see the European Commission on the European Credit Transfer and Accumu-lation Scheme, available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/ects_en.htm(accessed 26 June 2012).18LSE’s entry requirements, available at http://www2.lse.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/howtoapply/lseentryrequirements.aspx (accessed 11 February 2013).19Toby Young, “It’s Official: If You Do A-levels in Media Studies or Law You Won’t Get into aTop University”, The Telegraph, 4 February 2013, available at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100074686/its-official-if-you-do-a-levels-in-media-studies-or-law-you-wont-get-into-a-top-university/ (accessed 11 February 2013). Cf. Informed Choices: A Russell Group Guide to MakingDecisions about Post-16 Education (2012), at pp. 2, 6–29, available at http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/media/informed-choices/InformedChoices-latest.pdf (accessed 11 February 2013); LSE’s entryrequirements, supra n. 18.20Policy Exchange, The Hard Truth about Soft Subjects, at pp. 8–9, available at http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/the-hard-truth-about-soft-subjects (accessed11 February 2013).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

220 Adelyn L.M. Wilson

4. Selection of participating secondary schools and pupils

It is important that the pupils’ secondary education is not adversely affected bytheir participation in the scheme; this is ensured by the selection criteria. First,as the pupils have to travel to the campus for classes during the school day,time spent travelling between their school and the university must be short.Therefore, only secondary schools within 20 minutes of the university (by footor along regular public transportation routes) were invited to participate. Thisincluded six schools: an independent school and five state-funded schools. Thethree schools which agreed to participate in the scheme are Robert Gordon’sCollege, Aberdeen Grammar School, and St Machar Academy. The other schoolsapproached either did not respond to or declined the invitation to participate.

Secondly, any pupils participating in the scheme have to meet three crite-ria. These reflect the scheme’s aim to help those who intend to read law afterleaving school make an informed decision as to their degree intention; the aimis not to help pupils gain entrance to a law programme. The first criterion is thatany pupil wishing to participate should be able to attend at least two out ofthe course’s three weekly lectures as well as a fortnightly tutorial. This ensuresthat they can meaningfully participate in the scheme without making signifi-cant changes to their school timetables or subject choices. The second criterionis that they should intend to study law at university after leaving school. Thefinal criterion is that they must have achieved already in their penultimate yearthe Law School’s minimum entrance requirements of AABB at Higher, which areabout average for a Scottish law school.21 This third criterion ensures that anypupil participating does actually have a reasonable chance of obtaining a placeon a law degree programme. Those who did not achieve these requirements areexcluded: most Scottish law schools advertise higher entrance requirements ifqualifications are taken over two years,22 so pupils who did not achieve AABBin their penultimate year would be better focusing on their final-year schoolstudies with the aim of achieving these. Selection of individual pupils is there-after the prerogative of the secondary school, which can thus ensure that it issatisfied in the case of each pupil that participation is appropriate.

Two pupils participated in the first year of the pilot scheme, 2010–2011.Both made good progress on the course and used the knowledge they acquiredto prepare for pre-law entrance exams and interviews at other universities.After leaving school, both matriculated at other Scottish law schools. In itssecond year, 2011–2012, nine pupils enrolled on the course. The learning and

21As at 16 July 2012, the advertised entrance requirements for a place on a qualifying law degreeare: Universities of Glasgow and Strathclyde, AAAAB; University of Edinburgh typical entrancerequirements, AAAA; Glasgow Caledonian University, AABBB; Universities of Aberdeen, Dundeeand Stirling, AABB; Robert Gordon University, ABBB; Edinburgh Napier University and AbertayUniversity, BBBB.22At Aberdeen, for example, this is currently BBBB in the penultimate year as well as an aggregateof not less than AABBB or ABBBBB over the penultimate and final years.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Law Teacher 221

progress on the course of the pupils was monitored throughout. This allowedconclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of the scheme.

5. Methods used to collect data on the pupils’ progress

5.1. Measuring the pupils’ subjective progress

It was intended that the pupils’ subjective perception of their performancewould be monitored by two methods. The first was by entries made in learningjournals on our virtual learning environment, myAberdeen. Learning journalswere selected from various appraisal tools because they also work as a reflectivelearning aid,23 offered an open forum for feedback for the pupils, and assistedcourse staff to identify and resolve quickly any issues arising. The journal envi-ronment was designed taking account of the relevant pedagogy on format,24

entry schedule,25 provision of guidelines,26 and teaching/research ethics.27

However, despite frequent reminders and strong encouragement, the pupilsdid not maintain their journals as had been hoped; only one pupil made a shortentry. More emphasis was therefore placed on the second method of monitor-ing their perceptions: open, reflective discussion with the course coordinator.Regular discussion was had between the course coordinator and the pupils.Initially the course coordinator met the pupils as a group after lectures, butlater this discussion tended to be more informal and took place with individualor smaller groups of pupils after classes. By analysing this data, an impressionwas had of the pupils’ subjective perception of their progress throughout thecourse.

5.2. Fortnightly tutorials

The course has four fortnightly tutorials: tutor-led small group teaching facili-tating problem-based learning.28 Learning of knowledge and skills is supported

23S. Hain and A. Back, “Learning Journal – Weblogs in Academic Courses”, in D. Remenyi (ed),Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on e-Learning, University of Cape Town, South Africa,26–27 June 2008 (Reading, Academic Publishing, 2008) p. 197, at p. 200; J.A. Moon, LearningJournals: A Handbook for Reflective Practice and Professional Development (2nd ed, Abingdon,Routledge, 2006) at p. 19.24Moon, supra n. 23, at p. 3.25Hain and Back, supra n. 23, at p. 199.26S.D. Brookfield, The Skillful Teacher: On Technique, Trust, and Responsiveness in the Classroom (2nded, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2006), at pp. 39–41. Hain and Back, supra n. 23, at pp. 200–201. M.Talbot: “Learning Journals for Evaluation of Group-Based Learning”, in L. Thorley and R. Gregory(eds) Using Group Based Learning in Higher Education (London, Kogan Page, Teaching and Learningin Higher Education Series, 1994) p. 105, at pp. 108–109. Moon, supra n. 23, at ch. 12.27For example because the pupils were vulnerable people, the journals were closed-access. Theresult of this was that the pupils did not get the kind of reflective discourse enjoyed by keepingopen-access journals (on which, see Hain and Back, supra n. 23, at pp. 197–198). However, face-to-face discussion in with staff and in tutorials was used to replicate this kind of discourse.28Consistent with the tripartite definition of H.J. Walton and M.B. Matthews (“Essentials of ProblemBased Learning” (1989) 23 Medical Education 542–558) but not as prescriptive as H.G. Schmidt’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

222 Adelyn L.M. Wilson

by using lecture material to collaboratively work towards the resolution of legalproblems, which become increasing complicated as the course progresses.29

The problems were designed to both enhance and test the learners’ knowledgeand ability to apply legal rules. Early problems concerned property law only, butnecessitated the application of different legal rules to identify and resolve dif-ferent stages of a problem. In later problems, learners had to unpick complexfactual situations and apply relevant rules from all areas of private law, identi-fying proprietary interests, contractual obligations, delictual implications andappropriate remedies. There were 26 tutorial groups, run by three tutors: thecourse’s two lecturers, and a graduate teaching assistant. Groups had an aver-age of 10 enrolled learners.30 The pupils were given the opportunity to signup for a particular tutorial group before the lists were made available to thestudents. This meant that the pupils could arrange their tutorials around schooland other commitments. This was a more pressing concern with the pupils thanwith the students, as tutorial slots had already been set to allow a coherent andmanageable timetable for law students. Many of the pupils chose to attendgroups which ran after school hours, and friends often enrolled together sosome groups had more than one pupil. After the pupils were enrolled in tutorialgroups, the remaining places were then offered to the students. Tutorial dis-cussions revealed to what extent the pupils (individually and collectively) knewand understood the material, had learned skills to apply knowledge to resolveproblems, and had the confidence to contribute to the group environment. Thetutorials provided an opportunity to observe the progress made by the pupilsas well as their interaction with the students in each class.

5.3. First compulsory formative assessment

Our first formative assessment was a 20-question, multiple choice test taken viamyAberdeen at the end of Week 3 of teaching, which concluded the teachingon property law. The multiple choice format was chosen to: allow assessmentof a range of areas of knowledge; ensure quick turnaround for marking andfeedback, which was provided automatically on completion of the test; andoffer practice in answering multiple choice questions, which would compriseone-third of the summative degree exam. Multiple choice questions allow theassessment of both factual knowledge and high cognitive reasoning.31 At this

Seven Step PBL Process (“Problem Based Learning: Rationale and Description” (1983) 17 MedicalEducation 11–16).29H.S. Barrows and R.M. Tamblyn, Problem Based Learning: An Approach to Medical Education(New York, Springer, 1980) at p. 12.30Cf. A. Booth, “Assessing Group Work”, in A. Booth and P. Hyland (eds), History in Higher Education:New Directions in Teaching and Learning (Oxford, Blackwell, 1996) pp. 276–297, who recommendedsix per tutorial group.31G. Nicholls, Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (London, Kogan Page, 2002)at p. 123; A.H. Miller, B.W. Imrie and K. Cox, Student Assessment in Higher Education: A Handbookfor Assessing Performance (London, Kogan Page, 1998) at p. 145; E.G. Ralph, Pursuing InstructionalEffectiveness in Higher Education: It’s About Time (New York, Nova Science, 2003) at pp. 106, 111.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Law Teacher 223

stage, however, not all the learners on the course would have attended atutorial. Assessment of their knowledge of legal rules rather than their ability toapply them was thus critical. The first formative assessment was thus designed(in accordance with Nicholls’ framework32) to test knowledge only. The assess-ment’s results allowed the learners to identify areas of weakness in theirknowledge of property law, and feedback was designed to aid them in address-ing this issue before moving on to study contract law. The assessment alsoprovided the first opportunity to evaluate objectively the progress of the pupils,allowing their overall grades and the nature of their mistakes to be analysed.

5.4. Second compulsory formative assessment

The second formative assessment was taken in Week 10. Tutorials and lectureson substantive law had concluded; teaching now focused on the historical tra-dition of law. The learners’ legal knowledge should have been complete. Thisassessment therefore allowed determination of the progress of the pupils atthe end of the teaching of substantive law but before revision for the degreeexam probably started in earnest. The assessment was a problem solving ques-tion, based on a question from a previous exam paper. This format was chosento: assess learners’ understanding of specific legal rules as well as the interac-tion of areas of private law; assess their ability to apply legal rules to complexsituations; ensure the provision of detailed feedback that would allow learn-ers to prepare for the degree exam; and offer practice in answering problemsolving questions, which comprised one-third of the degree exam. Using a pre-vious question ensured realistic expectations as to the summative exam’s leveland format.

To most first-year law students, problem solving questions represent “anew genre, quite different from essays, which all students [have] to master”.33

Practice in answering problem solving questions in the context of discussionwas had during tutorials. Copies of the previous year’s formative assessmentand sample answer, and degree exam script and accompanying feedback wereprovided via myAberdeen to help students prepare further and self-test. Afterthe assessment, feedforward and feedback was provided by the return of thecandidates’ scripts with annotations and commentary and a sample answeruploaded on myAberdeen.

5.5. Summative assessment

The course’s only summative assessment was the degree exam held in January.It comprised a three-part paper answered in two hours.34 Part one was

32Nicholls, supra n. 31, at p. 120.33C. Beasley, “Letter of the Law”, in G. Crosling and G. Webb (eds), Supporting Student Learning: CaseStudies, Experience & Practice from Higher Education (London, Kogan Page, 2002) p. 140, at p. 144.34Although some students had increments of extra time in recognition of disabilities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

224 Adelyn L.M. Wilson

30 multiple choice questions, testing legal knowledge and high cognitivereasoning.35 In part two, candidates had to solve one of a choice of two problemsolving questions. Part three was a choice of two essay questions on the histori-cal tradition of law. All parts were equally weighted. Use of multiple assessmentmethods allowed testing of candidates’ knowledge and skills in relation to thecourse’s full list of intended learning outcomes, ensuring constructive align-ment. To ensure fairness and accuracy of assessment, the exam paper and 15%of the course’s scripts (including two of those by pupils) were sent to our exter-nal examiner. Post-assessment feedback was given by a feedback lecture, heldaround two weeks after the exam.

6. The progress of the pupils

6.1. Weeks 1 to 2

Administrative complications meant some of the pupils’ access to myAberdeenwas delayed. This was remedied promptly, and measures were introduced toprevent this issue arising in future years. However, this delay prevented thesepupils from keeping learning journals from the beginning of the course. Thislikely contributed to their general reluctance to use them throughout. In placeof the learning journals, the course staff met with the pupils regularly. This seta precedent of communication with the lecturers which continued throughoutthe duration of the course. The first meeting with the pupils occurred on the dayof the first lecture. This allowed the pupils from the different schools to meet,and allowed course staff to get an impression of the pupils’ initial expectations.The school holidays and other timetabling arrangements had meant that it hadbeen possible to visit only one school in advance of the pupils starting. Thepupils from the other schools, although evidently excited if a little apprehen-sive, had less concrete expectations: they knew that they were going to studyprivate law, but were not very sure what that was, and did not really knowwhat to expect from the teaching of the course. This highlighted the impor-tance of ensuring that each school was visited prior to the pupils arriving at theuniversity.

As the first two weeks progressed, several points were made by the pupilsin discussion with course staff. First, they indicated that they were enjoyingthe course and the experience of being at the university. Secondly, they notedthat they initially felt slightly awkward arriving at lectures in school uniform.Those pupils whose uniform consisted of black trousers or skirt and a shirttended to remove school blazers, ties and jumpers so as to make themselvesless recognisable as school pupils. However, some but not all of those whoseuniform was more distinctive (some of the girls’ uniforms included tartan kilts)brought casual clothes with them and changed before lectures. Thirdly, the

35Nicholls, supra n. 31, p. 123; Miller et al., supra n. 31, p. 145; Ralph, supra n. 31, at pp. 106 and 111.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Law Teacher 225

pupils tended to sit together in the initial lectures, not really integrating withthe student body at this stage. Fourthly, regarding their learning, the pupilsrevealed that although most felt they understood the material some had expe-rienced some difficulty with specific legal concepts. These difficulties weregenerally resolved quickly through discussion with the course staff. Finally,some initially expressed concern about how to best take notes in lectures. Theadvice they received was that each student needs to find the way best suited totheir method of learning, and were directed to various methods to try: down-loading the PowerPoint slides in advance and annotating them in the lecture,writing notes in a single volume with lectures at the front and tutorials at theback, recording lectures to listen to later, writing notes and copying them on tocomputer later, taking a laptop into class, etc. These pupils noted by the endof Week 2 that they had found a method which suited their learning styles.In these last two points, the pupils’ experience and concerns seemed to bemuch akin to those of their student counterparts.

6.2. Weeks 3 to 4

At this point all but a couple of the pupils had overcome any initial hesitancyto discuss their perceptions and progress honestly and fully with staff. Somecommented indirectly that they had felt this hesitancy because they were wor-ried that, if they were seen not to be excelling, this might have an impact ontheir participation in the scheme. Most of the pupils’ reflections during thisperiod related to the first tutorials and the first formative assessment. Theassessment also allowed objective measuring of the pupils’ progress, whilethe tutorials allowed course staff to draw subjective conclusions on the pupils’progress.

The course coordinator spoke informally with some of the pupils in advanceof their first tutorial. It was clear that they were quite excited but felt someapprehension about their first tutorial. This anxiety seemed to relate partly totheir having to apply the legal rules to the hypothetical problems and partlyto having to do so in a small group setting in front of students whom they didnot know. These apprehensions, which could relate to a lack of confidence intheir ability or knowledge and in their own personal confidence, are witnessedoften in participatory or interactive teaching and were observed generally inour undergraduate students also. However, these anxieties did not dissuadethe pupils from attending the tutorials. Seven of the nine pupils attended thefirst cycle of tutorials. The course staff felt that all seven pupils displayed agood knowledge of most legal rules, and that there was no discernible differ-ence in the ability and knowledge of the pupils and the other students in thetutorial groups. Further, all the pupils participated in the discussion to someextent. Even when the pupils offered an interpretation which was not correct,this did not discourage them from coming forward again later in the session;they had thus managed their apprehension about speaking in front of a room

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

226 Adelyn L.M. Wilson

of students. At the end of the one-hour class the pupils all indicated that theyfelt more confident in their knowledge and in their abilities.

The staff’s perception of the pupils’ progress was confirmed by the resultsof the first formative assessment. One pupil did not submit the assessment.Five of the pupils (56%) were able to answer correctly 18 to 20 out of 20 ques-tions. One (11%) answered 15 to 17 questions correctly. Two (22%) answered12 to 14 questions correctly. None of the pupils who submitted the assessmentanswered fewer than 12 questions correctly. To put these results in perspective,it is worth noting that the pupils’ collective performance was approximatelyin keeping with that of the student body. Thirty-nine per cent of the studentsanswered correctly 18 to 20 questions, so a higher percentage of the pupilsreceived a top grade. Forty per cent of the students answered correctly 15 to17 questions, and 13% 12 to 14 questions. It could therefore be said that thepupils performed better overall than the students, as a higher percentage ofthem received top marks and none answered fewer than 12 questions correctly.The pupils who reflected on their performance in the formative assessmentseemed generally pleased with their marks, and generally understood from thefeedback how they could improve their marks in the future. One pupil had evi-dently paid particular attention to this, and noted that his principal problemhad been not reading some of the questions carefully enough.

The pupils also reflected on the change in the topic covered in the lectures.The block of teaching on property law finished at the end of Week 3 of lectures;the block on contract law began in Week 4. Around half the pupils found thenew material harder, and the other half found the new material easier to under-stand. Their perceptions of the difficulty of the new material had an impact ontheir perceptions of their competence as potential law students, and on theirconfidence in their learning. Overall, however, the pupils intimated that theiroverall confidence on the course was increasing. They felt like they were begin-ning to understand the legal concepts taught, and had found that – if theyhad not understood something in a lecture – discussion with staff, the otherpupils on the scheme, or revision using the textbook or e-learning materialswere successful in resolving this. They also noted that they were coping withthe workload, and managing to keep up with the pace of the class and requiredpreparation.

On a less positive note, the pupils intimated that they were increasinglyconcerned about the detrimental effect that missing lectures and tutorials hadon their learning. This was a particular problem for some pupils, as the schoolswere on their October break. Whereas for some this meant that more time couldbe diverted to their university studies, this represented a significant challengeto those whose families had arranged holidays during this period. One pupilin particular expressed concern about this, as she missed almost two weeksof classes as a result of such travel. However, those pupils who missed only asmall number of classes were more confident in their ability to catch up on workmissed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Law Teacher 227

6.3. Weeks 5 to 8

Discussion with the pupils showed that some were managing with the mate-rial on contract law well, but others still found the content more challeng-ing. Individual pupils also started intimating concern about their perceivedprogress or understanding from Week 5, although initially these concerns gen-erally related to issues with the material that were easily resolved throughdiscussion. However, by Week 8, more of the pupils were expressing concernthat they were starting to feel overwhelmed.

The problems in the second and third cycles of tutorials combined propertylaw with an increasing amount of contract law. As such, the pupils near-universally said that they had found them harder to prepare in advance.However, being walked through the questions, applying the methodology, theyindicated that they were much more confident at the end of each tutorial hour.The pupils again performed at a level in keeping with that of the students inthese two cycles. Two in particular outperformed the students in those par-ticular groups. One indicated that a relatively light class schedule at school aswell as a strong desire to achieve a top grade in the class meant that she hadprepared extensively for the two tutorials.

Finally, in Week 6, a pupil in one of the tutorial groups indicated that oneof the other pupils had decided that law was not for her and intended to leavethe course. As one of the aims of the scheme was to allow pupils to find outwhether they wanted to study law, this can be considered to be a successfuloutcome in this case.

6.4. Weeks 9 to 11

There were no lectures in Week 9, so learners could revise the material on sub-stantive law – the teaching of which had ended in Week 8 – in preparation forthe second formative assessment in Week 10. In Weeks 10 and 11, the lecturesfocused on teaching the historical development of legal principle and thought.

Tutorials did continue during Week 9. This was the final cycle of tutorials.The problems combined property law, contract law, and delict. This had twoaims: it would build on learning of material across the substantive law block andthe method learned in earlier tutorials; and it would give a realistic expectationof what the nature of the problem questions would be like in the exam. In thistutorial, the pupils appeared to be relatively confident when working with thelegal material and in applying the relevant method. Indeed, they performedwell in this cycle, generally outperforming the students, whose attention waslikely diverted because other law courses were holding mock exams in Weeks 8and 9.

Discussion with the pupils over this two-week period showed that theyhad found “extremely useful” the practice of methodology in the lecturesand tutorials in preparation for the formative assessment. They were, how-ever, apprehensive about the formative assessment. The focus of discussion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

228 Adelyn L.M. Wilson

with them during this period concerned reflections on revision methodswhich they had been using to prepare, or clarifications of aspects of specificlegal rules.

The results of the second formative assessment confirmed that the pupilswere coping well with the material. Two pupils (25%) received an upper-second-class mark, two (25%) a lower-second-class mark, and three (37%) apass.36 Only one of the pupils (13%) failed the assessment. It transpired thatshe had struggled to attend the lectures as a result of family holidays, clasheswith her school timetable, and participation in extracurricular activities. Thepupils performed in this assessment at a level broadly consistent with thatof the students. Twenty per cent of the students received a first or upper-second-class mark, which is comparable to the 25% of pupils who received anupper-second-class mark. Twenty-five per cent of the students also receiveda lower-second-class mark; the same percentage of pupils also received thisclass of mark. Thirty-four per cent of the students received a pass mark, whichis very similar to the 37% of pupils who did so. The overall pass rate amongthe pupils was higher than that of the students on the course, at 87% and 75%respectively.

6.5. Summative assessment

The summative assessment – the degree exam – was held in January 2012.As outlined above, this had three equally weighted parts: a multiple choicesection, a problem solving question, and an essay question. The pass rate thisyear among the students was unusually high at 90%; the factors which con-tributed to this are being analysed in a separate examination. All the pupilspassed the course, although only one pupil (13%) received a mark higher thana pass, specifically an upper-second-class mark. Given the small sample size, thepupils performed at a level approximately consistent with that of the students.Overall, the students’ distribution of marks was: 7% failed, 38% received a third-class mark, 35% received a lower second, 18% an upper-second-class mark, and2% a first-class mark. Although none of the pupils received a lower-second-classmark, which might seem anomalous against the students’ marks, the 87% of thepupils who achieved a third can be compared broadly with the 73% of the stu-dents who received either a third-class or lower-second-class mark. However,the pupils’ results in the exam were not in keeping with their much better per-formance in the formative assessments. This was probably largely caused by theschools’ preliminary examinations coinciding with the university’s exam diet.This meant that the pupils had to revise for both sets of exams, whereas theyhad been able to focus more intensively on the previous assessments withoutthe same impact on their school studies.

36These terms are not strictly applicable at this level, but they are used here for ease of comparison.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Law Teacher 229

7. Evaluation of the scheme

The scheme’s aim was to allow pupils who wish to study law at universityto decide whether a law degree was suited to them, to provide them withinformed and realistic expectations about the degree and university study gen-erally, and to learn the legal knowledge and study and revision skills that theywould need to transition effectively from school to university. There were otherunintended and incidental advantages to participation.

In a meeting with most of the pupils in January, they noted various points inrelation to the scheme which indicate that this aim was met according to theirperspective; feedback from those pupils who did not attend the meeting con-firmed that they also held this view. All the pupils agreed unanimously that thescheme should be continued for future years. They were each confident thatlaw was or was not something that they wanted to study at university. Of thenine pupils who started, three realised that law was not for them; they havesince applied instead to different degree programmes. The pupil who with-drew from the course in Week 6 was one of these; the other two completedthe course and received 15 credits which will be transferred to their chosendegree programmes. For all three of these pupils, the scheme avoided themthe time, expense, and stress of learning that a law degree was not suited tothem after enrolling at university. However, six of the participating pupils wereby January confident that law was what they wanted to study at university.These six noted that they had received very positive feedback from universityadmissions departments, who had been impressed that the pupils had alreadyundertaken university-level study in law. The pupils were also delighted at hav-ing earned credits in law, and at having acquired foundational knowledge oflaw, before starting their law degree. The pupils further intimated that peerswho had not participated in this scheme were becoming apprehensive aboutchoosing the correct course, and that the pupils felt relieved that they did notface the same level of stress. Additionally, the pupils noted that their expecta-tions of what university study entailed – regarding workload and level – weremore realistic than they had been before participating in the pilot. They alsorecognised that the scheme had given them the chance to learn how to studyat university level given the increased autonomy from school. They noted thatit had helped them learn and practise new methods and techniques for note-taking and revision, and that they thought this had helped them in preparingfor their preliminary final-year exams also. Overall, they intimated that theyhad increased confidence in their ability to transition from school to univer-sity effectively as a result of the scheme. They said that they felt privileged tohave had a chance to participate, and felt this participation had given thema significant advantage in preparing for university; some of these perceivedadvantages were incidental to participation and had not been the aim of thescheme. Although not mentioned by the pupils at the meeting, it seems thatparticipation in the scheme may also have been a factor in the pupils’ choice ofuniversity. All eight who completed the course applied to study at Aberdeen;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

230 Adelyn L.M. Wilson

all but two accepted the places offered. Further information about the pupils’perceptions of their participation can be found in the four-page feature articleon the scheme in the Times Education Supplement for Scotland.37

The schools were also very positive about the scheme and the relationshipestablished with the School of Law. The deputy head at St Machar Academy,for example, said that the scheme was particularly useful for the pupils atthat school, because many of them would be first-generation university stu-dents and so had little information on which to base their expectations anddecisions.38 The pupil from St Machar Academy had gone on to speak to otherpupils at that school about university study, benefiting indirectly pupils whohad not participated in the scheme. The schools also indicated that they desirethat this be a continuing relationship, and expressed a desire to participate inthe scheme again.

Overall, the pilot scheme successfully met its aims this year. However, otherfactors had to be considered when evaluating the viability of continuing thescheme. For example, it would not be appropriate to continue the scheme if thepupils consistently performed at a level measurably lower than the students, asit might indicate that it was not reasonably possible to balance school commit-ments with this kind of course. However, monitoring showed that the pupilsperformed at a level consistent with the student body throughout the courseand all the pupils who completed it passed the exam. Further, the amount ofstaff time available to the students on the course and the grades received bythose students were also unaffected by the pilot scheme. Indeed, positive feed-back was received from the students about having the pupils join the class:those spoken to thought it was good that we were involving local schools togive opportunities like this to the pupils, and some recommended contactingtheir own former schools to see if they could become involved. Finally, it wouldbe inappropriate to continue to run the scheme at a significant cost. The feecharged was £95 per pupil; this was met by the schools or Individual LearningAccounts. This was a rate significantly reduced from the standard fee of £395,which represents the notional full economic cost of teaching the course toone learner. Therefore, in its first year, the scheme had a notional cost to theSchool of Law of £600; in its second year, this increased to a notional cost ofaround £2500. This was approved by the then Head of the School of Law, takingaccount of the positive impact of the scheme. This will continue to be reviewedon a year-to-year basis.

However, reflecting on the experience of coordinating the scheme gives aninsight into how to improve it. We have, for example, added to our criteria forconsideration for a pupil’s entry to the pilot scheme. In the first two years, we

37J. McLeish, “A Fresh Take on Freshers”, Times Educational Supplement for Scotland, 17 February2012. Also available at http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6179287 (accessed 22 March2012).38Ibid.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Law Teacher 231

asked only that pupils had the minimum entry requirements and wanted tostudy law at university after leaving school. However, three requirements havebeen added for 2012–2013; these criteria will be reviewed again at the end ofthat academic year.

First, an earlier and firmer deadline for receipt of applications was intro-duced. This last year, there were problems with the forms being received veryclose to or even after advising week and the start of the semester. This meantthat the applications had to be processed as the pupils started, so the uni-versity was under a moral pressure to accept pupils. This could have been aproblem if a pupil did not make the entrance requirement. It also put unfairpressure on the team which processed the applications. The late processing ofthe forms also meant that there were complications with the fees and that thepupils were late in being registered on myAberdeen, which complicated theirtaking the Week 3 online test. For 2012–2013, the deadline of 30 August wasintroduced on the basis of negotiation with the admissions department. Theschools were visited over the months of July and August to ensure that theseapplications were submitted in time. This stricter application deadline shouldyield more time to evaluate and process the applications, and give more timefor the schools and pupils to prepare for attending the course.

Another problem was the presence of external issues having an impacton the pupils’ studies, specifically: family holidays during the October break;school extracurricular activities, like participation in the school play; and schooltimetable clashes. It has thus been made clearer to the pupils that takingtime away from studies for extracurricular activities or holidays will meanthey will likely fall behind and may find it difficult to catch up on workmissed.

It was also suggested that a requirement be added that pupils be ableto attend all three lectures each week on the basis that the one pupil whofailed the December mock exam had struggled to attend the lectures due toclashes with her school timetable. However, this was rejected as it would likelyhave made participation in the scheme untenable for the schools. It has beenstressed that pupils who will miss lectures because of timetable clashes mustinform the course staff of the situation and ensure that they make time duringwhich they can catch up on missed work.

8. Development of the scheme in later years

This scheme is one of various initiatives run by or with the School of Law whichengage with local schools and pupils. Others include mentoring schemes,school visits, workshops, and campus visits. Taking account of all the schemes,every city-based secondary school either participates or has been invited toparticipate in one of the schemes. It is hoped that in future years, there will bemore opportunity to engage the same pupils in more than one scheme (e.g.pupils who attend a workshop in their penultimate year at school can then

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

232 Adelyn L.M. Wilson

participate in this scheme in their final year). Currently, this is not appropri-ate as this scheme is still in its infancy. Once the scheme is more established,the practicality of such integration will be reviewed taking account of resourceimplications, student numbers, and the logistics of pupils’ travel.

However, it should be possible to adapt this scheme to meet other aims.The History department at the University of Aberdeen intends to begin a sis-ter scheme to allow pupils to study history in the way it is taught at university(which can be quite different from how it is taught at school), with the same aimof allowing potential applicants to make an informed decision regarding theirdegree intention. A similar scheme run by the university’s College of PhysicalSciences converts undergraduate courses into distance learning courses (witha campus-based element). Schools which do not offer Advanced Highers in sci-ence courses can therefore supplement their course portfolio with those run bythe university.

The scheme may also be appropriate as a mechanism for saving repeatlearning. The Scottish government’s recent review of the provision of post-16 education recognised the need to improve “the efficiency and effectivenessof the learner journey”. One of the issues raised with the current system wasthe repetition of Scottish Curriculum and Qualifications Framework (SCQF)level seven or eight.39 This occurs when learners achieve Advanced Highersin their final year of secondary school or Higher National qualifications at afurther education college then matriculate into the first year of a universitydegree. The government states that after statutory reform “repetition of a levelwould be supported only where there is a compelling academic reason to doso”.40 Although this statement is principally concerned with progression of col-lege students, it could – and perhaps should – be applied equally to thoseprogressing to university from their final year at school.

Certain university programmes are already accepting new students withdirect entry into later years, and indeed the courses run by the College ofPhysical Science do enable this. Law, however, is a vocational degree accred-ited by the Law Society of Scotland. It does not allow direct entry into lateryears because it is generally not a subject on the school or college curriculum.This might satisfy as a “compelling academic reason” to require incoming lawstudents to repeat SCQF level-seven study. However, it may be possible – in lawand in other such subjects – to blend the final year at school and the first yearat university. The extent to which this might be possible is not clear, and indeedit may not be possible given the number of subjects required by the relevantaccrediting bodies. The pupils who have participated in this scheme will notmove into second-year studies, but will receive recognition of prior learning bycarrying the credits and getting exemption from sitting this course or, if going

39The Scottish Government, Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering Our Ambitions for Post-16 Education (Edinburgh, Scottish Government, 2011), especially at paragraphs 43–50.40Ibid., at paragraph 45.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The Law Teacher 233

to a different university, another 15-credit course. However, there is significantpotential in schemes of this type to complement or integrate secondary andtertiary-level studies.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank my Head of School (Anne-Michelle Slater), the staff at the threesecondary schools and the pupils who participated in the scheme for their permissionto publish this study. I would also like to thank Dr Darren Comber, Dr Andrew Simpsonand Anne-Michelle Slater for reading an earlier draft of this article.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:30

09

Oct

ober

201

4