1

Curriculum Renewal in Legal Education: Articulatin g Final Year Curriculum Design Principles and a Final Year Program

1. 1. Project Summary and Rationale Project Goal: To renew the final year curriculum of legal education by articulating a set of curriculum design principles and designing a transferable model for an effective final year program.

Project Summary: This project will achieve Priority 2 - Curriculum Renewal - of the Priority Projects Program 2009 in the context of Australian legal education. There are currently 32 law schools in Australia, and 20,678 law students (DEEWR, 2008). This project aims to enhance the learning experience for students in all Australian law schools by renewing the final year curriculum of law. This will be achieved through the articulation of a set of curriculum design principles for the final year, and the design of a transferable model for an effective final year program (hereafter final year principles and program). In short, the project will change the way students leave University and transition into professional practice. ‘It will challenge the ‘we-just-fall-off-the-end-of-the-conveyor-belt’ experience that too many students report.’ (Prof Mark Israel, 2009)

Project Rationale: The 2008 AUSSE Report stated that only 1.2% of tertiary students in Australia identify as having had a ‘capstone experience’ to their university course (ACER, 2008, 16). This evidences that the final year is an under-developed component of higher education curricula generally in Australia. In law, in particular, the final year curriculum is designed and delivered in an ad hoc fashion without a solid theoretical foundation, and without guiding curriculum design principles. Our own preliminary audit of current legal education curricula found that in 2008 only one Australian law school had an explicitly named ‘capstone unit’ (Kift et al, 2008). Australian law schools are failing to intentionally bookend their efforts in first year program innovation with an effective final year experience (Wells et al, 2008). As a consequence, law graduates enter practice without adequate understanding of their ethical, professional and service obligations. There is, therefore, an urgent need for curriculum renewal of the final year of legal education in Australia. This project will positively support student learning outcomes, and contribute to the personal and professional development of law students. It will achieve this by providing effective and intentional approaches to ‘closing the loop’ on tertiary legal studies, thus better preparing students for a smooth transition into professional practice. Key project deliverables - a set of final year curriculum design principles and a transferable model of an effective final year program - will be critical contributions to strategic curriculum renewal in Australian legal education. This is because both the final year principles and program will promote coherence and integration, enrich understanding, enhance essential skills, and facilitate students in their transition out of tertiary study. For these reasons it is anticipated that this project will increase student satisfaction and engagement with their experience of legal education, and therefore impact positively on the acquisition of desirable learning outcomes. The final year principles and program will address the current fragmented approach to final year legal curricula design and delivery. The knowledge-base acquired from this project will be of both discipline and national importance. This is because the project’s outcomes will be transferable and thereby have the potential to significantly influence the quality and coherence of the course experience of final year students in other tertiary disciplines. The need for this project has been acknowledge by senior academics in the Australian legal academy, and internationally. For example, Professor Bill Ford, Chair of the Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD) states : “I am very interested in the issues your proposal raises, as I believe are most members of CALD…I would be very much inclined to participate in the project.” (2008) Professor Julian Webb, Director of the UK Centre for Legal Education, indicates: “I'd be honoured and delighted to be a part of the Reference Group of what sounds to be a fascinating project.” (2008) Professor Gary Davis, who was the Project Director of the ALTC 2006-2008 Law Discipline Based Initiative (DBI), similarly expresses his support: “I would be very happy to support your

2

proposed project … the tie-ins that immediately suggest themselves are that a capstone experience will build off the graduate attributes aspect of the DBI; provide a means of solidifying professional and ethical dispositions and orientations among law students; and offer further opportunities to bed down self-awareness and coping mechanisms among students that will protect their well-being and prepare them for the risks, rigours and pressures of practice (and other careers).” (2008)

2. Objectives The key project objectives are to:

• Renew the final year curriculum of legal education. This will be achieved by articulating a set of curriculum design principles and designing a model for an effective final year program.

• Ensure the model final year program is transferable and adaptable to other disciplines.

• Pursue institutional priorities around enhancing the final year student experience and build upon and extend previous work including relevant existing ALTC funded (or past Carrick funded) projects. For example, the project will engage with and leverage the work completed under the auspices of the Carrick/ALTC 2006-2008 Law DBI project Learning and Teaching in the Discipline of Law: Achieving and Sustaining Excellence in a Changed and Changing Environment (‘Law DBI’). It will utilise the knowledge and resources of the ePortfolio Project funded in 2007 and refunded in 2008. And it will build on Kift’s Transition Pedagogy developed under the auspices of a 2006-2008 ALTC Senior Fellowship. An emphasis on enhancing the ‘transition out’ experience of final year students is an institutional priority at the lead and each of the collaborating institutions.

3. Value of, and Need for, the Project 3.1 Value of, and Need for, a Final Year Experience in Law Currently, the final year law curriculum is delivered in a disjointed way. That is, students undertake core subjects and a selection of elective subjects which are not integrated; therefore, their knowledge and skills bases are fragmented. As a result, final year law students leave the university without a coherent whole-of-course concept, and without an understanding of the ‘big-picture’ (Kerka, 2001). For this reason, law schools are being challenged by lawyers, law students and graduates ‘to assume greater responsibility for preparing students to practice law upon graduation, rather than simply preparing students to learn to practice law after graduation’ (Trail & Underwood, 1996, 202). The curriculum renewal achieved through this project will provide final year law students with closure on their tertiary experience, allow them to reflect on that experience, and prepare them as academically-competent, resilient and ‘work-ready’ graduates. This is one reason why the project has the support of the Australian Academy of Law (AAL: www.academyoflaw.org.au) which represents the legal profession, the judiciary and legal academe (see Reference Group, Appendix 1). The outcomes of this project will fundamentally change the approach to the final year of legal education in Australian universities. The final year principles and program that result from this project will better prepare students for careers as effective and reflective legal practitioners. Modern law graduates need to be skilled problem-solvers, team players and life-long learners who can meet the new rigours of the dynamic, competitive, and challenging world of twenty-first century legal practice (Kift, 2003; Dunlap, 2005; Kift, 2005; Kloppenberg, 2006-2007; Kift, 2008). This project’s attention to curriculum renewal of the final year of law is timely, in addressing both the current educational and professional practice needs of our students, as well as the demands of those who will employ them. 3.2 Project Alignment with the Priority Project Program Objectives The project’s objectives align positively with the objectives identified as relevant for the ALTC’s

3

Priority Projects Program, further evidencing the value of the project. In particular, the project will ‘promote and support strategic change in higher education institutions for the enhancement of learning and teaching, including curriculum development and assessment’ - ALTC Objective (a). This will be achieved through the development of the final year principles and program which will embed enhanced learning, teaching and assessment approaches. The project outcomes will be transferable and adaptable to other tertiary disciplines, thus broadening the scope and reach of the project’s support of strategic curriculum renewal.

The project’s outcomes will ‘develop and model contemporary curricula that meet student and employer needs and provide the basis for ongoing personal and professional development for students’ thus addressing Priority Projects Funding Priority 2 . The final year principles and program will integrate discipline and employability imperatives (for example, to prepare work-ready, resilient graduates (Strachan, 1989, 524)) with the learning and teaching innovation of a new approach to the design, structure and delivery of the final year of legal education. The renewed curriculum approach developed will address the currently fragmented and disjointed nature of the final law year and build sector-wide capacity for change in this regard. A key element of this approach will be the effective use of information communication technology to create authentic learning experiences (Herrington & Oliver, 2000, 24), and to promote inclusivity among students through equal accessibility regardless of study mode and competing time commitments. The project will also meet Priority Projects Funding Priority 1 by ‘improving academic standards and student learning outcomes’ for legal education. Learning and teaching quality in the final year of legal education will be improved through the curriculum renewal approaches promoted. 3.3 Value of Project to Sector as a Whole and to the Development of National Approaches to Learning and Teaching in Higher Education The AUSSE data, and our own preliminary research, evidence the value of and need for the curriculum reform and renewal of the final year of tertiary education that this project will provide. As that research attests, the need for the project extends beyond the discipline of law, because the legal academy is not alone in failing to pay adequate attention to students’ final year experience. The final year experience is an under-developed aspect of the curriculum across the tertiary sector at large, and is an issue of emerging importance for Australian higher education generally (ACER, 2008). A research-informed model and practical guidance are urgently needed and have significant potential value and impact at the broader sectoral level. For this reason, the final year principles and program will be designed with issues of transferability and adaptability in mind. Further, the dissemination aspect of the project’s approach will ensure that other disciplines are provided with access to the project’s key outcomes. The project will therefore promote and support strategic change in the delivery of final year programs across the Australian higher education sector, and contribute to the development of national approaches to learning and teaching in higher education. 3.3.1. The Project will Utilize and Advance Existing National and International Knowledge of the Final Year Experience The push in the US to improve the final year of tertiary education has led the Association of American Colleges and the Boyer Commission (1998) to recommend that capstone units be included in all undergraduate programs in the US. In the legal context, the recent US Best Practices (Stuckey & Others, 2007) and Carnegie (Sullivan et al, 2007) Reports also support the implementation of an integrated approach to the final year. Our preliminary research has resulted in a collection of international and national literature on the final year experience, along with a range of case studies. Research concerning students’ experiences of the final year of legal education (both in Australia and internationally) remains limited. The project will therefore utilise and apply the existing literature to the legal education context in order to develop the final year principles and program. The work of this project will then feed back into, and advance, the broader literature. 3.3.2 There is a Need to Provide Final Year Students with Special Attention First year students have long been the subject of much attention and their unique transition needs

4

are increasingly better addressed (Kift, 2004; Kift, 2008). Final year students, however, and their transition needs out of the university to their profession and the global world of work, have received little attention to date. And yet, the transition out experience for students is just as confronting as the transition in to university (Unknown, 2006, 2). Gardener et al (1998) identify four major factors that highlight the need for universities to focus resources on developing an effective final year experience: first, the needs and expectations of final year students are not currently being met; second, final year students, as students also in transition, have a unique set of needs requiring specific attention; third, universities should capitalise on the fact that the final year is the last opportunity to ensure students graduate with appropriate knowledge, skills and attributes; and finally, universities should capitalise on the fact that final year students will soon become their alumni, and will thus be in a position to support and promote their institution (Gardner et al, 1998, 4-7). 3.3.3 An Integrated Final Year Experience is Essential and Valuable The existing literature identifies many benefits that result from the provision of an integrated final year experience for tertiary students. These include assisting students to synthesize their knowledge and to prepare them for their career; promoting holistic thinking, and increasing confidence and self-efficacy (Bailey, Oliver & Townsend, 2007, 68); enrichment of students’ understanding of their academic discipline; enhancement of students’ problem-solving, decision-making, critical thinking, ethical, social and human relations skills (Kerka, 2001); and the introduction of students to their professional world (Reid & Miller, 1997, 1527; Jervis & Hartley, 2005; Henscheid, 2000).

4. Project Outcomes This project will result in curriculum renewal and strategic change in Australian higher education, and in the legal education sector in particular. This will be achieved by developing a new, contemporary approach to the student experience of the final year of law through curriculum renewal to meet student and employer needs. The intentional, integrated approach to the final year curriculum developed through this project will also form the basis for ongoing personal and professional development for students as life-long learners and reflective practitioners. The outcomes of this project will be: • articulated curriculum design principles (concerning structure, content, delivery and

assessment) for the final year of law (with adaptability potential to other disciplines), and • a transferable model for an effective final year program. In achieving the two key outcomes of the project the following deliverables will also result: • A comprehensive benchmark analysis and tabulation of current approaches to final year

curriculum design in legal education in Australia, as well as in other disciplines and internationally.

• Seminal research relating to the development of the final year principles and program. • Identification of key factors that influence the success of final year students. • A network presence on the ALTC Exchange. • A Final Year Forum – to showcase the project, to disseminate project outcomes and to seek

stakeholder feedback and evaluation. • Greater clarity around the articulation of progression through the law degree as a whole and

better alignment of the law degree with practical legal training programs (the latter which law graduates must complete prior to entry into the profession).

These outcomes are of clear benefit to Australian legal education, offering the opportunity for the promotion of a more principled and holistic approach to ‘whole-of-course’ law curriculum design. Further, the project outcomes have promise in terms of significantly benefiting curriculum development and delivery, and of enhancing student learning outcomes and satisfaction in the final year, across the Australian higher education sector more broadly.

5

5. Background to the Project This project application was seeded by a 2008 QUT Law Faculty Learning and Teaching Grant ($5302), which resulted in a comprehensive literature review, and an audit of current approaches to the final year curriculum in Australian tertiary institutions; as well as a refereed conference paper (Wells et al, 2008) and a refereed journal article (Kift et al, 2008). The 2008 audit showed that Australian higher education providers, and Australian law schools in particular, are failing to bookend their efforts in first year program innovation with an effective final year experience. The audit evidenced that, of the 45 institutions of higher education in Australia (these were institutions eligible for grant schemes offered by the then Carrick Institute, not only universities), only 19 offered some form of ‘capstone’ unit or program in any of their course offerings. Thus, 58% of the providers of Australian higher education are not currently ensuring that final year students benefit from an intentional or explicit final year experience. Of those universities providing explicit final year experiences of some sort, only one was within the legal discipline. The results of the audit are supported by the findings of the 2008 AUSSE Report that found only 1.2% of Australian university students report having a ‘capstone experience’ to their course (ACER, 2008, 16). The seeding grant enabled an investigation of the existing literature on the importance of a final year experience, and the need for curriculum renewal to improve students’ final year experience. In the US, in particular, it is acknowledged that whilst students entering their first year of legal education are generally the target of significant pedagogical attention and support, ‘four or five years later, the same students typically receive minimal attention’ (Shea, 1998-99). The literature recognises that an integrated, intentionally designed culminating year can improve student satisfaction and confidence, and better equip graduates for entry into competitive professions (Gardner et al, 1998; Sullivan et al, 2007; Stuckey & Others, 2007). The final year curriculum renewal proposed in this project will enable legal educators - and educators in the higher education sector more broadly - to capitalise on the successes of intentionally designed first year programs, and draw on the wealth of synergies between the first year experience and the final year. The preliminary investigative work for this project, funded by the seeding grant, identified the following three cornerstone curriculum objectives for good learning and teaching practice in the final year:

• reflection, • closure, and • transition .

These cornerstone curriculum objectives will inform the development of the final year principles and program. The first cornerstone objective involves the creation of opportunities for student reflection in the final year. Reflective practice is a fundamental skill of life-long learners and effective professionals (Schön, 1987). The American Association of Colleges suggests that capstone units are well positioned to foster reflection, connectedness, and diversity (Sargent, Pennington & Sitton, 2003, 3). The project will ensure that the renewed final year curriculum design provides space for meaningful reflection by students on their whole-of-course experience (Jervis & Hartley, 2005, 313), as well as reflection on the future potential and possibilities for life after university. Reflection will be used strategically also in achieving the second and third cornerstones. For example, reflection will facilitate the students’ journey from closure to transition out. The second cornerstone objective is closure. The literature evidences the importance of providing students with a fuller sense of completing their degree (Gardener, 1998) than is achieved in the current, disjointed approach to the final year of law. To achieve closure, students will look back on their experience of legal education and consolidate it by capitalising on opportunities for integration. The renewed final year curriculum will enable students to “pull together all the ideas presented in different (units) and construct some sort of integrated, meaningful whole” (Heinemann, 1997, 5). The third cornerstone involves transitioning out of university (Heinemann, 1997). Both the sense of closure achieved for students, and the use of reflective practice, will contextualise this more future-focused curriculum objective that will facilitate each student’s final metamorphosis from student to professional. The Scottish Law Society, in its current efforts to reconceptualise the continuum of legal education,

6

posits that “it is possible to combine academic excellence with an outstanding preparation for practice” (Campbell et al, 2007, 26). The seeding grant for the project also resulted in the identification from the literature of five key theoretical approaches that best support these three cornerstone curriculum objectives. These theoretical approaches will also inform the development of the final year principles and program. The theoretical foundations include: first, reflective practice; second, a constructivist approach to Bruner’s ‘spiral curriculum’; third, experiential learning; fourth, Laurillard’s conversational framework with a teamwork focus; and finally, active learning (optimally integrating a use of ePortfolios) (Bruner, 1960; Laurillard, 2002; Ramsden, 2003).

6. Project Approach 6.1 Methodology This project will continue for 24 months (see Timeline at Appendix 3), adopting an action learning methodology for the design and development of the final year principles and program. Responsibility for the initial (and consequential) design work of the project will fall to the QUT Project Team members, led by the Project Leader. As the design work of the project progresses, the Project Team will engage in an ongoing spiral of consultation, feedback, and reflection with the Collaborators and the Reference Group. These action learning cycles will occur every 3 months and will be coordinated via a QUT Blackboard site. The Collaborating Institutions and QUT will conduct student consultation forums after the second and fourth action learning cycles, to obtain student and recent graduate feedback on the developing draft principles and program in the very different legal education contexts of those three institutions, thus including the student perspective in the action learning process. The members of the Reference Group and the two Collaborating Institutions (see Appendix 1) have been carefully selected to include national and international legal education experts and ALTC Teaching Award winners, to be representative of sectoral diversity (for example: by institutional type (1xGo8, 1xATN and 1xIRUA); and by law program type (with the inclusion of an undergraduate program, a graduate entry program, and a combined undergraduate with legal practice program), and to include two key representative bodies (the Australian Academy of Law and the Australian Law Students’ Association). The expertise and strength of this Group will ensure it makes an invaluable contribution to the strategic, iterative design and evaluation of the project’s progress and outcomes. The Project Team’s design process will be informed by and build upon the comprehensive literature review already compiled under the QUT 2008 seeding grant. The following key framing questions will be used throughout the project to inform the project’s methodology, and to promote the achievement of the project’s articulated objectives: 1. Stakeholder considerations • What are the key learning, teaching and experiential needs of students in the final year of law? • How can curriculum renewal in the final year of law better prepare students for legal

professional practice? • What are the professional development needs of academic staff in terms of having the skills to

design and deliver an effective final year experience in law? • What staff development resources are required to address these needs? 2. Pedagogical considerations • How can the issues of student engagement, diversity, transition out and assessment be best

addressed through renewal of the final year curriculum of law? • How can the design principles be translated into efficacious practice in a model final year

program? • How can the principles and model be articulated so as to be transferable and adaptable to other

disciplines? 3. Technological considerations

7

• How can technology be used to better support curriculum design and delivery in the final year of law?

4. Design considerations • What can we learn from the final year curriculum innovations from other disciplines and other

countries? 6.2 Project Phases Four integrated phases of the project, together with key activities under each phase, are detailed below. The suggested project activities are not exhaustive and will develop as the project progresses in consultation with the Collaborators, the Reference Group and the project’s Evaluator. Phase 1: Planning and Preparation The planning phase will build on the completed work of the seeding grant. On approval of the grant application a Project Manager, a Project Assistant and an independent project Evaluator will be appointed. The Project Manager and Assistant will establish the Blackboard site, hosted by QUT, for communication between project participants, and also the project website (to be open to external viewers) to allow dissemination of results from an early stage. Next, the Collaborators, the Reference Group and the Evaluator will be formally convened in Brisbane at a 2 day face-to-face meeting where effective working relationships between participants will be built, and planning discussions will confirm the initial design tasks and strategies. For example, the efficacy of the proposed cornerstone concepts will be assessed, along with the proposed pedagogical approaches which will inform the design of the final year principles and program. Cross institutional ethics approval will be obtained (particularly for the conduct of the student focus groups). Phase 2: Implementation of Project Plan The implementation phase will involve clearly defined steps resulting in the design, development, and evaluation of the final year principles and program:

Step 1: Environmental Scan and Literature Review To update the work of the seeding grant, in the first three months of the project, the Project Team will conduct a follow-up environmental scan and literature review of good practice in final year curriculum design, at both the national and international level. This will ensure that the project’s curriculum renewal innovations are based on the most up-to-date research and information. The literature and theoretical information will be shared with Collaborators and the Reference Group who will provide feedback, advice and input via the Blackboard site. Across the life of the project the Project Team will engage in the development of scholarly publications as appropriate.

Step 2: Design and development of the first iteration of the final year principles and program To design and develop the first iteration of the final year principles and program, the Project Team will work with the theoretical knowledge base led by the Project Leader. This process will continue for 3 months, at which time the draft principles and program will be provided to Collaborators and the Reference Group for the first cycle of action learning to commence. Asynchronous discussions about the draft material will occur via specific discussion forums on the Blackboard site. The forums will run for 2 weeks. At the conclusion of this time the Project Team will review, reflect and act on the group input and feedback. The Project Manager will coordinate the publication of progress reports and newsletters on the project website.

Step 3: Development of second iteration of final year principles and program Step 3 will use the Collaborator and Reference Group feedback from the Step 2 action learning cycle to inform the development of the second iteration of the principles and program. This second iteration will again be put to Collaborators and the Reference Group for further comment and feedback. It will also be put to student and recent graduate focus groups at QUT and the two Collaborative Institutions. These sessions will be run by colleagues, with the support and assistance of the Australian Law Students’ Association (ALSA), according to a survey design prepared by the Project Team. The Project Manager will provide coordination and administrative support to this process. The feedback resulting from the focus groups will be integrated into the developing

8

principles and program.

Steps 4 and 5: Ongoing development of final year principles and program Steps 4 and 5 involve two further action learning cycles with Collaborators and the Reference Group as the principles and program continue to be developed and refined. Again these processes will be conducted online via asynchronous discussion forums running for two weeks each. They will occur approximately at 3 monthly intervals. At the conclusion of each cycle, the Project Team will review, reflect and act on the group input and feedback to inform the ongoing progress of the project outcomes.

Step 6: Development of final draft of final year principles and program Approximately 18 months into the project, a final draft of the principles and program will be settled by the Project Team. A second and final round of student and recent graduate focus groups will be held at QUT and the Collaborating Institutions. The Project Manager will then organise the Final Year Forum at which the final draft principles and program will be presented. Delegates at the Forum will have the opportunity to evaluate and provide feedback on the principles and program.

Step 7: Report writing The final step of the project will be to write up the final report for the ALTC including the final versions of the final year principles and program, along with discussion of the development process and evaluation of achievement of all proposed outcomes and outputs. Phase 3: Controlling Phase Controlling evaluation strategies will be implemented throughout all other project phases (see Evaluation Plan below), with the advice of the project Evaluator. Phase 4: Closing Phase Key activities in this final phase of the project include:

• Project Team evaluation of processes, outcomes and impact; • Preparation of the external project evaluation report; and • Provision of final report to ALTC.

6.3 Evaluation Plan The project’s Evaluation Plan, draws on the ALTC’s Evaluating Projects Resource (at http://www.murdoch.edu.au/teach/carrick_evaluation/index.html) (this plan is to be confirmed with the external Evaluator):

Aspect of Project to be Evaluated How Evaluation will Occur Project conceptualisation and design.

Collaborators, the Reference Group and project Evaluator will provide early feedback and advice on conceptualisation and design at the initial face to face meeting. The consultative process will continue as action learning cycles throughout the life of the project.

Ongoing development of literature review and theoretical knowledge base.

Collaborators and the Reference Group will have access to all literature and theory relevant to the project via the project’s Blackboard site, and will evaluate that knowledge base, providing comments and suggestions.

Design and development of a set of final year curriculum design principles and a transferable framework for a model final year experience program to serve as a benchmark for final year curriculum renewal.

The Project Team’s design and development of the principles and model will be evaluated via action learning cycles throughout the project using the Blackboard site as the key point of information provision and interaction. Student and recent graduate focus groups will also be conducted at QUT and the Collaborative Institutions to contribute to the development of the principles and model, and to provide evaluative advice from the student/graduate perspective. The final proposed principles and model will be assessed in the formal external evaluation process. Other project events, such as the project’s Final Year Forum, will provide further evaluation opportunities. In the longer term, the principles and model will be judged by the extent to

9

which they are regarded as a seminal development for Australian legal education and their voluntary adoption throughout the sector.

Student and recent graduate focus groups The focus groups will be judged both quantitatively and qualitatively via evaluation surveys administered at the end of each session.

The project’s website. The external Evaluator will assist in assessing the website’s efficacy which will be gauged on its access by the sector and its success in communicating project developments.

The project’s Final Year Forum. The Forum will be evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively via feedback surveys, as well as through numbers involved.

6.4 Dissemination Plan In this project, dissemination is understood broadly based on Southwell et al’s 2005 Report on effective strategies for dissemination. The final year principles and program will be disseminated nationally, and internationally, via active and engaged strategies across all project phases and to exploit the dissemination opportunities presented by key stakeholder involvement in the project Reference Group (Appendix 1, eg CALD, AAL, UK Centre for Legal Education). The key dissemination mechanisms will be the project website, the Final Year Forum, publications and conference papers. These dissemination approaches demonstrate our commitment to taking action ‘to embed and upscale (our) innovation within its own context’ (legal education) as well as to transform the innovation to ‘a new context and to embed the innovation in that new context’ (higher education at large) (Southwell et al, 2005, 2). To this end, an iterative model of dissemination of project findings is proposed. 6.4.1 Final Year in Legal Education Project Website The project’s developed knowledge base, design principles and model program will be made available nationally and internationally through the project website (desirably using the ALTC Exchange as an affiliated network to promote, distribute and provide an opportunity to receive feedback on the project). The website will provide comprehensive information on the project, its findings and outcomes, written reports and data, links to other sources of information and design tools, and publications. A regular project newsletter published on the website will disseminate regular updates about the project’s design and evaluation developments. 6.4.2 Final Year in Legal Education Forum The results of the project will be presented at a Final Year Forum in the third quarter of the second year. The Forum will showcase the project and present the project outcomes, drawing on the expertise and standing of the Reference Group and Collaborative Institutions. It will offer an engaged, active strategy for dissemination of the project results to interested stakeholders (for example, representatives from the 32 law schools in Australia will be invited), and to embed the new proposed practices in Australian legal education. 6.4.3 Other Dissemination Strategies

• Conference papers will engage potential stakeholders with the outcomes of the project. • Refereed journal articles will contribute to the emergent Australian and international

scholarly literature on the final year experience. • Final Project Report - submitted to the ALTC - will be made publicly available.

7. Project Management

The project will adopt a defined and coordinated approach to project management. Learning from previous ALTC grants, this project will ensure that:

1. Roles and responsibilities of the project personnel are clearly articulated and defined from the commencement of the project.

10

• Under the direction of the Project Leader and with input from the Project Team, the Project Manager will manage the project.

• The Project Leader and Project Team will co-ordinate the project work and ensure that timelines and milestones are met in a timely manner.

• Collaborators and the Reference Group will provide expert feedback and commentary on the developing principles and model program design via the project’s Blackboard site.

• The Collaborative Institutions will assist the coordination of student and recent graduate focus groups.

• The project Evaluator will be involved with project’s processes and progress from the outset. • Project finances will be managed by the Project Manager with the oversight of QUT’s

divisional Finance Officer, who advises on management of all ALTC funded schemes at QUT.

2. A communication strategy will be developed when the project commences that will include the details of section 7.2 below.

3. A strategy for managing project information will be implemented from the initiation phase of the project. This is critical to the success of the project (and an important element of risk mitigation - see section 7.3 below). This project will primarily use the project’s Blackboard site and website as collaborative online spaces for information sharing and management.

4. QUT’s established project management framework and associated templates and resources will provide a key reference point for the Project Manager who will take part in QUT’s evolving community of practice for QUT’s ALTC project managers.

7.1 Project Team Members Project Team members, the Collaborative Institutions, and the Reference Group are outlined in Appendix 1.

7.2 Communication strategy Our communication strategy is designed to ensure an effective, consistent, integrated and cost effective approach to communication for the duration of the project.

Audience Channel Key Message/s Frequency Actioned by

Project Team Face-to-face meetings Email

• Project progress.

• Key milestones and delivery dates.

• Communication plan/approach/ materials/governance

• Feedback.

Monthly Project Leadership meetings.

Other regular contact as required.

Project Manager

Project Reference Group

Blackboard site discussion forums

Face-to-face contact at Final Year Forum

• Analysis of and feedback on draft final year principles and program.

• Key milestones and delivery dates.

• Information sharing.

• Key contacts.

Quarterly. Project Team with assistance from Project Manager

ALTC and other stakeholders

Email

Progress reports and newsletters

• Key dates.

• Support/information.

• Final Report

As required. Project Team

11

7.3 Risk Management The following table outlines the key risks identified for the project and the mitigation strategies to manage the relevant risk.

Major Risk Probability:

H, M, L

Impact:

H, M, L

Mitigation Strategy

Scope creep H H • Detailed project planning and controlling by Project Leader, Project Manager and Project Team adherence to QUT’s Project Management Framework (PMF)

Loss of key staff M H • Ensure robust information management systems and processes.

Inability to meet timelines. L L • Manage project according to existing QUT PMF.

• Critical progress review points.

Loss of project knowledge or key project documentation.

L L • Utilise established document management processes & establish project document repository.

8. Reference List ACER. (2008). Attracting, Engaging and Retaining; New Conversations About Learning, Australasian

Student Engagement Report. Bailey, J. Oliver, D., Townsend, K. (2007). ‘Transition to practitioner: redesigning a third year course for

undergraduate business students’. Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 13(1), 65. Boyer Commission. (1998). ‘Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research

Universities’. Position Paper, Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University, Stony Brook, NY.

Bruner, J.S. (1960). The Process of Education, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Campbell, L., Stevenson, N. & McLintock, C. (2007). “Vision 20:20” The Journal. URL:

www.journalonline.co.uk/article/1004243.aspx (accessed 3 April 2008) Dunlap, J.C. (2005). ‘Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for

a profession’. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 53(1), 63. Durel, R.J. (1993). ‘The Capstone Course: A Rite of Passage’. Teaching Sociology, Vol. 21(3), 223. Gardener, J. (1999). ‘The senior year experience’. About Campus, March/April, 5. Gardner, J.N., Van der Veer, G. & Associates. (1998). The Senior Year Experience: Facilitating Integration,

Reflection, Closure, and Transition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Heinemann, R.L. (1997). ‘The senior capstone, dome or spire?’. Paper presented at 83rd NCA Annual

Convention, Chicago, IL. Henscheid, JM. (2000). Professing the Disciplines: An Analysis of Senior Seminars and Capstone Courses,

Monograph No. 30. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. Herrington, J. and Oliver, R. (2000) ‘An Instructional Design Framework for Authentic Learning

Environments’ Educational Technology Research and Development Vol 48(3), 23. Jervis, K. J. & Hartley, C.A. (2005). ‘Learning to design and teach an accounting capstone’. Issues in

Accounting Education, Vol. 20(4), 311. Kerka, S. (2001). ‘Capstone Experiences in Career and Technical Education. Practice Application Brief No.

16’. Education Resources Information Centre. Kift, S. (2003). ‘For Better or For Worse?: 21st Century Legal Education’. In LAWASIA Downunder 2005,

Gold Coast Convention Centre. URL: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00007439/ (accessed 10 March 2009). Kift, S. (2004). ‘Organising First Year Engagement Around Leaning: Formal and Informal Curriculum

intervention’. Keynote in 8th International First Year in Higher Education Conference, Melbourne. URL: http://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/Papers04/Sally%20Kift_paper.doc (accessed 10 March 2009).

Kift, S. (2005). ‘A Tale of Two Sectors: Dynamic Curriculum Change for a Dynamically Changing Profession’. In Proceedings 13th Commonwealth Law Conference 2003, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. URL: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00007468/ (accessed 10 March 2009).

Kift, S. (2008). ‘21st Century Climate for Change: Curriculum Design for Quality Learning Engagement in Law’. Legal Education Review, Vol 18,No. 1 & 2, 1.

12

Kift, S., Field, R., & Wells, I., (2008). “Promoting Sustainable Professional Futures for Law Graduates through Curriculum Renewal in Legal Education: A Final Year Experience (FYE2)”, eLaw Journal, 15(2), 145. URL: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/18106/ (accessed 5 April 2009).

Kloppenberg, L.A. (2006-2007). ‘Lawyer as a Problem Solver:” Curricular Innovation at Dayton’. University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 38, 547.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies, 2nd ed, London: Routledge Falmer.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education, 2nd ed, London: Routledge Falmer. Reid, M. & Miller, W. (1997). ‘Bridging theory and administrative practice: The role of a capstone course in

P.A. programs’. International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 20(10), 1513. Sargent, S.D., Pennington, P. & Sitton, S. (2003). ‘Developing Leadership Skills through Capstone

Experiences’. Schön, D.A (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in

the professions, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Shea, H.D. (1998-99). ‘Senior Year Transitions: From College to Career and From Undergraduate to

Graduate School’. Colorado State University. URL: http://www.sahe.colostate.edu/Journal_articles/Journal%201998-1999.vol%208/Senior%20Year%20Transitions.pdf (accessed 10 March 2009).

Southwell, D., Gannaway, D., Orrell, J., Chalmers, D., & Abraham, C. (2005). Strategies for effective dissemination of project outcomes: A report for the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. The University of Queensland and Flinders University.

Strachan, K. (1989). ‘Curricular Reform in the Second and Third Years: Structure, Progression, and Integration’. Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 39, 523.

Sullivan, W., Colby, A., Wegner, J., Bond, L., & Shulman, L. (2007). Educating Lawyers: Preparation of the Profession of Law, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stuckey, R. and Others. (2007). Best Practices for Legal Education: A Vision and a Roadmap, Clinical Legal Education Association (CLEA). URL: http://www.cleaweb.org/resources/bp.html (accessed 5 April 2009).

Trail, W.R. & Underwood, W.D. (1996). ‘The Decline of Professional Legal Training and a Proposal for Its Revitalization in Professional Law Schools’. Baylor Law Review, Vol. 48, 201.

Unknown. (2006). ‘Capstone Courses Prepare Students for Transition’. Teaching Professor, Vol. 20(2), 1. Wells, I., Kift, S. & Field, R. (2008). ‘FYE2: Recognising and Acting on the Synergies Between the First

and Final Year Experiences in Legal Education’ Paper presented at the 11th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, 30 June-2 July, Hobart URL: http://www.fyhe.qut.edu.au/past_papers/papers08/FYHE2008/index.html (accessed 10 March 2009).

APPENDIX 1 - QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF THE P ROJECT LEADER, PROJECT TEAM, COLLABORATIVE INSTITUTIONS AND REFERE NCE GROUP

Project Leader

Prof Sally Kift, QUT: Sally Kift is an ALTC Senior Fellow, national teaching award winner in the Law, Economics, Business and Related Studies category (AAUT 2003), previous Law Assistant Dean, Teaching and Learning (2001-2006) and internationally published and recognised legal educator. She has been Project Leader on two QUT teaching and learning large development grants (on assessment (2002-2005) and the first year experience (2005-2007), the outcomes of one of which (assessment) has been recognised by a CAAUT Program that Enhances Learning award (CAAUT, 2007 Assessment and Feedback category). Sally will be the Project Leader for the proposed project and will commit 1 day per fortnight to leading the project.

13

Project Team Prof Des Butler, QUT: Des Butler is a Professor of Law and leading Australian researcher in the areas of torts, media law and contracts. Des's expertise in harnessing ICT in legal education dates back to 1990 and has been recognised by numerous awards, including a CAAUT national teaching award for teaching excellence in the Law, Economics, Business and Related Studies category in 2006 and the inaugural Lexis-Nexis/Australasian Law Teachers Association Award for Excellence and Innovation in the Teaching of Law in 2008. Des brings his excellence in legal research and his technological affordances expertise to this final year project and will commit one day per fortnight to the project. Rachael Field, QUT: Rachael Field is a senior lecturer in law and has taught a broad range of units across multiple curriculum years since 1998. Rachael has received 3 Faculty Teaching Excellence awards, and in 2008 was awarded an ALTC Citation. Rachael was a Project Team Leader for the QUT large teaching and learning grant that received a CAAUT Program that Enhances Learning Award (CAAUT, 2007 Assessment and Feedback category), and is currently a participant in an ALTC funded project regarding threshold concepts and variation theory. She regularly contributes to institutional learning and teaching professional development programs. Key areas of research interest include the first year experience, blended delivery, Indigenous perspectives and now the final year experience. Rachael will commit one half day per week to the project.

Judith McNamara, QUT: Judith McNamara is a lecturer in law and currently teaches a number of units in the law degree including two final year work integrated learning units. She has contributed to the scholarship of teaching through presentations at national and international conferences. Her key areas of interest in the scholarship of teaching are reflective practice, first year experience and work integrated learning. Judith will commit one half day per week to the project.

Catherine Brown, QUT: Catherine Brown is a lecturer in law and has taught in both the legal and accounting disciplines. Catherine has taught in a core final year advanced legal research unit which is aimed at developing advanced legal problem solving in diverse professional contexts. She also teaches the first year foundation unit on legal research. Her key areas of interest include first and final year experience, embedding of legal research skills and blended delivery. She has published on these issues. Catherine will commit one half day per week to the project.

Collaborative Institutions

University of Western Australia:

Professor William Ford, Chair, Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD), Dean University of Western Australia. Professor Ford has expressed the support of CALD for the project, connecting the project with the CALD DBI in Law. UWA is also currently engaged in law curriculum renewal and is considering the project’s very issues in that context. Bill Ford brings his expertise as Dean and Chair of CALD to this project, together with the Go8 law school perspective of curriculum renewal.

Griffith University: Professor Richard Johnstone: Richard Johnstone is a Professor of Law at Griffith University Law School, where he is serves as Deputy Dean (Research) and Director, Socio-Legal Research Centre. Richard has an international reputation as a legal educator and is the author of many pedagogical texts and articles on learning, teaching and assessment in law. In 2003, he jointly authored (with Sumitra Vignaendra) the Report commissioned by the Australian Universities Teaching Committee (AUTC) entitled Learning Outcomes and Curriculum Development in Law (see http://admin.carrickinstitute.edu.au/dspace/handle/10096/3492). Richard was the Deputy-Dean (Curriculum, Teaching and Learning) in 2004, and chaired the Griffith Curriculum Review

14

Committee, writing that Committee’s final report. Richard brings years of expertise in legal education and pedagogical thinking to the project as an IRU university representative. Professor Jeff Giddings: Jeff Giddings is a Professor of Law at Griffith Law School and has been instrumental as that School’s previous Deputy Dean in implementing substantial law curriculum renewal over 2004-2007. In 1999, Jeff was a joint winner of the national teaching award for law (AAUT, 1999). In addition to his broad pedagogical and curriculum expertise, Jeff also brings to this project his acknowledged leadership position in Australian clinical legal education, a critical perspective for final year curriculum design. Associate Professor Mary Keyes: Mary Keyes is an Associate Professor of Law at Griffith Law School and the School’s Deputy Dean (Learning and Teaching). She is a widely published legal educator and, with Professors Johnstone and Giddings, has been instrumental in the design and implementation of Griffith’s recent ground-breaking law curriculum renewal. She has received institutional recognition of her teaching excellence (Griffith Teaching Award, 1999). Mary brings her expertise in legal education and her expertise as her School’s Associate Dean to this project as an IRU university representative.

Project Reference Group

An expert and representative Project Reference Group has been assembled, comprising specialists who (along with two members of the Project Team, and members of our Collaborative Institution teams) make up five out of the six most recent CAAUT/AAUT national teaching award winners in Law (Butler, Heath, Israel, Kift, Giddings). The Reference Group also represents a range of institutional types (Go8, ATN, and IRUA universities). Importantly, the Group also includes representation from the Australian Law Students’ Association (ALSA), the peak national representative body for Australian students of law, along with the Australian Academy of Law (AAL). The university law schools who have agreed to participate are all either currently, or have recently been, engaged in significant law curriculum renewal and are considered to be leaders in contemporary legal curriculum design. Australian Academy of Law (AAL): Professor Rosalind Croucher, Commissioner of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), Foundation Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law (newly formed body representing the profession, the judiciary and legal academe, see www.academyoflaw.org.au) and former Dean, Macquarie Law School. Australian Law Students’ Association (ALSA) The Australian Law Students’ Association (ALSA) is the peak national representative body for Australian students of law. Both the ALSA President, Ms Verity Doyle, and the current Vice-President (Education), Mr Chris Holmes, have committed ALSA to involvement in the project. The President of ALSA has said: ‘I wholeheartedly agree that this is a very worthwhile project and ALSA is happy to throw our full support behind it.’ It is proposed that the Vice President (Education), Mr Chris Holmes, will oversee ALSA's involvement in the project. Professor Clark D. Cunningham, W. Lee Burge Chair in Law and Ethics, College of Law, Georgia State University, USA; Director, National Institute for Teaching Ethics & Professionalism (NIFTEP) and Effective Lawyer-Client Communication Project; Convenor of the Steering Committee of the Global Alliance for Justice Education. He recently convened the International Conference on the Future of Legal Education consequent on the 2007 report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Educating Lawyers (see http://law.gsu.edu/FutureOfLegalEducationConference/). Professor Gary Davis, Dean, Faculty of Law, Business and Arts, CDU. Formerly, Project Director, Council of Australian Law Deans Carrick Institute Discipline Based Initiative in Law, and former Dean, Flinders University Law School.

15

Associate Professor Mary Heath: Dr Mary Heath is an Associate Professor in law at Flinders University and, until 2007, was the Associate Dean, Teaching (Law School). In 2006, she won both a Carrick Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning and also a Carrick Award for Australian University Teaching in the Law, Economics, Business and Related Studies Category (CAAUT, 2006). Mary brings her excellence in pedagogy to this project, together with her experience as a Law School Associate Dean. Professor Mark Israel: Mark Israel is a Professor of Law at Flinders University. In 2004, he was the recipient of the Prime Minister's Award for Australian University Teacher of the Year (AAUT, 2004), also receiving the national award for teaching in the Law, Economics, Business and Related Studies category. Mark is an Associate of the UK Centre for Legal Education (University of Warwick), an Academic Advisor to the City University of Hong Kong, and has acted as a consultant to various institutions and agencies, including the New South Wales and South Australian Governments and the National Health and Medical Research Council, and on educational matters to a range of universities and private Higher Education Providers in Australia. Mark brings his excellence in research and pedagogy to this project. Professor Julian Webb, Director of UK Centre for Legal Education (UKCLE), a subject centre of the UK Higher Education Academy (HEA).

16

APPENDIX 1 - Budget

ALTC $

Other $

Total $

ALTC $

Other $

Total $

PERSONNEL

Project Manager/Researcher QUT (Note 1) 29,490 29,490 30,670 30,670

Research Assistant(Note 2) 10,240 10,240 15,760 15,760 Executive level - strategic leadership and support (Note 3)

17,300 17,300 18,000 18,000

Academic staff - teaching relief over life of project (Note 4)

17,765 17,765 18,475 18,475

Sub total 57,495 17,300 74,795 64,905 18,000 82,905

PROJECT SUPPORT

QUT Faculty of Law Seeding Grant 2008 (Note 5)

5,302 5,302 -

Reference group meetings, including teleconferencing and communication costs (Note 6)

6,680 5,000 5,000

Office consumables and printing costs (Note 7)

5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000

Contingencies (Note 8) 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Sub total 7,680 15,302 22,982 1,000 10,000 11,000

PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Website development - project information 5,000 5,000 2,000 2,000

Student focus group sessions (Note 9) 1,225 615 1,275 635 1 Day Final Year Forum (Note 10) 26,945 26,945 Independent evaluator (Note 11) 3,000 3,000 Sub total 36,170 615 36,785 33,220 635 33,855

ATTENDANCE AT ALTC EVENTS

Sub total 3,000 - 3,000 - - -

INSTITUTIONAL OVERHEAD LEVY

Allowable Infrastructure costs to 10% (Note 12)

2,800 2,800 1,500 1,500

Sub Total 2,800 - 2,800 1,500 - 1,500

Total per Stage/Year 107,145 33,217 140,362 100,625 28,635 129,260

ALTC Other Total

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 207,770$ 61,852$ 269,622$

Budget Stage 1/Year 1 Budget Stage 2/Year 2

17

Budget Justification

Note 1 - Project Manager The Project Manager is vital for the management of the project, including communication and coordination, data management, budget control, report production and many other important roles in a project of this nature (above at 7. Project Management). The Project Manager will be employed at HEW6 level for 2 days per week for a period of 2 years. Salaries are calculated on the QUT Salary Scale for professional staff and include oncosts (28%) and projected EBA increases (4%) over the years calculated.

Note 2 - Project Assistant The Project Assistant will assist the Project Manager with establishing and maintaining the Blackboard site and project website (above at 6.2. Phase 1), as well as provide research support throughout the life of the project. The Project Assistant will be employed at a HEW3.6 level for 1 day per week for 2 years. Salaries are calculated on the QUT Salary Scale for professional staff and include oncosts (28%) and projected EBA increases (4%) over the years calculated.

Note 3 - Executive level – strategic leadership and support The Project Leader is responsible for coordination of the project (above at 7. Project Management). The Project Leader will commit one day per fortnight, and salaries and wages for this time will be contributed by QUT. Salaries are calculated on the QUT Salary Scale for academic staff and include oncosts (28%) and projected EBA increases (4%) over the years calculated.

Note 4 - Teaching Relief The bulk of the curriculum design work of the project is to be completed by the Project Team. For this reason teaching relief is sought for four of the team members and is calculated as follows:

• 13 weeks x 2 hr lectures per year for two senior academic staff members at $134.32 per hour ($8,940 in Year 1; $9,298 in Year 2).

• 26 weeks x 2 hr tutorials per year for two Level B academic staff members at $95.77 per hour ($6,374 in Year 1; $6,629 in Year 2).

• 15 hrs per year of additional academic support required for all four academic staff members based on casual marking rates of $31.93 per hour ($2,452 in Year 1; $2,550 in Year 2).

All salaries are calculated on the QUT Salary Scale for casual academic staff, and include oncosts (28%) and EBA increases (4%) over the years calculated. Note 5 – QUT Faculty of Law Seeding Grant Outcomes from the 2008 QUT Faculty of Law Seeding Grant (above at 4. Background to the Project) will be used when preparing the literature review (above at 6.2. Phase 2). Note 6 – Collaborator and Reference Group meetings Initial face to face meeting The number of face-to-face meetings between the Project Team, Collaborators and the Reference Group will be kept to a minimum, and electronic communications channels will be utilised for the majority of the project. However, a strong feature of the proposal is the diversity of experience of the Reference Group and of the different contexts of the three collaborative Universities involved. Therefore, there is a need for the Australian Reference Group and representatives of each collaborative institution to meet face to face at the beginning of the project to establish the working relationships of the various participants, together with the project Evaluator. The budget includes travel and meal costs for five members of the Reference Group and Collaborator institutions and is calculated as follows:

18

$ Return airfare between Brisbane and Perth (x1) 1,000 Return airfare between Brisbane and Melbourne (x1) 650 Return airfare between Brisbane and Sydney (x1) 460 Return airfare between Brisbane and Adelaide (x2) 1,300 Return airfare between Brisbane and Darwin (x1) 650 1 night accommodation @ $180 per person 1,080 One dinner @ $60 per person (all attending) 840 Lunch x 2 days @ $15 per person (all attending) 420 Morning and afternoon tea x 2 days@ $10 per person 280 Telecommunication costs Specific teleconference costs have been allocated to ensure effective and efficient liaison between Project Team members. These, and general communication costs, will be borne by the institutions of the Reference Group members.

Note 7 – Office consumables and printing costs

QUT will bear the costs of consumables, including report printing costs.

Note 8 – Contingencies

While all reasonable measures have been taken to ensure the budget is based on estimated costs, a small contingency fund has been included in the budget to allow for unforseen increases in costs over the duration of the project. For example, increases in airfare, accommodation and consultancy (project evaluator) costs.

Note 9 - Student Focus Group Sessions

Costs have been calculated on the basis that there will be two rounds of focus groups during the project at each of the collaborative institutions (above at 6.2. Project Phases). Preparation of focus group sessions, including the enlistment of participants, will be carried out by each institution. However, it will be necessary to employ a research assistant at each collaborative institution to carry out and transcribe the focus groups to ensure the integrity of the focus group data. Catering for participants will also be required.

The budget is calculated on the basis that there will be two rounds of focus group sessions, one in each year. Each institution will hold 2 focus group sessions a year, each running for approximately 2 hours. Four hours will be required to transcribe each focus group session. Therefore, the total time required for each year is estimated to be 6 hours interview time and 24 hours transcription time. Costs have been calculated at casual research assistant rates of $31.93 per hour and all salaries are calculated on the QUT Salary Scale for casual academic staff, and include oncosts (28%) and EBA increases (4%) over the years calculated.

Note 10 – One Day Final Year Forum

The final year forum is an essential outcome of the project. Costs for this activity include travel for key participants, collaborators and Australian Reference Group members, catering, venue and equipment hire and incidentals. The budget is calculated as follows: $ Conference costs (including venue and equipment hire, and catering etc) 45,000

19

Invited guest speakers • Return airfare (x2) estimated at max amount 2,000 • 2 night accommodation @ $180 per person 720 • Cab fares etc 200

Reference group members • Return airfare between Brisbane and Perth (x1) 1,000 • Return airfare between Brisbane and Melbourne (x1) 650 • Return airfare between Brisbane and Sydney (x1) 460 • Return airfare between Brisbane and Adelaide (x2) 1,300 • Return airfare between Brisbane and Darwin (x1) 650 • 2 night accommodation @ $180 per person 1,800 • Cab fares etc 200

Venue and equipment hire costs are estimated at $10,000. Catering is estimated at $35 per person for 100 people. The forum will occur over middle period of project (Feb-July). Therefore, costs of the forum have been split evenly between the two years.

Note 11 - Evaluation costs The cost of the independent external evaluation of the project is consistent with the ALTC requirement that all projects over $150,000 in value are to be independently evaluated. Costs include travel and accommodation associated with attendance at the initial project meeting and at the Final Year Forum. The costs of the project Evaluator are distributed evenly over the life of the project.

Note 12 - Infrastructure costs and consumables No expense will be incurred for the use of office space and most equipment (eg computing) will be provided by each institution. The majority of costs related to administration support and consumables will also be covered by each institution (see Note 7). However, an allowance for administrative overheads has been included in each year to cover allowable infrastructure costs. This is calculated at 10% of the total non-salary budget items.

20

AP

PE

ND

IX 3

: Pro

ject

Tim

e Li

ne –

201

0 -

2011

A

ctiv

ities

for

Yea

r 1

– 2

010

Ja

n

2010

F

eb

2010

M

arch

20

10

Apr

il 20

10

Ma

y 20

10

Jun

e 20

10

July

20

10

Aug

20

10

Sep

t 20

10

Oct

20

10

Nov

20

10

Dec

20

10

Pha

se 1

: P

lann

ing

and

Pre

para

tion

A

ppoi

nt P

roje

ct M

ana

ger

and

Pro

ject

Ass

ista

nt.

(PT

)

Χ

Est

abl

ish

Pro

ject

Bla

ckbo

ard

site

. (P

A u

nde

r gu

idan

ce o

f PM

)

Χ

Χ

App

ly f

or e

thic

al c

lear

ance

. (P

T)

Χ

Χ

Con

ven

e R

efe

ren

ce G

roup

. (P

M)

Χ

Con

duct

face

to

face

pla

nnin

g di

scus

sion

s w

ith

Re

fere

nce

Gro

up. (

PT

)

Χ

App

oin

t ext

ern

al e

valu

ato

r. (

PM

)

Χ

Pha

se 2

: Im

plem

enta

tion

of

Pro

ject

Pla

n

Upd

ate

en

viro

nmen

tal s

can

and

liter

atu

re r

evie

w.

Upl

oad

to B

B s

ite f

or R

efer

ence

Gro

up c

omm

ent.

(PT

)

Χ

Χ

Χ

Dev

elop

Pro

ject

We

bsite

for

ext

erna

l acc

ess.

(P

A

unde

r gu

idan

ce o

f PM

)

Χ

Pub

lish

first

pro

ject

rep

ort a

nd

new

slet

ter

on

proj

ect

web

site

. (P

M w

ith P

T)

Χ

Dra

ft fir

st it

erat

ion

of fi

na

l yea

r cu

rric

ulum

de

sign

prin

cipl

es a

nd

mod

el fi

nal

yea

r pr

ogra

m.

(PT

)

Χ

Χ

Χ

Beg

in fi

rst a

ctio

n le

arni

ng

cycl

e w

ith R

efer

ence

G

roup

. Pro

vide

dra

ft pr

inci

ples

and

mod

el o

n B

B

site

. Con

duct

dis

cuss

ion

s on

BB

site

. (P

T a

nd

RG

)

Χ

Re

vie

w,

refle

ct a

nd

act

on

Re

fere

nce

Gro

up

feed

back

an

d co

mm

enta

ry o

n d

raft

desi

gn

prin

cipl

es a

nd

mod

el p

rogr

am.

(PT

)

Χ

Pub

lish

seco

nd

proj

ect

rep

ort a

nd

new

slet

ter

on

web

site

. (P

M w

ith P

T)

Χ

21

Act

iviti

es fo

r Y

ear

1 –

2010

(co

ntin

ued)

Jan

20

10

Feb

20

10

Mar

ch

2010

A

pril

2010

M

ay

2010

Ju

ne

2010

Ju

ly

2010

A

ug

2010

S

ept

2010

O

ct

2010

N

ov

2010

D

ec

2010

D

raft

seco

nd

itera

tion

of f

inal

yea

r cu

rric

ulum

de

sign

prin

cipl

es a

nd

mod

el fi

nal

yea

r pr

ogra

m.

(PT

)

Χ

Χ

Χ

Con

duct

sec

ond

act

ion

lear

nin

g cy

cle

with

R

efe

ren

ce G

roup

. P

rovi

de s

econ

d dr

aft

prin

cipl

es

and

mod

el o

n B

B s

ite.

Con

duct

di

scus

sion

s on

BB

site

. (P

T a

nd

RG

)

Χ

Re

vie

w,

refle

ct a

nd

act

on

Re

fere

nce

Gro

up

feed

back

an

d co

mm

enta

ry o

n s

econ

d ite

ratio

n.

(PT

)

Χ

Con

duct

stu

den

t foc

us g

roup

s a

t QU

T,

UW

A a

nd

GU

(im

med

iate

ly p

ost-

exa

m p

erio

d) (

PM

with

co

llabo

rativ

e in

stitu

tion

sta

ff an

d A

LSA

)

Χ

Pub

lish

third

pro

ject

rep

ort a

nd

new

slet

ter

on

proj

ect

web

site

. (P

M w

ith P

T)

Χ

Re

vie

w,

refle

ct a

nd

act

on

stud

ent f

ocus

gro

up

feed

back

. C

ontin

ue d

evel

opm

ent

of d

raft

prin

cipl

es a

nd

prog

ram

. (P

T)

Χ

Χ

Pha

se 3

: C

ontr

ol a

ctiv

ities

Eva

luat

e st

uden

t fo

cus

grou

ps v

ia s

urve

y a

dmin

iste

red

at e

nd

of s

essi

ons.

(P

M w

ith

colla

bora

tive

inst

itutio

n st

aff

and

ALS

A)

Χ

See

k R

efe

ren

ce G

roup

feed

back

re

act

ion

lear

nin

g pr

oces

s vi

a B

B s

ite d

iscu

ssio

n fo

rum

, im

prov

e pr

oces

s a

ccor

din

g to

feed

back

. (P

T)

Mea

sure

w

ebsi

te e

nga

gem

ent.

(PM

)

Χ

Con

sult

with

ext

erna

l Eva

luat

or r

e pr

ojec

t pr

ogre

ss.

(PT

)

Χ

Dev

elop

jo

urna

l/con

fere

nce

pa

pers

Χ

Χ

Upd

ate

lite

ratu

re r

evie

w (

PT

)

Χ

22

Act

iviti

es fo

r Y

ear

2 –

2011

Jan

20

11

Feb

20

11

Mar

ch

2011

A

pril

2011

M

ay

2011

Ju

ne

2011

Ju

ly

2011

A

ug

2011

S

ept

2011

O

ct

2011

N

ov

2011

D

ec

2011

D

raft

third

iter

atio

n o

f fin

al y

ear

curr

icul

um

desi

gn p

rinci

ples

an

d m

odel

fin

al y

ear

prog

ram

. (P

T)

Χ

Χ

Χ

Con

duct

third

act

ion

lear

nin

g cy

cle

with

R

efe

ren

ce G

roup

. P

rovi

de th

ird d

raft

prin

cipl

es

and

mod

el o

n B

B s

ite.

Con

duct

di

scus

sion

s on

BB

site

. (P

T a

nd

RG

)

Χ

Re

vie

w,

refle

ct a

nd

act

on

Re

fere

nce

Gro

up

feed

back

an

d co

mm

enta

ry o

n th

ird it

era

tion.

(P

T)

Χ

Pub

lish

four

th p

roje

ct r

epor

t an

d n

ewsl

ette

r on

w

ebsi

te.

(PM

with

PT

)

Χ

Dra

ft fo

urth

iter

atio

n o

f fin

al y

ear

curr

icul

um

desi

gn p

rinci

ples

an

d m

odel

fin

al y

ear

prog

ram

. (P

T)

Χ

Χ

Χ

Con

duct

four

th a

ctio

n le

arni

ng

cycl

e w

ith

Re

fere

nce

Gro

up.

Pro

vide

four

th d

raft

prin

cipl

es

and

mod

el o

n B

B s

ite.

Con

duct

di

scus

sion

s on

BB

site

. (P

T a

nd

RG

)

Χ

Re

vie

w,

refle

ct a

nd

act

on

Re

fere

nce

Gro

up

feed

back

an

d co

mm

enta

ry o

n fo

urth

iter

atio

n.

(PT

)

Χ

Con

duct

sec

ond

roun

d of

stu

den

t foc

us g

roup

s a

t Q

UT

, U

WA

an

d G

U (

imm

edia

tely

pos

t-ex

am

pe

riod

). (

PM

with

col

labo

rativ

e in

stitu

tion

sta

ff an

d A

LSA

)

Χ

Re

vie

w,

refle

ct a

nd

act

on

stud

ent f

ocus

gro

up

feed

back

. C

ontin

ue d

evel

opm

ent

of d

raft

prin

cipl

es a

nd

prog

ram

. (P

T)

Χ

Pub

lish

fifth

pro

ject

rep

ort a

nd

new

slet

ter

on

web

site

. (P

M w

ith P

T)

Χ

Fin

alis

e pr

inci

ples

and

mod

el p

rogr

am. (

PT

)

Χ

Pre

pare

for

and

con

duct

Fin

al Y

ear

For

um.

(PM

, P

A,

RG

)

Χ

Χ

23

Act

iviti

es fo

r Y

ear

2 –

2011

(co

ntin

ued)

Jan

20

11

Feb

20

11

Mar

ch

2011

A

pril

2011

M

ay

2011

Ju

ne

2011

Ju

ly

2011

A

ug

2011

S

ept

2011

O

ct

2011

N

ov

2011

D

ec

2011

P

ublis

h si

xth

proj

ect

repo

rt a

nd

new

slet

ter

on

web

site

. (P

M w

ith P

T)

Χ

Writ

e F

ina

l Rep

ort

for

ALT

C.

(PT

with

PM

)

Χ

Χ

Pha

se 3

: C

ontr

ol a

ctiv

ities

Eva

luat

e st

uden

t fo

cus

grou

ps v

ia s

urve

y a

dmin

iste

red

at e

nd

of s

essi

ons.

(P

M w

ith

colla

bora

tive

inst

itutio

n st

aff

and

ALS

A)

Χ

See

k R

efe

ren

ce G

roup

feed

back

re

act

ion

lear

nin

g pr

oces

s vi

a B

B s

ite d

iscu

ssio

n fo

rum

, im

prov

e pr

oces

s a

ccor

din

g to

feed

back

. (P

T)

Mea

sure

w

ebsi

te e

nga

gem

ent.

(PM

)

Χ

Con

sult

with

ext

erna

l Eva

luat

or r

e pr

ojec

t pr

ogre

ss.

(PT

)

Χ

Dev

elop

jour

na

l/con

fere

nce

pap

ers.

(P

T)

Χ

Χ

Χ P

hase

4:

Clo

sing

act

iviti

es

Pro

ject

Tea

m e

valu

atio

n o

f pro

cess

es a

nd

outc

omes

. (P

T)

Χ

For

mal

com

mis

sion

ing

of e

xter

nal e

valu

ato

r’s

repo

rt. (

PM

an

d P

T)

Χ

Pro

visi

on o

f Fin

al R

epor

t to

ALT

C. (

PM

)

Χ Le

gend

: P

T =

Pro

ject

Tea

m; R

G =

Ref

eren

ce G

roup

; PM

= P

roje

ct M

anag

er; P

A =

Pro

ject

Ass

ista

nt; B

B =

Bla

ckbo

ard

site

; ALS

A =

Aus

tral

ian

Law

Stu

dent

s’

Ass

ocia

tion.

24