The use of essays in assessment: a case study for change

Rob East, University of Glamorgan

Why use essays in undergraduate legal education?

The traditional discursive essay is an integral part of assessment in undergraduate legal education. As with other disciplines, the writing of an academic essay is seen as an obviously beneficial and valuable learning experience:

“Writing essays...is an essential step in promoting intellectual development, internalizing knowledge and developing the capacity for rational thought. These objectives...are the most important rationale of universities...T]here is still no better way of fostering intellectual development in many subjects than requiring students to produce...essays.”

(Dunleavy, 1986:78)

This paper subjects this perspective to scrutiny and challenges some of the assumptions made about the value of essay writing.

A major difficulty in examining the merits and demerits of essay writing as a tool of both learning and assessment in higher education is the widespread, even universal, belief throughout the sector of its obvious benefits:

“Perhaps precisely because it is so familiar a part of the landscape of education - essay-writing is all too easily taken for granted. In many books on teaching in higher education, there is little more than a passing mention of essay-writing, and it often gets similarly short shrift in departmental and course team meetings and in academic staff training and development programmes.”

(Hounsell & Murray, 1992:1)

What, then, are the perceived virtues of requiring students to write essays? One of the most widely acclaimed is that it provides an excellent vehicle for students to develop thinking (or intellectual) skills, which, Dunleavy argues above, is "the most important rationale of universities". Bloom's so-called 'taxonomy' of intellectual skills is widely used to explain how such skills are developed within higher education (Bloom, 1965). He identifies a hierarchy of progressively more demanding thinking skills, each of which necessitates first acquiring the 'lower' skills. In this hierarchy, the acquisition of knowledge is built upon by manipulation (or understanding), which is then followed by application. This is the ability to use knowledge and understanding in new situations. These three 'lower order' intellectual skills form the basis for development of the 'higher order' skills of analysis, synthesis and evaluation (Bone, 1999:6-7).

What distinguishes higher education from, for example, further education is the emphasis placed on the development of these thinking skills. The role of assessment, over the period of students' studies, is to progressively facilitate this developmental process. Essays are seen as a valuable vehicle for this development:

“Essay-writing is usually intended to achieve two broad purposes. The first of these is a developmental one: essay-writing offers students an opportunity to consolidate and extend their learning. This they put ‘on display' by communicating what they have learnt within the framework of a formal, ordered statement. ”

(Hounsell & Murray, 1992:15)

This quote also highlights that an academic essay is designed to develop students' communication skills. The ability to present, in written form, a considered, reasoned, critical examination of a topic, which displays an effective assessment of various relevant viewpoints and of evidence, is an important skill which the traditional academic essay is an exemplar in developing. To achieve competence in academic essay writing also necessitates the development of appropriate research, reading and organisation (or self management) skills, the latter including the requirement to meet the deadline for submission of the essay! As Alison Bone comments: "Essays are good for assessing a wide range of skills including planning, selecting, organising and presenting". (Bone, 1999:25).

In this way, students develop into autonomous or independent learners, more readily able to take responsibility and control of their learning experience. In fact, of the seven groupings set out under the headings 'subject-specific abilities', 'general transferable intellectual skills' and 'key skills' in the Quality Assurance Agency Law benchmark statement, it could be strongly argued that essay writing develops, at the least, five of them - knowledge; sources and research; analysis, synthesis, critical judgment and evaluation; autonomy and ability to learn; and communication and literacy (Quality Assurance Agency, 2000).

Challenging assumptions about the benefits of essay writing

If all the above are attributes that an academic essay is a vehicle for developing, it may be seen to be, at best, churlish and, at worst, naïve or malicious to deny its value in developing and assessing them. However, what can be challenged is the assumption that the academic essay, as it is traditionally used in the higher education sector, is the ideal mechanism to develop those aforementioned skills and attributes so that they are transferable in the sense that they can be used in a variety of situations to produce different types of document in a way appropriate to different contexts and differing situations, such as a student's subsequent workplace. Thus, of the belief that the academic essay develops the ability to communicate in written form:

“Many lecturers in higher education (and their counterparts in secondary schools too) will readily assert that experience in writing essays develops student skills in written communication that students can deploy in their subsequent professional careers. Yet while it seems incontestable that practice in marshalling thoughts and expressing ideas clearly and fluently will have some general spin-offs, are essay-writing skills truly versatile? ”

(Hounsell & Murray, 1992:5)

Hounsell and Murray query this, suggesting that there are certain idiosyncratic features of the academic essay that limit its role in developing writing skills that are versatile enough to be appropriate when called upon to write other types of documents such as work-based reports, letters or memoranda. They identify a number of particular features of an academic essay that limit its role in developing truly transferable writing skills. First, they claim that many academic essays are 'stipulative' in nature in that it is the lecturer who invariably determines (or 'stipulates') everything - what the topic or essay title is; how it is to be dealt with; what research material is relevant and what is not; how long the essay is and the length of time given for completion:

“This means that the student has to work within constraints over which, in most professional settings, the general writer would have at least some freedom to negotiate. It also means that students do not acquire experience in setting boundaries to what they can realistically achieve. ”

(Hounsell & Murray, 1992:5)

Secondly, the audience for which an academic essay is written is fundamentally different to that in respect of most other written documents, in that it is more specialist or expert than the writer. As specialists, the audience (ie the lecturer(s) who mark the essay and any external examiner(s)) is likely to learn very little from reading the essay. This is in marked contrast to the writing of documents such as reports, memoranda and letters in the work environment, where the audience is usually less knowledgeable than the writer and the document's main purpose is to inform, and, in many situations, influence the decision making of those less knowledgeable.

Hounsell and Murray argue that this also precludes the opportunity for students to develop a 'sense of audience', namely the ability to fine tune one's writing to meet the requirements of different readers with differing levels of knowledge or expertise (Hounsell & Murray, 1992:5). A third feature of most academic essays that Hounsell and Murray perceive inhibits the development of general writing skills is that, in most cases, the writer is not given the opportunity to benefit from any form of feedback on an initial draft. Commonly, what feedback is given is provided after the essay has been read and graded, and the writer is denied the opportunity to alter the essay in light of the comments provided:

“Students are not usually required to revise their work in the light of the comments made - a possibility which writers are seldom denied outside the classroom. Students are therefore cut off from the opportunity to acquire the skills of revision and redrafting. As academics, we all need only recall our first encounter with referees' comments on a fledgling journal article to remind ourselves of how exacting such skills can be. ”

(Hounsell & Murray, 1992:6)

Significantly, this quote suggests that the traditional 'stipulative' essay does not necessarily provide the opportunity for undergraduate students to develop the full range of skills necessary to engage in more advanced academic discourse. Difficulties in students acquiring academic essay writing skills are also compounded by the 'discipline specific' nature of this task:

“Each discipline has its own distinctive set of concepts, approaches and analytical procedures, and these determine the precise form which academic discourse is to follow within that particular subject domain. What constitutes a plausible or at least acceptable mode of argument in one discipline may not be valid in another - and vice-versa...Equally importantly, the norms which shape and govern a discipline help to determine what work is of appropriate academic standing, in that it fulfills accepted notions of research and scholarship.”

(Hounsell D & Murray R (1992) p6)

The authoritarian model of assessment and its limitations

It is not surprising that many students struggle to develop competence in essay writing, particularly if they are given only limited guidance. This leads to the important issue of the model of learning within which essay writing, and other forms of learning and assessment, operate. The essential argument here is that some of the limitations of essay writing identified above are not inherent but are a result of the way that essays are used in higher education. The consequent assumption is that changes to learning and assessment regimes could make essay writing more successfully achieve its acclaimed objectives. The 'stipulative' approach to essays, of which much of the criticism is directed, is a feature of the authoritarian model of assessment:

“The prevailing model for assessing student work in higher education is an authoritarian one. Staff exercise unilateral intellectual authority: they decide what students shall learn, they design the programme of learning, they determine criteria of assessment and make the assessment of the student. The student does not participate in decision-making at all about his learning objectives or his learning programme, nor in setting criteria and applying them in assessment procedures. He is subject to the intellectual authority of an academic elite who have the power to exercise a very high degree of social control on the exercise of his intelligence and on his future social destiny by intellectual grading...The issue here is a political one: that is, it is to do with the exercise of power. And power is simply to do with who makes decisions about whom. ”

(Heron, 1988:77)

Justification for this approach centres around the idea that power needs to be retained by academic staff on these issues as it is they who, because of their previous education and training, have the knowledge and expertise to ensure that the process is completed appropriately. Backed by the ubiquitous system of external examiners, such a level of control exercised by staff in setting the assessment criteria and undertaking the assessment of students' work, which also extends to other forms of assessment, whether they be end-of-module examinations or class presentations or whatever, is necessary to maintain standards and to ensure the fairness, validity and reliability of the process. After all, they are the experts, by definition the students are not.

Despite the above quote being written nearly two decades ago, the authoritarian approach towards assessment would still seem to be widespread, even prevalent, in undergraduate legal education. This is not, however, to deny that there have been important recent developments to professionalise teaching, learning and assessment in the higher education sector that have, inter alia, introduced different, more innovative approaches. These developments include the emergence, in recent years, of the Higher Education Academy (and its forerunner the Institute for Teaching and Learning) along with the associated Subject Centres, including UKCLE.

This has been supplemented by the creation of a series of benchmark statements, under the auspices of the Quality Assurance Agency, setting out minimum requirements for all undergraduate programmes to achieve, the law benchmark statement being published in 2000. These have all contributed to developing different models of learning, teaching and assessment, thereby undermining the omnipotence of the authoritarian model. Nevertheless, the authoritarian model is a robust animal (Quality Assurance Agency, 2000) and, as the following quote suggests, its continuance in undergraduate legal education has been bulwarked by the move to a system of mass higher education:

“Traditional forms of legal education have been weighted towards the transmission of a large body of knowledge to students...It is one which makes any form of direct skills teaching vulnerable to being squeezed out...The traditional model of education tends to be hierarchical, involving a tutor or perceived ‘expert' handing down a received body of knowledge to the ‘novice' student. It is one of teaching rather than learning. This is exacerbated by the teaching methods which, with ever increasing student numbers, are heavily reliant on large group lectures, in some cases delivered through video links. Tutorials and seminars have too often acted merely as a supplement to the lectures in so far as the emphasis has remained on ensuring that student have adequate grasp of the topic in question. In an era in which the espoused values of education are ‘independence of thought', ‘personal development planning' and the ‘ability to reflect on one's own practice and to use feedback to assess and manage one's own performance', the traditional model of law teaching is outdated. Moreover the assessment strategies are often incongruent with the aims and learning objectives of the course. ”

(Hinett et al, 1999:135-136)

As the last part of this quote suggests, a major criticism of this approach is that the process by which it is conducted and the product that it aspires to create appear to be incompatible. If the product of higher education is designed to be an independent, autonomous learner who can assess and manage his or her own performance, a highly prescriptive process of assessment, where control and power is retained by the lecturer, is not necessarily the best way to achieve this. A second criticism is based on challenging the idea that academic staff necessarily and always have the requisite knowledge and expertise. A recent research study of comparative marking on undergraduate law programmes at four law schools in England, for example, concluded that:

“The marks awarded by legal academics presented with identical pieces of student work vary considerably - suggesting the potential for error variation in the grading of assessments. ”

(Hanlon, Jefferson, Molan & Mitchell, 2004)

This, therefore, challenges the very basis of the authoritarian model, namely that academic staff are the experts in all appropriate matters. No doubt there are defenders of this traditional approach who would seek to uphold it against such complaints, and even Heron, a fervent critic, recognises that:

“...the traditional educational system has produced and continues to produce persons who may be to a greater or lesser degree self-determining. This is not least because, what ever its defects of method, central to its teaching is the importance of rational critical thinking, of assessment of views and of evidence. So the central precepts which it teaches may survive, more or less impaired, the methods by which it is taught.

And the corollary, of course, is that some academic tutors do genuinely seek to elicit in their students sound reasoning, judgment and critical appraisal, and do genuinely rejoice in students who exhibit originality, intellectual competence and independence of judgment.”

(Heron, 1999:80)

Perhaps the most important issue to emerge from this examination of higher education generally, and, more specifically, undergraduate legal education, involves exploring the changes to the authoritarian approach that can lead to a more effective learning experience for students and the provision of an assessment process that more readily facilitates this. The rest of this work explores one such attempt.

A case study on the more effective use of essays as part of assessment

In recognition of the value of essays as a mechanism of assessment and learning in higher education, yet critical of the way that they are traditionally used in the authoritarian model of undergraduate legal education, an alternative approach has been taken on one level 1 module on the LLB programme at the University of Glamorgan. This involves students having the opportunity to resubmit their essays after being initially formally graded and commented on by a member of the module team. At the outset, it should be pointed out that this is not seen as a particularly innovative step, with this approach, or some variation of it, no doubt utilised in a range of subject areas within higher education. However, in the context of a largely conservative discipline such as law, it is suggested that it provides a valuable exemplar of innovation. It provides each student with the opportunity to directly benefit from the feedback from the comments and grade awarded to seek to improve their essay writing skills.

The Law and Society module aims to provide 'context' on a level one programme that is largely of a 'black letter' nature. Other modules offer a traditional exploration of areas of English law, such as contract and tort, with the main aim being for students to acquire an understanding of the legal rules. Law and Society complements this by exploring a range of more general issues. Currently, there are three elements of assessment:

1. The first is an individual written essay of 1,200 words, constituting 20% of the total assessment for the module.
2. The second element is a team-based exercise, in which each team of three or four undertakes a class presentation of 15 minutes as well as submitting a written account. This involves an element of peer assessment of each team member's performance in the 'process' of producing the presentation and document, as well as every student engaging in self reflection. It constitutes 40% of the total assessment for the module.
3. The third aspect of assessment is that students are assessed on their performance in the classroom throughout the module, for example their preparedness to engage in class discussion and the effectiveness of their contributions. An element of self assessment is involved, this also constituting 40% of the total assessment for the module.

This assessment strategy would seem to run against the concern expressed by Clegg in her study of undergraduate legal education in England and Wales that:

“The variety of methods used in the sample are disappointing, utilising a very small proportion of the techniques available...The standard assessment...is an examination and one or two written pieces of coursework. In some departments, modules are assessed by 100% examination. ”

(Clegg, 2004:27)

Or, as one participant in her study commented:

“We just play safe. ”

(Clegg, 2004:32)

The focus here, however, is on how moving away from the traditional authoritarian approach of using of essays can enhance their value as a means of assessment and learning. The 1,200 word essay is submitted at the end of the first week in November, approximately 5-6 weeks into the students' undergraduate studies. This is followed by a reading week, which allows the three strong module team to grade the essays and give written feedback. The essays are returned the following week and students, if they so choose, can resubmit the essay for regrading at the end of the term, approximately 5-6 weeks later, whichever grade is the higher being recorded as the awarded mark.

There were a number of reasons why the module team decided to implement this policy. Most obviously, it was recognised that this was the first undergraduate law essay for this student cohort, many of whom having little idea of what was required of them. It was designed to take the worry or stress out of an unknown process, giving those who underperformed a chance to learn directly from the grade and feedback given to them and, for some, to attempt to redeem a poor, possibly fail, mark. The reason for students completing a formal piece of assessment so soon into their studies was that each student would, at an early stage, receive some formal information on how well he or she was adapting to the demands of undergraduate legal study. Another important factor was that students could use the feedback comments specifically to address any weaknesses identified in the essay in question. It was felt that this was likely to be a more valuable learning experience than a more generic approach of hoping that students would be able to take such comments on board in writing a later essay in another level 1 module, particularly for those students who had obtained a low grade.

Student perceptions of the value of this approach

As outlined earlier, essays are widely seen as a mechanism for students to learn a whole range of skills, so it is important to ascertain whether the students saw this approach as facilitating such learning. Particularly important were their views on comparing this with the more traditional approach, compatible with the authoritarian model, of students not being able to directly benefit from the marker's comments by resubmitting. In an effort, therefore, to gauge the views of those students involved, formal feedback was obtained via a student questionnaire in respect of the first two years of its operation (2003-04 and 2004-05). The following table provides general information on this.

The percentage of students who completed a questionnaire was high in both years, with a 66% return in 2003-04 (135 out of 205) and 55% in 2004-05 (72 out of 132). Specific information was sought, in the questionnaire, on the reasons why those students who resubmitted did so and, also, why those who did not resubmit had arrived at that decision. In answering these questions, many students gave more than one reason.

The following individual comments provide further illumination:

• I knew that I could do better. I didn't really know what the university expected from the coursework. The opportunity was there to improve it so I took it. I went from a 2.2. to a 2.1 (2003-04: A82)
• I realised what had to be done (2003-04: A87)
• Having obtained a relatively low mark I choose to resubmit to see if I had improved in identifying what was expected of me (2004-05: A44)
• I failed my first attempt at the coursework so had no choice and had to resubmit it. I didn't put much effort into doing the first attempt of it but made a lot more effort for the second attempt and passed (2004-05: B1)

Specific comments included the following:

• Had satisfactory mark...if I had achieved less I would definitely have resubmitted the work (2003-04: A1)
• Time. I feel I did not have sufficient time to resubmit and complete normal workshop tasks...Also I had other assignments (2003-04: A11)
• I got 58%, I didn't feel the need to resubmit...Having said that, I would have taken the opportunity to resubmit if I had got a result in the 40s range (2004-05: A42)

The questionnaire also aimed to establish whether or not the students thought that this was a valuable exercise, the overwhelmingly response being that it was. Of the 132 responses in 2003-04, only five were critical. The rest described it, varyingly, as “very valuable”, “really good”, “excellent” and “a good idea”. In 2004-05, only two out of 132 did not regard it as a valuable approach, the rest echoing the comments of the previous year. Students were asked to identify the specific benefits and disadvantages of being offered the opportunity to resubmit the essay following the first grading and accompanying feedback. The following two tables set these out:

In respect of the perceived disadvantages, it is appropriate to point out that, in 2003-04, 52 students expressly stated that that there were no disadvantages, and, in 2004-05, 32 did likewise.

Conclusion

The opportunity for students to benefit directly from an initial grade and feedback comments by resubmitting a revised essay was certainly seen by the vast bulk of students as beneficial. It could be argued that this statement in itself is enough to validate the exercise, in that the learners clearly found it a valuable learning experience. The main reasons offered were, first, the 'insurance' dimension. Students knew that there was the safety net of resubmission if their essays received a grade they were not happy with. Secondly, each student had the chance to improve the essay following the marker's feedback. It was seen as a useful exercise, therefore, even though, in both 2003-04 and 2004-05, the overwhelming majority of students did not take this opportunity up.

The main issue in respect of adopting such an approach centres around whether this is uniquely appropriate to the first undergraduate essay or whether it should be used more widely across all levels of study. There are clearly specific benefits in its use for the first essay, centring around the fact that many students would have little idea of what is expected of them. However, in light of the criticisms of the 'stipulative essay', there is certainly a case for this to be developed more widely. A major practical problem, in the case of the mass higher education sector of today, is the amount of staff resourcing to mark essays twice. However, one of the most significant points to emerge from this case study is that the vast majority of students did not avail themselves of the opportunity to resubmit the essay. Even so, the 'insurance' perspective of that possibility was seen as valuable.

References and bibliography

• Bloom B (1965) A taxonomy of educational objectives Handbook 1: cognitive domain New York: McKay
• Bone A (1999) Ensuring successful assessment Coventry: National Centre for Legal Education
• Brown G (2001) Assessment: a guide for lecturers York: Learning and Teaching Support Network at 17
• Clegg K (2004) Playing safe: learning and teaching in undergraduate law Coventry: UKCLE
• Dunleavy P (1986) Studying for a degree in the humanities and social sciences London: Macmillan Education
• Hanlon J, Jefferson M, Molan M & Mitchell B (2004) An examination of the incidence of ‘error variation' in the grading of law assessments Coventry: UKCLE
• Heron J (1988) 'Assessment revisited' in D Boud (eds) Developing student autonomy in learning London: Kogan Page (2nd ed)
• Hinett K, Maughan C, Lee B and Stanton K (1999) 'Managing change in assessment and learning in legal education: a tale of two cities' The Law Teacher 33:135-136
• Hounsell D and Murray R (1992) Essay writing for active learning Sheffield: CVCP
• Quality Assurance Agency (2000) Law benchmark statement Bristol: QAA

Biography of Rob East

Rob is a Principal Lecturer at the University of Glamorgan. He has taken responsibility for developing good practice within the university in areas such as innovative assessment, reflection and personal development planning. He has also written a number of publications on pedagogic issues within legal education.

Rob's current research is based on enhancing the use of essay writing in undergraduate legal education. He is also a pilot developer for UKCLE's Enterprise in Law project.