Jayden Houghton uses Canvas peer review discussions in his Law courses to prompt his students to learn from one another by engaging in in-depth discussions on key ideas in the course.
His course, LAWPUBL 405, considers the role of law and legal practice in the advancement of social justice, including in relation to Māori and Pasifika, and an introduction to theories of social justice and their application in diverse areas of social policy, including criminal justice, housing, welfare, immigration and tax.
Jayden designed a peer discussion (10%) for the course’s early assessment exercise 1, consisting of a graded peer review Canvas Discussion. The lectures are heavily discussion-based; the assessment was intended to create a parallel online forum in which students could discuss similar issues in writing. This progression was intended to scaffold students towards the larger-weighted written assessments later in the course. Also, given the COVID-19 context, an online forum allowed students who could not attend class in-person to partake in discussions.
In week 3, students must post a 450 word contribution to a prompt on a topic and are given specific guidance on what to consider. Once the deadline for the contribution passes, Canvas randomly assigns each student two fellow students’ contributions to respond to using Canvas’ peer review function. In week 4, students are asked to write a 75 word response to two peers’ contributions — for example, to say whether they agree or disagree with the contribution, to express how it has helped their own learning, or to advance the discussion in response to a specific prompt.
The contributions and responses each have their own rubric, which guide and encourage students to engage in research, critical thinking and evaluation, written communication, and use of scholarly sources to support their arguments. 2 The peer review rubric includes criteria for writing tone and quality of response, which encourages collegiality and beneficial discussion — constructive contributions are rewarded, while disrespectful responses may fail.
Students are not able to see their peers’ contributions until they have posted their own contribution. The contributions are visible to the whole class so that each student can be a participating, respectful and reflective member of a collaborative learning community. The peer reviews are only visible to the peer reviewer and the author of the contribution they reviewed, which encourages honest and critical personal reflection.
Jayden has used a similar discussion assessment in multiple courses, including LAWPUBL 405 Law and Social Justice (2021, 2022), LAWPUBL 427 Māori Land Law (2021, 2023) and LAWPUBL 468 Mātauranga Māori and Taonga (2020, 2022). In the LAWPUBL 427 and LAWPUBL 468 iterations, there are multiple rounds of contribution + peer reviews, such that students get multiple opportunities to develop their written contribution and peer response skills, and improve based on feedback from their markers and peers. When there are multiple rounds, the teacher must be careful to schedule the rounds such that there is ample opportunity for the teacher to provide feedback for one round before students commence the next.
Student feedback
“The regular small assessments were beneficial as they allowed me to stay engaged with the course material throughout the semester.”
“It is nice to pick up marks from something other than an essay or exam – which the law school seems to love using almost exclusively as assessment tools.”
“It really helped me to think about the concepts we were covering and viewing other people’s perspectives was very insightful.”
“Completing the discussion boards tasks was a good way to stay on top of course content, and helped to consolidate what we had learnt while also seeing other interpretations to the questions other students had.”
Examples
Example discussion prompt and rubric
Contribution instructions
Read Khylee Quince “Universities should beware the ‘hidden curriculum’ that disadvantages many students” (24 July 2021) Stuff <www.stuff.co.nz>.
Then, in your discussion board contribution, answer ALL of the following:
1. Define “social justice” in your own words in one sentence. Then answer: What are the key implications of the hidden curriculum in New Zealand law schools for social justice in New Zealand? Explain.
2. Assuming your earlier definition of social justice: Do you think it is currently possible to genuinely advance social justice as an employed lawyer in New Zealand? Discuss.
3. Assuming your earlier definition of social justice: Suggest one new reform or initiative that would better enable employed lawyers to genuinely advance social justice in New Zealand, and briefly explain why you think it would do so.
Assume the marker has read the Quince article. You do not need to re-explain anything Quince has explained (but may do so if you consider this necessary). Further, assume the marker attended all of Jayden’s lectures for Law and Social Justice this year and understands all of the terms and concepts referred to in the PowerPoint. You do not need to re-explain anything Jayden explained in lectures (but may do so if you consider this necessary).
Clearly number your answers 1, 2 and 3. Do not restate the questions. Do not repeat your definition of social justice in answers 2 or 3.
Assessment details:
- Word limit: 450 words (± 5%) total. The answers should be approximately the same length (i.e. none of answers 1, 2 or 3 should be more than 160 words).
- References: Cite no more than six sources total. Citations are not included in the word count.
- Marks: 6 marks
- Opens: 29 July 2021 at 5:45pm
- Due: 5 August 2021 at 12 noon
Rubric
| Marks | Insight and contribution | Tone and writing |
| 0 – 2.5 marks | Minimal understanding of the discussion topics, may go off-topic and/or does not answer all of the questions. | Largely descriptive, significant quoting, poorly written and/or overlength (above the 5% word limit leeway). May be confusing to follow. |
| 3 – 4.5 marks | Generally well-argued. | Minimal descriptiveness, generally in own words (minimal quoting), well-written and any citations largely NZLSG compliant. |
| 5 – 6 marks | Critical, insightful and creative, and may attempt to be scholarly |
Example student contribution 1
1. The redistribution of resource to benefit vulnerable groups in pursuit of substantive equality.
One implication is that the hidden curriculum prioritises certain individual values and skills at the expense of wider community responsibility, effectively discounting the importance of social justice in law. Empirical research has shown that the priorities and processes of law school cause values, moral sense and well-being to wane.1 Many optimistic first-years who wanted to inspire change soon become “demoralised, dispirited and profoundly disengaged” cynics.2
Through the hidden curriculum, law students are socialised to devalue social justice and ethics: there are few and far social justice and ethics papers, which are electives rather than core papers, which speaks loudly to the key values that lawyers are expected to have. Critical thinking, laser sharp interpretations, best outcomes for your client? Yes. Caring for the wider community outside of your role? Optional.
2. No, as lawyers can only provide pro-bono work within the boundaries of their firm,3 they are restricted in what they can do and become adjuncts to great corporations who may have their own agendas. Depending on the pro bono process in each firm, one person, or a few people, decide what pro bono work gets undertaken. This can lead to pro bono work being undertaken that might be apolitical or provide significant benefits to the firm. There is also inequality with how pro bono work is undertaken by lawyers. There are a disproportionate number of lawyers who are involved with legal aid work and undertake further pro-bono work on already low remuneration.4 Pro bono work is varied, which is not helped by the lack of formal definition in Aotearoa. For social justice to be meaningful, and really increase access to justice, it needs to be centralised, strategic, and practiced across the legal profession.
3. The blueprints on how to be a lawyer are not taught upon employment but laid firstly in the fiery depths of law school hell. Changes to the curriculum, hidden and actual, to maintain and enhance the humanitarian values law students and lawyers once possessed as doe-eyed first years would help foster a social justice culture. To do this, a holistic look at the way law school socialises students in every interaction they have needs to be taken.5 Emphasis on workload management, relating to others, and personal and community well-being, as well as the introduction of core modules on social justice and the role of pro bono work is also an option. Thinking as a student who has privilege and power to do good in society would in turn create a norm of social justice/pro bono work as lawyers later on.
1 Kennon Sheldon and Lawrence Krieger “Understanding the Negative Effects of Legal Education on Law Students: A Longitudinal Test of Self-Determination Theory” (2007) 33(6) Pers Soc Psychol Bull 883 at 883.
2 Lawrence Krieger “Institutional Denial about the Dark Side of Law School, and Fresh Empirical Guidance for Constructively Breaking the Silence: The Law School Experience” (2002) 52 J Legal Educ 112 at 113.
3 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 9.
4 New Zealand Law Society “Finding a match: how well does pro bono work in New Zealand?” (10 May 2019) www.lawsociety.org.nz.
5 David Moss “The Hidden Curriculum of Legal Education: Toward a Holistic Model for Reform” (2013) 2013(1) J Disp Resol 21 at 22.
Example student contribution 2
1. Social justice is making appreciable people’s inherent mana and humanity, which makes them worthy of leading precarious lives, deserving of the equitable protections of one’s rights, opportunities and aspirations.1
The hidden curriculum impacts who the profession implicitly recognises as being capable of living precarious lives, and so who deserves the inherent equitable protections of social justice. This is reflected in how we teach law, for whom we practice law and the interests the law accepts as worthy of protection. We teach law for the well-dressed, wealthy, white, straight, male intellectual who goes on to practice law for the corporations run by such individuals, and we privilege their interests and dominion over all else. And so women, the LGBTQ+ community, the poor, Māori, Pacifica, and other minorities are all left in the cold. Without being capable of leading lives understood through the hidden curriculum’s lens, their lack of appreciable humanity renders social justice a meagre mirage.
2. Social justice has two prongs. Firstly, making appreciable everyone’s humanity, and secondly, promoting the equitable protections inherent therein.
Current employed lawyers can genuinely advance the first by recentralising people’s mana and humanity. Law school is arguably “designed systematically to eliminate empathy” and instil “thinking like a lawyer”.2 However, lawyers can re-centralising the raw realities of the clients behind cases and of those for whom cases are never brought. This could radically influence a lawyer’s whakawhānaungatanga and manaakitanga making way for greater social justice protections.
Unfortunately, employed lawyers can, but mostly do not, genuinely advance the second prong. A majority of lawyers engage in commercial/wealth-related transactions,3 and seem to engage in promoting socially equitable protections only on their own terms. Arguably this is primarily for publicity, as pro bono work is a largely unregulated, ad hoc activity saved for when billable hours are not compromised. It appears the second prong may be better achieved once the first humanity prong is genuinely embraced.
3. Diverse interdisciplinary pro bono social justice teams would best enable the genuine advancement of social justice in Aotearoa. Multiple small cross-organisational teams of lawyers from diverse practices, non-lawyers, community leaders, kaumatua, social workers and activists should be formed to better access and address genuine need. Current pro bono approaches offer top-down dictated solutions to social justice issues dictated at the behest of corporate image. Instead, these teams should aim to genuinely listen to find client-focussed solutions which may include non-legal advocacy, education, litigation, advice or class actions. Such a team’s synergies, specialities and economies of scale are best suited to creating genuinely responsive bottom-up solutions. Through them employed lawyers have an opportunity to rekindle their humanity and design social justice solutions which truly equitably protect the rights, opportunities and aspirations of all. From the ground up we can build a more just and caring profession for all.
1 See Judith Butler Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? (Verso, New York, 2009) at 1–5 for an explanation of the underpinning grievability of precarious lives.
2 Ian Gallacher “Thinking Like Non-Lawyers: Why Empathy is a Core Lawyering Skill and Why Legal Education Should Change to Reflect its Importance” (2012) Syracuse College of Law – Faculty Scholarship at 1,6,7.
3 New Zealand Law Society “Get Legal Help” <www.lawsociety.org.nz>.
Example peer review instructions and rubric
Peer review instructions
2 x Peer Reviews
On 5 August 2021 at 12 noon, Canvas will automatically assign you two other students’ contributions to peer review. A link to the peer reviews will appear when you go to your Canvas homepage or the LAWPUBL 405 homepage (usually on the right side pane).
For each contribution you have been assigned, identify something in the student’s answers on which you take a different view and respectfully explain what your view is and why you take a different view.
Assessment details:
- Word limit: 75 words (± 5%) for each peer review
- References: Cite no more than two sources per peer review. Citations are not included in the word count.
- Marks: 2 marks per peer review (4 marks total)
- Opens: 5 August 2021 at 12 noon
- Due: 10 August 2021 at 12 noon
Rubric for each peer review
| Marks | Insight and contribution | Tone and writing |
| 0 mark | Does not explain what their view is and why they take a different view. | Disrespectful. |
| 0.5 – 1 marks | Largely descriptive or focuses on inconsequential matters rather than law and social justice. | Poorly written or overlength (above the 5% word limit leeway). |
| 1.5 – 2 marks | Constructive, scholarly and insightful, and may be creative. | Well-written and any citations largely NZLSG compliant. |
- See “Assessment (Coursework, Tests and Examinations) Policy”, point 15. ↩
- Jayden encourages colleagues to feature the following learning outcome in their DCO and align the discussion assessment with it: “Demonstrate an ability to help, challenge and influence other students in positive, constructive and collaborative ways.” (Capability 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2 and 6.2) ↩