A widespread problem in higher education is the failure to truly appreciate the importance of harmonising its various constituent elements. Broadly speaking, the process of education involves three perspectives: the teacher, the student, and assessment. The ultimate goal is for student learning to take place and this can only happen if modes of teaching and assessment facilitate, encourage and reinforce learning. While this may appear self-evident, the reality across many universities is that insufficient thought is given to the divide between teaching and assessment on the one hand, and student learning on the other.

For example, many teachers would consider successful teaching to have taken place if information has been transmitted to students. However, simply because teaching in this traditional sense has taken place does not mean that learning has taken place, or perhaps more accurately, that meaningful learning has taken place. While people often equate teaching with learning and vice-versa, such assumptions are often unfounded and it is useful to regard them as separate elements even if they may be part of the educational process. Broadly speaking, teaching focuses on the role played by the lecturer or tutor while learning focuses on the student. It is sometimes easy to overlook the fact that the most well-intentioned teaching does not inevitably lead to meaningful learning. For example, many teachers pride themselves on their ability to convey information clearly and comprehensively to students. While this is no bad thing, it does not of itself lead to students being able to apply knowledge, inquire and think independently, and articulate ideas. Simply transmitting information does not lead to such learning outcomes. In fact, it might even be said that teaching that does not pay conscious heed to the need for student learning to take place encourages students not to stretch themselves. For example, a lecture that is overly comprehensive in terms of the information transmitted may leave many students with little incentive to read and think about the subject matter for themselves, not to mention the problem of information overload.

This is not to say that there is no role for the transmission of information. It is still an important element of teaching but a good teacher must not assume that learning takes place simply because students are in possession of knowledge. Knowing how to look for information, how to apply it, how to critically evaluate and communicate such information, are also important aspects of education. The failure to maximise student potential often arises not because teachers are unaware of such matters but because teachers understandably approach education from their perspective and inadvertently fail to consider the effect of modes of teaching and assessment on their students.

To facilitate desired learning outcomes, the assessment process must also be consistent. Students will not feel the need to think and inquire within a subject if the assessment process simply requires them to remember facts and figures. Students are pragmatic and more than capable of adapting to a particular system. If all that the assessment process requires of them is to be able to recall information (and this will determine their grade point average), they will condition themselves to perform best within such a system and downplay calls for them to think critically about the subjects they are reading.

These issues confront all disciplines and Law is no exception. What is intended in the rest of this article is to outline the modes of teaching and assessment at the Faculty of Law bearing in mind the need for teaching, learning and assessment to be consistent with desired outcomes. It should of course be said that it is not the intention of this article to represent the Faculty of Law as a model for others. Indeed, the quest for improvement can never end.

The most widely used model for teaching at the Faculty of Law is the lecture-tutorial method. Many teachers in the Faculty consider the lecture a useful means of outlining the subject matter, raising issues and posing questions. The tutorial assumes greater importance, however, for it is in the context of a small-group tutorial session that students are expected to engage in discussion and debate with their tutors. This is not to say that the lecture cannot be used as a forum for student interactivity but to say that it is more intensively done in tutorials in the Faculty of Law. The problem-based learning method (PBL) is predominantly used in these tutorial sessions. PBL allows students to better integrate knowledge and ideas in the context in which they are to be used. In such tutorials, students are encouraged to develop critical thinking and analysis, and to apply, analyse and evaluate knowledge. The tutorials are not intended to be alternative forums for knowledge dissemination.

The other model that is widely used in the Faculty is the seminar method. This is the method that is used for many optional courses which students take in their Third and Final Years. In the seminar method, there are either no lectures or very few lectures. Students are expected to work inde-pendently and be ready to discuss and analyse issues and problems during the seminar. The size of each seminar group varies from around 20 to as many as 50. Although students do not have the benefit of lectures to guide them, they will be provided with reading lists, and questions and issues that may be discussed during seminars. They are expected to understand the subject matter by working independently or with their course-mates. Any difficulties or queries can be taken up during the seminar through the discussion and debate that is facilitated by the course teacher. Essentially, the seminar operates as a dialogue between the teacher and the students.

The philosophy underlying the predominant models used is that students are expected to be the principal authors of their own learning. Transmitting information is only one part of the process of learning. To maximise the potential of every student, they must develop the right skills and mindset for independent, life-long learning. To do this, the modes of teaching must send a clear signal to students that education is not a one-way process. It is a collaborative process between teachers and students as a community, with the students being the more active participants. It is after all their education that we are involved in and we must be careful to ensure that the teaching processes in place do not hinder their learning. Through seminars and small-group tutorials, the Faculty of Law tries to maximise the collaborative, interactive nature of learning.

Modes of assessment also play an important role. There is a wide range of assessment methods used in the Faculty. For example, open-book examinations have been in place for more than 40 years and the majority of courses in the Faculty are examined on an open-book basis. Continuous assessment is also important through tests, take-home assignments, reports, and performance during classes. In some courses, there is no final examination and the students are assessed entirely through continuous assessment. Wide flexibility is given to individual course teachers to select the modes of assessment that they feel fit in best with the desired educational outcomes in the context of their specific subjects. The Faculty also has a University Research Opportunities Programme (Directed Research). Students are encouraged to opt for this programme and indeed, all academic staff are expected to offer themselves as supervisors.

Through these various modes of assessment, the Faculty aims to reinforce the message that students must be the masters of their own learning. For example, open-book examinations are only effective if the questions require students to think, analyse and apply information beyond what may be found in textbooks or articles. In fact, the irony of true open-book examinations is that the materials that a student can bring into the examination hall are unlikely to be of much significance except that it does away with the need to memorise basic knowledge. To examine in such a way, the teacher must first and foremost design a curriculum and teach in a manner that will fairly allow students to perform in such examinations. The way we teach determines how we can examine and the way we can examine is dependent on how we teach.

In conclusion, facilitating learning requires a consistent and harmonious relationship among teaching, learning and assessment. As with other Faculties, this is a challenge that the Faculty of Law continually grapples with and tries to improve upon.