Stephenson, M et al --- "International and comparative indigenous rights via videoconferencing" [2010] LegEdDig 30; (2010) 18(2) Legal Education Digest 49

• International and comparative indigenous rights via videoconferencing

---

International and comparative indigenous rights via videoconferencing

M Stephenson, B Morse, L Robertson, M Castan, D Yarrow and R Thompson

19(1) Legal Education Review, 2009, pp237-255

The authors are a team of legal academics who deliver an internationally comparative Indigenous rights course to students in Canada, the United States, Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australia simultaneously via videoconferencing technology.

The videoconferencing course comprises 10 weekly two-hour seminars, with lecturers presenting material via high-definition video that is projected onto large screens, and facilitating discussion by flicking amongst the six participating universities as needed. In addition to the videoconferencing teaching times, each lecturer has some teaching time with their local class. The changeover from expensive ISDN lines to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) has allowed a growing number of universities to become involved since the course began.

The latest VoIP system has much higher quality and enables transmission of PowerPoint (PPT) and videos, in addition to the live video-feed from the six classrooms. It is essential for each site to have the appropriate technology installed in the teaching room, and good technical backup is vital in case of technological glitches. Video-linkages are managed through the host university (generally, the University of Ottawa). Once the equipment in the classroom is activated, the University of Ottawa dials in (similar to making a phone call) and all six classes are connected to the videoconference link. Today, commencing a videoconference session is as simple as an academic instructor activating the video equipment at the lectern desk and the host university dialling in to that classroom.

The logistics of such a course are less simple. Scheduling classes across an 18-hour difference in time zones (over a two-day period), which is then compounded by the impact of daylight saving time changes in some jurisdictions, requires considerable adaptability and creativity. These international classes are live (as opposed to pre-recorded) and must occur simultaneously. North American classes are scheduled for the early evening while Australian and New Zealand classes are scheduled for morning sessions on the next day. Accommodating differences in the various universities’ academic calendars is also a challenge as most North American universities commence a teaching semester in early January while Australian and New Zealand universities commence their teaching semester in late February. Accordingly, a compromise commencement for the videoconferencing class is in early February.

Various technical challenges are faced by the teachers of live video-link classes. For example, in most classrooms, the cameras automatically focus on anyone speaking or any loud sounds. This means that the microphones should be activated only in the room where a person is designated as speaker so as to avoid cameras flicking to any unnecessary noise. Forgetting to mute a microphone can produce distracting consequences. Also, it is important to remember that every site will always be visible to the other sites, although not in the main frame. Additionally, while the technology is generally reliable, when organising for class it is important to factor in the possibility of technical failure or losing the connection. If one site loses the connection it is important to continue the flow of the class while waiting for those who have dropped out to reconnect. It is imperative always to have a contingency plan for class-time in the event of a lost connection.

Coordinating team-teaching in different jurisdictions on different continents requires significant organisation and structure. As is the case in any course, a program of teaching is developed well in advance. The international comparative Indigenous law program allows each of the four jurisdictions to present one two-hour videoconference class exclusively on Indigenous issues in that jurisdiction to afford students an introductory overview. The remaining six two-hour videoconferencing classes address a series of topics on particular Indigenous issues in depth. These remaining teaching sessions usually allow for equal time to be given to each of the four jurisdictions to focus on their country’s perspective as well as to compare the experience on that issue amongst all four nations. Due to the number of jurisdictions and differing instructors, the order of presentation, the timing of presentations and the material to be covered are agreed to in advance of the teaching session. Leadership of the seminars rotates around all instructors. Student participation is not only encouraged but is mandatory in certain sessions.

The authors have found that a website supporting the course and providing a central reference point for class materials and communications is essential. The course has a password protected website at the University of Ottawa (on Blackboard Vista, which replaced WebCT in 2009). This website is available to all students registered in the specific course offered by their home university. The website contains all assigned readings so that students do not have to purchase any materials, nor are there any logistical challenges in producing and distributing printed material amongst the law schools. This website also includes significant background materials (both of a published and unpublished nature), relevant legislation, video clips, newspaper articles, and web-links. Past student papers are accessible on the website and these provide not only examples for students to obtain a sense of the level expected, but also serve as highly valuable reference documents in their own right for current students undertaking research. Students’ research papers complement the growing body of comparative Indigenous research. The website enables new documents, such as the latest media articles or a last minute PPT presentation, to be loaded at any time – including during the class itself – and be accessed immediately in all six sites.

In addition to the chat group and bulletin board functions on the main course website, a ‘Google group site’ has been created on a separate password protected website, through the University of Ottawa, to encourage increased student interaction and also to provide an opportunity for students to contribute additional information. This latter site allows all participants in the course the opportunity to suggest interesting websites or to post files they would like to share. For example, it allows students to create an individual biographical page with something meaningful in the context of the course. Students may also, as part of a ‘regional team’, post materials that inform about their region, the issues affecting Indigenous peoples and something of the history behind these issues. The ‘Google group site’ further enables both academic and student participants to make announcements and to comment on existing web pages, thus affording an opportunity for everyone to participate in activities that provide some context for the class.

Teaching international and comparative Indigenous rights through a multi-site videoconferencing medium provides several advantages for students. First, a video-link course offers students a unique method of teaching and a very different learning experience. Students are able to engage with all the instructors conducting the sessions and also with other students, both within their classrooms and in the other international classrooms. Real-time interaction between learners and instructors is regarded as critical to the success of any distance education model of teaching. The interactive component of videoconference teaching, the authors believe, makes it a preferable alternative to online learning forms of distance education where students work from a book or on a computer with no face-to-face contact with lecturers or other students. All students in the course described in this article have the opportunity of posting materials (eg, recent media coverage of relevant topics) on the web pages for comment by all participants.

Secondly, students have the opportunity to interact directly with students who are taking the course in other countries. Perhaps most importantly, videoconferencing facilitates communication among students at a distance. The course described in this article certainly facilitates the linking of students internationally. It does this in a number of ways: by encouraging student discussion of aspects of the course on the video-link during class time; by listing students’ areas of Indigenous interest on the course’s Google website; and by encouraging students to collaborate and support each other in individually writing a comparative law paper. Students are thus ‘matched’ whenever possible based on the common interests in their comparative research papers. Students frequently initiate informal chats with one another across the sites during the ‘breaks’ and these discussions have been known to continue informally through personal email accounts, openly through the course website visible to all students and teachers, and in the ‘chat rooms’ on the websites. The ‘chat rooms’ are, at designated times, monitored by a former student paid as a tutor by a grant from the University of Ottawa.

Thirdly, students have the benefit of the combined international expertise of their instructors. Students are not only learning about Indigenous issues in the different jurisdictions – they are also being taught by an expert, with knowledge of the latest developments, in each jurisdiction. All students have the opportunity to contact (either by email or through the web discussion pages) all members of the teaching team. As students are required (or encouraged) to write comparative research papers, they frequently avail themselves of these opportunities to make contact with the instructors in other countries (and all instructors in the course can attest to this).

Fourthly, and importantly, this comparative and international videoconferencing course broadens students’ perspectives on how domestic laws in these four jurisdictions have impacted upon Indigenous peoples and how international law in this field is rapidly changing.

Fifthly, the authors’ experience of videoconferencing teaching is that it delivers the desired educational outcomes of learning law for students; for example, not merely teaching legal rules but rather fostering a broader understanding of society, teaching students to be independent learners and to think critically. Achieving such educational outcomes is possible because, in videoconference teaching, students participate in the learning process, rather than simply learning from a teaching process – an approach that is more passive and receptive, such as the traditional ‘correspondence’ methods of distance learning.

Teaching in an international and comparative Indigenous law course by videoconferencing offers a number of benefits for the teachers as well as for the students. First, as the instructors in this course have shared their individual expertise in Indigenous legal issues in their particular jurisdictions, they have become much more familiar and expert with the situations that exist in the other countries. Secondly, team-teaching keeps the content current and topical. Thirdly, team-teaching in an internationally comparative course creates a collegial network for feedback on each instructor’s comparative research in Indigenous issues and improves the potential for future collaborative research by team members. Finally, team-teaching via a video-link course minimises any hiccups with technical failures, as any instructor, with the base of knowledge we have developed in relation to all jurisdictions, can step in to teach the remaining sites if one site drops out. The authors’ experiences have been that meeting face-to-face with teaching colleagues at conferences and visiting the various sites where the classes are conducted have proved to be valuable in creating collegial relationships and are to be recommended for those thinking to establish such a course.

The course’s learning objectives are, in general terms, to broaden students’ outlooks in considering a global perspective on Indigenous laws and to encourage students to develop an understanding of the context in which developments in Indigenous rights jurisprudence have occurred. More specifically, the objectives are: (1) To examine the comparative experiences offered by the four nations involved (Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand) in their relationships with their Indigenous peoples; (2) To critically evaluate and assess the performance of institutions and policies in the different jurisdictions; (3) To consider developments in relation to Indigenous peoples in the international law arena, particularly the impact of the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; (4) To raise an awareness of Indigenous legal issues both at home as well as in overseas jurisdictions and to promote greater cross-cultural understanding; (5) To provide the legal framework to allow a more detailed development of individual student research interests in relation to comparative Indigenous issues; and (6) To promote the importance generally of pursuing a comparative approach to any legal topic. Student feedback supports the view that the course meets these objectives.

Student surveys undertaken at the various universities reflect student satisfaction with both the course itself and the mode of instruction.

The international comparative Indigenous law course seeks to provide a comparative and critical study of Indigenous laws and rights jurisprudence in four countries (Canada, United States, Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australia) and also to consider an international perspective on Indigenous rights. In general terms, comparative studies broaden our knowledge of what transpires in other places, thus avoiding ethnocentrism. Undertaking comparative studies allows for an assessment of the performance of policies and institutions in the different jurisdictions and a determination of factors that contribute to the success or failure of such institutions and policies. In light of these comparisons, we can each re-examine our own nation’s context. A comparative study allows for the identification of common themes in the different jurisdictions and it also enables a study of the limits of those generalised themes. A comparative study can also provide an understanding of the context for developments in the different jurisdictions that assists in the analysis of policy, in suggesting potential reform measures, and in anticipating future developments and interpretations of the law.

Undertaking a comparative study of Aboriginal rights jurisprudence reveals a shared foundation in early international policies. It further demonstrates that domestic legal principles in each of the four jurisdictions have not occurred in isolation but against a background of global influence and exchange. To comprehend and understand contemporary laws regarding Indigenous rights today requires an understanding of both their historical background and the development of Indigenous rights jurisprudence in the international arena.

All four jurisdictions possess many basic commonalities which provide a platform for comparisons. For example, all countries share similar histories of colonisation and settlement.

Identifying significant differences of comparative relevance in the various jurisdictions is important in any comparative study. Some of the challenges of comparative analyses include understanding which differences are of real importance and what triggers those distinctions; assessing the effect that these differences have on the development of divergent Indigenous laws and policies; and the potential impact that these differences may have on future developments.

Understanding the different constitutional contexts of all jurisdictions is also essential in a comparative analysis of Indigenous rights.

Against this appreciation of key commonalities and differences in the comparative countries, a ‘thematic’ review of comparative Indigenous jurisprudence can then be undertaken.

In any comparative study, Havemann suggests that choosing ‘units of comparison and contrast’ that are operationally or broadly equivalent is essential. The methodology adopted in the videoconferencing course was to allocate a two-hour session to each jurisdiction, by way of introduction, early in the course to provide some background and general context for later comparisons and discussion. Adopting this methodology restricts the number of thematic ‘units of comparison and contrast’ that can be covered directly in depth in the 10-week videoconferencing part of the course; however, the authors have found that the ‘introduction’ given for each jurisdiction at the beginning of the course has worked well and, for the most part, the introductions incorporate aspects of the thematic issues.

The general overview ‘introduction’ for each nation is usually presented through a comparative lens with frequent references to the other countries, and especially those already analysed in detail in prior sessions. Most students undertaking this course have some familiarity with the legal aspects of Indigenous peoples’ rights in their own jurisdiction, so this part is generally for the benefit of international students. It also serves as an important refresher for the students from that country, and places their existing knowledge in a comparative context.

In selecting topics as ‘units of comparison’ for the balance of the teaching time in the course described here, the authors have attempted to identify broad areas of strong interest in all four countries and then to compare these issues across the jurisdictions. The authors’ approach to selecting units of comparison is flexible and the selection is reviewed regularly and incorporates feedback from students regarding subjects of particular interest. Themes for comparison and contrast are continually under consideration as potential areas for in-depth study for future years. This focus when discussing these topics allows for the introduction of Indigenous issues of currency, the latest court decisions, legislation or government initiatives as well as media reports from any of the countries, including events arising on the day the common class is conducted.

A comparative international study of Indigenous rights enables both the identification of the basic consistencies in the substantive legal principles and the identification of differences in interpretations and divergences in the development of the law and national government policy in the four jurisdictions. Undertaking a comparative study of Indigenous rights affords a better understanding of the development of Indigenous jurisprudence in one’s own jurisdiction. For those interested in Indigenous rights and title in their own country, it is important to have an appreciation of the comparative jurisprudence as well as parallel legal developments, not only to understand more fully the foundations of these principles and their historical developments, but also to predict what can possibly be achieved in the future.

Within the classroom, the advantage of the combined video and web technology is that it allows for face-to-face teaching that promotes engagement and interaction between students and instructors and also between students themselves. Nothing about videoconferencing technology is unique to Indigenous courses. This technology exists at most universities today and could be used for any area of study that would benefit from an international or comparative approach.