Corbin, L et al --- "If you teach it, will they come? Law students, class attendance and student engagement" [2011] LegEdDig 43; (2011) 19(3) Legal Education Digest 42

• If you teach it, will they come? Law students, class attendance and student engagement

---

If you teach it, will they come? Law students, class attendance and student engagement

L Corbin, K Burns and A Chrzanowski

Legal Education Review, Vol. 20, 2010, pp 13-44

Why are there empty seats in our lecture theatres? Are we driving our students away? Are work or family commitments preventing them from attending? Or, on a more positive note, have we designed our courses in such a way that we have provided all the tools necessary for them to learn independently? The latter is a very comforting thought, although we suspect that only a small percentage of students are self-learners – those who are able to achieve good results by engaging fully with the material, if this is carefully and adequately provided. The reality is that student non-attendance tends to have a negative effect on achievement levels for the majority of students.

Therefore we, as teachers, are left bewildered and often de-motivated by the fact that students are choosing not to attend lectures and other learning opportunities.

This paper reports on a study that examined student attendance across a law degree – what motivated student attendance; why students did not take the opportunities provided to them to facilitate their learning; and what methods they used to learn. Our study involved courses (subjects) which required students to physically attend classes – it did not consider courses which were off-campus or primarily electronically delivered.

We do not suggest that attendance alone results in student learning. However, we argue that there is evidence that it is an important ingredient of student engagement, particularly when the learning opportunities are predicated on physical student presence in classes.

Our study found that many students do not regularly attend their scheduled lectures and that attendance decreases as students progress through the degree program. We cannot categorically state that attendance of itself results in achievement since it is often argued that motivation or other factors like ability and effort play a role. However, we argue that there is something valuable about attendance, particularly for those studying to be professionals, like lawyers, whose role in society requires them to ‘practice in accordance with high standards of performance, for the public good’.

Students now exercise what they see as their entitlement to choose not to attend learning opportunities that once were considered obligatory.

The act of weighing up priorities and determining whether or not to attend learning opportunities could be described as a cost–benefit analysis, the result of which could be that students decide to work more and, in doing so, they may well anticipate getting lower marks. This kind of analysis also features in student deliberations regarding whether they attend class and whether or not they gain any value from the experience.

This pragmatic approach to studying asserts that ‘students do not attend university for the enjoyment of the learning process; rather they focus on the end goal, which is to find a good job’.

Some students may overestimate their own individual ability to learn and achieve without attending class and underestimate the time required to complete their study and prepare for their assessments. This typically results in students achieving below or well below their own expectations.

The simple act of interacting with others, both students and peers, enhances the experience of all involved as it prompts the participants to think through their own understanding in light of what is being said. It allows the participants to either confidently confirm that they are ‘on the right track’ or be challenged to readjust their thinking or understanding.

Traditional methods of legal education, which are often teacher-dominated and heavily focused on individual achievement and competition among individuals, may also create learning opportunities that are antithetical to student engagement in the learning process. This in turn may, over time in a law degree, lead to less student engagement.

In summary, today’s students want to control how they engage with their studies, particularly in relation to attendance, depending on whether they see value in prioritising these activities over their other interests. However, we believe that there is a danger that students will discount attendance and thereby affect their achievement negatively. It is our view that the real issue is engagement, yet a critical element of engagement is attendance. Attendance is both a pre-requisite and a driver of student engagement in courses designed around ‘physical’ classes.

This study was conducted at Griffith Law School in 2007. Griffith Law School is a cross-campus school offering law studies to approximately 1500 undergraduate students at campuses in Nathan, Brisbane and the Gold Coast. The Griffith Law School is also particularly known for its focus on social justice, legal theory and clinical legal education and these factors are often reported by our students as the reasons they choose to attend.

We initially conducted a literature review followed by an empirical study using structured quantitative research methods, in addition to surveys that drew qualitative responses from the participants. We decided that this study would collect information from students enrolled in courses drawn from across the different years of the whole law program. As part of obtaining ethical approval for the study, we agreed not to include courses in which we were involved personally. Five courses from across the degree, in both semesters one and two, at both Nathan and Gold Coast campuses, were included in the study.

The mode of delivery for each of these courses was a two-hour lecture to the whole class at which attendance was voluntary and a one-hour tutorial (comprising a maximum of 25 students), each week or fortnight over a 13-week semester.

In keeping with the University’s ethical guidelines, the Head of School sought the students’ participation via email.

We were initially concerned that the sample of consenting students in the study was biased in favour of students who were more likely to attend classes. We therefore attempted to deliberately recruit students who do not attend class frequently via group email contact and contact via the course websites. However, despite our best efforts, it was difficult to recruit these ‘non-attending’ and ‘non-engaging’ students into the study. This appears to be an inherent methodological difficulty in this kind of study – students who do not attend and engage in their own education also appear to be very reluctant to participate in research projects.

A number of key findings emerged from analysis of the quantitative data collected in stage one of the study.

Students certainly appear to be choosing to fit their university studies around their lives rather than making them a priority.

There appears to be an overall pattern of decreasing attendance for each subsequent year of a degree. Some student responses in the survey conducted in conjunction with this project identified a possible motivation for students to attend this course – that is, the 100 per cent end-of-semester exam (a form of assessment rarely used in the Griffith Law School) – which may have induced a ‘fear factor’ in favour of attendance.

Another pattern emerged in the data in relation to the patterns of student attendance in a course over a semester. Typically, attendance was highest early in a course (usually in week 1), fell dramatically at a mid-point in the course, and rose again at the end of semester (typically peaking again in the final lecture when the final exam or assessment was discussed). Perhaps this pattern of choice can be traced back to the discussion that students are acting instrumentally as consumers by conducting a cost–benefit analysis.

A number of other findings emerged when examining the average final grades of consenting students. First, consenting students on average achieved higher final grades than non-consenting students. Second, female consenting students obtained on average statistically higher grades than male consenting students. Finally, Gold Coast consenting students obtained statistically higher grades than Nathan students. Therefore, we found that a student’s final grade varied significantly due to factors such as course, gender, campus and attendance.

The fact that students make choices about attendance has been discussed above in a quantitative sense. We believe that we have also gathered some very rich data from the qualitative comments made by students in response to the survey questions administered in week 7 of the semester. While initially we thought that those who participated in the survey would be the ‘attendees’, many of them missed a significant number of the learning opportunities. There were 129 students who completed the survey but only 79 reported attending all available lectures; 12 of the remaining 50 missed more than half; 85 reported attending all available tutorials, but 6 had missed all of their tutorials.

In other words, even though we did not access the views of those who did not attend at all, the group of students who participated has something to offer in explaining non-attendance.

The survey asked students why they did not attend all of the lectures or all of the tutorials (small groups). The reason most cited was a commitment to other courses/completing assessment tasks. The expected responses were also mentioned – illness, family reasons and work, with work ranking only slightly higher than family and illness.

But there were other factors that dissuaded student attendance; for example, the timing of lectures.

All of these factors show that students are making choices – that is, wanting to control their involvement.

However, perhaps more importantly, students were asked to describe what motivated them to attend the learning opportunities offered – what they valued. There was a strong emphasis on the convenience needs of students and their opinions uniformly were that they would attend only if there was something to be gained. This related to their perceptions of the quality of the teaching and the content covered, especially if it could be linked directly to the assessment regime.

The students valued the opportunity to attempt practical problems, ask questions and interact with both their peers and the tutors (one described this as a collaborative approach) and they reported that these activities helped them understand the material and prepare for the assessment.

The use of technology featured in a number of their responses, but the students quite adamantly claimed that for the most part the materials made available via these mediums were being used for review rather than as a substitute for lectures; although they did suggest that the availability of such materials online meant that some students may choose not to attend.

The survey participants stated that simply placing reading material online was not appropriate, but they strongly supported online activities that involved some interaction with others. This was considered to have the potential to be very beneficial to student learning. These comments again show that students recognise that there is a role for them as learners and it is their responsibility to engage with what is being offered.

Students refer to the need to make a concentrated effort at reading all of the material focusing on the objectives set out in the course material, using the lecture slides, obtaining notes from fellow students, contacting lecturers or tutors, and making use of the course support websites. While this may not always include interaction with others, it certainly implies individual interaction or engagement with the materials of the course and, as was suggested above when discussing the use of technology, the better experiences were those that required some sort of communication or interaction with others.

In general, students acknowledged that they were responsible for their own learning and eventual grade. The survey data show that the students proved to be overly optimistic about their abilities, similar to findings made in a number of other studies.

The effects of optimism bias on student predictions of results in Australian law schools and Australian universities is an area that warrants further research.

This study adds to the body of literature that reports that quite a significant proportion of the student cohort is not attending classes. Our study found that students with high levels of attendance were more likely to achieve higher grades than those who attended less frequently.

In terms of absenteeism, we found that students chose not to attend lectures or tutorials if they believed that their attendance would interfere with their efforts to prepare for assessment items or where they did not think they would benefit from the experience. Other reasons for absenteeism included illness, family and work obligations. In comparing absenteeism for lectures and tutorials, it appears that students were less likely to miss tutorials. It seems that they were motivated to attend tutorials because they believed that these classes helped them to understand the material through applying the legal principles they were studying to factual scenarios, and gaining practice at attempting problems similar to those set as assessments for the course.

Paradoxically, although students often chose not to attend classes, they also appeared to have an appreciation of the value of engaging in meaningful learning opportunities. How then should law schools respond to this problem? This is a difficult question and requires much more focused attention and research in legal education scholarship than has been the case to date. In this article we do not aspire to definitively answer that question, but rather to raise possibilities for further consideration and debate. One obvious question is whether law schools should be more proactive and make attendance compulsory? This seems to be the logical response, but there are authors who warn against this course of action. Some would suggest that the best approach is one that actively encourages students to attend. This could involve putting into practice some of the suggestions of students in this project – for example, providing opportunities to apply legal principles and theory in a practical setting; giving explanations that include practical examples; enthusiastic teachers; and so on. Additionally, it could require students to complete some practical exercise in class, participate in discussions, or perhaps work on assignments or projects where the lecturer has some input.

Alternatively, some universities offer bonus reward points and there is some evidence that this encourages student attendance. However, other studies have found that increased attendances may not improve performance, suggesting that ‘attendance per se does not ensure that learning takes place’. Others have considered all of the studies that have gone before and concluded that it is better to force attendance, reasoning that there is something about ‘being there’. If students attend, then there is a chance that they will find all of the elements they are looking for. They will find the content interesting, the teaching engaging and become familiar with the expectations that underlie the assessment items. In other words, there could be a change of attitude leading to intentions which translate into behaviour and engagement.

There is some support for the observation that student patterns of behaviour may indicate how they will behave in the working world. This may be particularly important for the legal profession, whose members frame the work they do in terms of a service to the public. This conclusion increases the significance of this study, since 90 per cent of the survey participants identified that they are intending to practice law.

Taking into account the information we have gathered, we would suggest that one way to encourage student engagement – particularly noting the instrumental approach that our students adopt – is to commence each course by referring them to some of the statistical literature covered in this article to demonstrate that attendance and student engagement produce student benefits in terms of achievement. Lecturers might also point out that students generally are overly optimistic and tend to place too much store in their ability to learn without attending. In doing so, lecturers may be able to appeal to the instrumental nature of students and motivate them to attend and engage. Additionally, teachers might also want to reinforce why their courses are structured in a particular way, perhaps by reference to evaluations previously gathered, and how the assessment relates to the objectives. In other words, show the relevance of the learning opportunities and how attendance will benefit their learning and achievement.

It may be wise to help students more proactively to develop learning patterns that will help them to succeed. If that is so, then it seems to follow that universities should have a policy that prescribes attendance in early year courses to instil practices that encourage attendance, thereby modelling what we have argued is best practice. Then there will be a chance that students’ attitudes to attending will lead to behaviours where students engage fully. Of course, ultimately students need to take responsibility for their own engagement and learning.

Student engagement is vital. ‘Education is not a spectator sport; it is a transforming encounter. It demands active engagement, not passive submission; personal participation, not listless attendance’. However, as we have argued in this article, attendance is critical to engagement. If we cannot get students into our classes, our chances of engaging them in the responsibility of their own learning are severely impacted.