Argumentatie


Dit is een site over juridische beroepsethiek en de waarde(n)volle professionaliteit van juristen, incl. de daarbij behorende morele dilemma's. Het doel is om inzicht te geven in en te reflecteren op de beschrijvende en voorschrijvende ethiek en het kritisch vermogen van advocaten, rechters, officieren van justitie, wetgevingsjuristen, arbeidsjuristen, bedrijfsjuristen, etc. (meer lezen »)

De 10 regels voor goede ethieklessen

Gevraagd naar mijn methodische ideeën over ethiekonderwijs verwijs ik graag naar een artikel van Lisa Lerman waarin ze 9 goede regels geeft. Ik voeg er nog een tiende aan toe.

Helaas is de onderwijswereld niet altijd even ideaal (financiële beperkingen, groepsgrootte, multimedia-voorzieningen, tijd) maar de regels van Lerman onderstreep ik direct. Een goed ethiekdocent is een procesbegeleider die studenten haar kennis en praktijkervaring laat ontdekken (en niet aanreikt):
- ze bereid (theoretisch en praktijk) voor op inhoud én (te verwachten) proces
- maar laat de studenten het werk doen (uitzoeken, ontdekken, et cetera)
- en kopt alleen maar in.

Ethics methods that work:

1. Structuring a class session
What works: Discussion, role plays, anything interactive, anything that offers
variety in the events of class, movie clips, skits; bringing lawyers and lawyer regulators into the classroom.
What doesn’t: Lecture, unless used sparingly.

2. Selecting reading materials to assign
What works: Concise materials that tell stories and invite analysis. Problems, hypos, narratives that convey contextual detail.
What doesn’t: Court opinions, law review articles, anything verbose.

3. Leading a class discussion
What works: Asking questions that ask for thoughtful analysis, questions that can be answered by thinking.
What doesn’t: Asking questions that ask for recitation of information learned from the reading.

4. Using the problem method
What works: Teaching important cases by providing an account of the facts and inviting students to evaluate the case from the perspective of a lawyer in the situation.
What doesn’t: Studying ethical dilemmas only by reading post-hoc judicial
opinions.

5. Introducing a problem for discussion
What works: Anything that dramatizes the facts: telling the story well, a video dramatization, a skit, a diagram, a factual summary on a power point slide.
What doesn’t: Relying on the students to remember complex facts from the reading, or reciting the facts in the sometimes lifeless manner of an appellate opinion.

6. Inviting small group discussion of problems
What works: Short, focused small-group discussions followed by a large-group discussion of the principal arguments and conclusions.
What doesn’t: Confusing facts or instructions, too-lengthy small-group discussions, too thorough or plodding a large-group review of small-group discussion.

7. Using visual material in class
What works: Carefully selected visual material that fits with a teacher’s objectives. If print slides, use large type. Photos and conceptual diagrams (at least those that make sense) are always a hit.
What doesn’t: Presenting lecture notes in the form of a long series of rapid-fire power point slides; or putting too much text on a slide, or using animation or sound effects in a way that is annoying or distracting.

8. Using simulation or role-play of problems
What works: Many varieties of simulation, including, for example, a “fishbowl” method in which the instructor and/or some students perform a role-play observed by other students and then discussed; a role-play assignment given to small groups, in which everyone plays a role and no one watches, followed by a discussion; use of video clips showing a scenario being played out; or an informal spontaneous role-lay in which the instructor and a student “play out” the posited situation.
What doesn’t: Devoting most of the time to role-play and leaving little time for reflection or discussion; doing a lengthy fishbowl role-play, which is usually boring for all the observers; doing anything that results in confusion or boredom.

9. Teaching close reading and systematic application of rules
What works: Projecting the language of a rule to be applied on the wall or directing the students to the page where the rule appears, guiding the students through the identification of each question that must be asked about the facts to apply the rule, and eliciting the varying arguments that might be made about how the rule applies.
What doesn’t: Assuming that all the students have read and mastered a rule; quickly referencing only the key questions in application of the rule.

10. Tentamineren is verwerken
What works: Controleren en toets of de student de problemen goed heeft doordacht en overziet. Dit kan bijna niet door kennistentamens en zeker niet via MC. Maak bijvoorbeeld gebruik van essay-achtige tentamenvormen waardoor de student gedwongen worden om na te denken.
What doesn’t: Kennisvragen (met uitzondering van de eerste jaren om bepaalde terminologie eigen te maken).

- Lerman, L.G. - Teaching Ethics in and Outside of Law Schools: What Works and What Doesn’t, American Bar Association, 2006

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie plaatsen

 

Deel deze pagina...