Teaching Skills and Outcomes in Australian Property Law Units: A Survey of Current Approaches

Globally, higher education and legal education have embraced the development of skills as an integral part of student learning. It is no longer enough that graduates enter the workplace armed only with a body of disembodied discipline knowledge. It is expected that graduates have complementary skills – both generic and professional. These skills do not appear ‘magically’; rather it is the role of the law teacher to facilitate students’ development of these skills during their studies. The imperative to design curricula that embed skills development has become more urgent with the advent of discipline standards and the new quality regime in Australia. This paper reports on a wide-ranging survey of Australian property law teachers undertaken in late 2011. The paper analyses teaching methods, skills and outcomes in the teaching of property law. In particular, the paper considers how property teachers deal with the development of skills in the property law curriculum, testing Gray’s suggestion that ‘[i]t is in Property Law that consciously or unconsciously the student learns a basic competence in a number of skills which are of immense importance in later life.’ If this is true, this paper asks, how and to what extent do Australian property law curricula embrace the teaching of skills?

The nature and quality of Australian legal education is, it seems, under constant review.
Through a series of national reviews and reports it is clear that the purely doctrinal approach of traditional legal education is no longer enough. Legal education must be both contextual and skills-focused. In terms of contextual learning, for example, in 1987 Pearce, Campbell and Harding suggested that 'all law schools should examine the adequacy of their attention to theoretical and critical perspectives, including the study of law in operation and the study of relations between law and other social forces'. 8 Kift, Israel and Field also identify law in context as an integral part of legal education. 9 Parallel with this changing focus of doctrinal legal education has been a national drive towards the identification and effective implementation of graduate attributes and skills development in higher education generally. Over the past two decades, the higher education sector has witnessed an increasing pressure on Australian universities to encourage the development of knowledge, skills and attributes in their graduates. The Final Report of a Review Committee set up in 1997 to undertake a review of 'the state of Australia's higher education sector' 10 concluded that, in relation to higher education, 'the most positive approach is to identify the attributes that all graduates ought reasonably be expected to have acquired during their university studies' and, further, 'that the quality of education must be measured in terms of what students know, understand and can do at the end of their educational experience'. 11 Since the release of this report, the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and its successors have required 4 published in (2012) 12(2) QUT Law and Justice Journal 66-84 Australian universities to develop policies which identify their generic graduate attributes as part of national funding and reporting arrangements. 12 In its 1998 Report, Managing Justice: A Review of the Federal Civil Justice System (ALRC Report 89) published in 2000, the Australian Law Reform Commission recognised the increasing importance of skills teaching in law and suggested that 'law schools should make explicit the nature and extent of their skills development programs ... and how they examine these skills'. 13 In keeping with this changing emphasis, in a 2003 report on a 'stocktake' of Australian legal education, Johnstone and Vignaendra noted that, despite diversity in approach, '[m]ost, if not all, law schools' 14 had shifted from a teacher-focused approach to legal education to a student-focused approach with a greater emphasis on outcomes and skills.
By 2009 it was confirmed in the final report on the Learning and Teaching in the Discipline of Law project jointly commissioned by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council ('ALTC') and the Council of Australian Law Deans ('CALD') that graduate attributes beyond just content and knowledge as prescribed by the 'Priestley 11' 15 were the focus of all Australian law schools. 16 Since then, Kift, Israel and Field 17 have published the Discipline Standards for Law. 18 The development of these academic standards for law built on foundational work developing graduate attribute templates and 5 published in (2012) 12(2) QUT Law and Justice Journal 66-84 summaries for law schools undertaken jointly by the ALTC and CALD 19 as well as the resultant non-prescriptive Standards for Australian Law Schools adopted by CALD. 20 However, the Discipline Standards for Law go further in identifying six Threshold Learning Outcomes ('TLOs') that represent what a law graduate should be able to doincluding not just discipline knowledge, but extending also to skills and attributes.
It is likely that these TLOs will form the basis for the quality assurance assessments that will be undertaken across the higher education sector by the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency ('TEQSA') from January 2012. 21 TEQSA will evaluate the performance of higher education providers and courses against the Higher Education Standards Framework, including the Qualification Standards. These Qualification Standards are based on the national qualifications framework, the Australian Qualifications Framework ('AQF'), which provides minimum standards for a range of Australian qualifications, including law degrees, against which individual courses are to be evaluated.

A. A property law contradiction?
At a micro-level, while this increased focus on graduate attributes (including skills and outcomes), rather than pure doctrinal content and knowledge, may be reflected in the teaching of certain individual subjects taught within a law degree, the survey results 19 Australian Learning and Teaching Council and Council of Australian Law Deans, Learning and Teaching in the Discipline of Law: Achieving and Sustaining Excellence in a Changed and Changing Environment, Project Final Report 2009 (ALTC/CALD Final Report) available at <http://www.cald.asn.au/docs/altc_LawReport.pdf> at 13 April 2012, 54-70. In drafting the TLOs for Law, the discipline scholars drew on national and international precedents as part of a comprehensive benchmarking process. Appendix 3 of the Final Report provides national and international comparison tables of relevant learning outcomes, see p29-54. 20 Council of Australian Law Deans, The CALD Standards for Australian Law Schools (CALD Standards) adopted on 17 November 2009 <http://www.cald.asn.au/docs/CALD%20-%20standards%20project%20-%20final%20-%20adopted%2017%20November%202009.pdf>, at 13 April 2012. 21 It is intended that TEQSA will evaluate the performance of higher education providers and courses against the Higher Education Standards Framework, including the Qualification Standards which are based on the Australian Qualifications Framework which provides minimum standards for a range of Australian qualifications, including law degrees, against which individual courses are to be evaluated. The TLOs for law represent these minimum standards. For further information on TEQSA see <http://www.teqsa.gov.au/>, at 13 April 2012and for further information on the AQF see <http://www.aqf.edu.au/>, at 13 April 2012. 6 published in (2012) 12(2) QUT Law and Justice Journal 66-84 indicate that this is not necessarily the case in relation to property law as currently taught in the Australian universities surveyed in this project.
It appears from the analysis of the project survey results that Australian property law units cover -to some extent at least -most, if not all, the substantive topics relating to property law as prescribed by the 'Priestley 11'. 22 In contrast, as discussed below, the survey results reveal disparities between the respondent universities as to meaningful skills development within property law curricula. In those universities where skills development is minimal, this deficiency may be the result of the traditional view of property law as 'the most difficult subject [lawyers and law students] studied in law school' perhaps because '[t]he language was arcane and each class introduced something which seemed wholly unrelated to everything else [they] had encountered previously in property law, other law subjects, and life in general'. 23 Might it be the case that this perceived difficulty and abstraction of property law results in a focus on substantive content to the exclusion of taking advantage of the rich opportunities property law provides for skills development?
Whatever the reason, it is suggested that, with the increased focus on skills development within the profession and the academy and the looming spectre of robust quality assurance, it is timely that Australian property law teachers re-assess both the content and learning outcomes of their unit/s so as to ensure that property law contributes in a significant and content-appropriate way to the development of generic, academic and professional skills in Australian law graduates.

Unit Structure
The structure for the teaching of the compulsory property law unit varies considerably across the different universities surveyed. For example, although in most universities the unit is taught over two semesters (67% of respondents), in a number of universities it is taught in one semester and in two of the respondent universities the unit is taught over three semesters. In some universities the content is delivered as part of a Property and Generally property law is taught at either the second or third year level of the law degree and there is a relatively even split between teaching property law within an LLB or JD course structure. 24 The property law unit typically runs for 12 or 13 weeks per semester and the required contact hours varies from two and a half to five hours per week, with the majority of respondents reporting three contact hours per week, although one third of respondents report contact hours of between four and five hours per week. The number of students enrolled in the property law unit varies from 50 to 400, though most enrolment numbers fall within the 150-300 range (60%).

Teaching Format
With only a few exceptions, surveyed respondents indicate that property law is taught on campus with student attendance expected and anticipated. The typical mode of teaching property law is via lectures (94%) and tutorials (75%), with a minority of universities implementing small group/seminar sessions (31%).
Respondents were asked whether they would like to adopt a different teaching format. A majority of respondents indicated a strong preference for small group teaching allowing for more interaction, student participation and problem solving. For example, one respondent noted 'I think students would learn more if the unit were taught in small groups. In smaller groups students are more likely to come to class prepared -if they turn  A 'lack of requisite expertise' does not appear to be of much concern with 75% of respondents indicating this is only slightly or not at all applicable. However a 'lack of funding', 'lack of human resources' and 'lack of time in the teaching calendar' are all reported to be at the very least 'somewhat' of a barrier for the majority of respondents.
Closer inspection of the data reveals that 'lack of time in the teaching calendar' is primarily a concern for universities which teach property law in a single semester.
Respondents were asked a further open ended question as to whether there were other barriers to changing the teaching format. Two respondents would not seek to change their units at all; one reporting that the course was 'ideal after 10 years of development' and the other that he or she was '[p]erfectly happy with the present format'. Other respondents identified the following additional barriers: poor staff-student ratio; institutional resistance; and difficulty achieving consensus between the teaching staff in the unit.
It is evident from the responses on this issue that a common concern on the part of property law teachers is lack of resources: time, people, and money. Universities as a published in (2012)

Online delivery
Of further interest is the absence of online teaching in the majority of property law units.
The survey responses reveal that a basic website typically exists for online access of recorded classes. Eighty seven per cent of respondents report recording classes, with 86% of those respondents indicating that there is no time limit placed on the accessibility of recorded classes. The availability of recordings with associated power-point slides and a basic discussion forum is relatively common practice. However, there is an absence of more innovative online teaching methods in this subject area.
The respondents who record classes were also asked to estimate what proportion of their students listen online instead of physically attending class. The majority of respondents believe that 50% or more of their students listen online instead of physically attending. As university student numbers continue to increase at a faster rate than academic placements, the preference to introduce more interactive teaching methods by way of smaller groups is arguably going to be difficult to achieve. Rather than addressing this difficulty by trying to secure additional funding so as to increase staff, it might be time for property law teachers to explore more innovative ways of delivering content-based material online so as to free up face-to-face time for more interactive classroom activities.
This blending of online and face-to-face teaching is increasingly recognised as a legitimate and appropriate trend in tertiary education. Stacey and Weisenberg comment that '[t]he importance of using a form of blended learning that combines some face-toface interaction or technologically mediated synchronous communication, with online interaction, is an important trend in teaching practice'. 27

Skills
Respondents were asked to rate from very low to very high the emphasis placed in their unit/s on developing specific skills including: professional ethics, oral communication; writing; collaboration; statutory interpretation and practical property conveyancing skills.
The results appear at Figure   There are a number of comments that may be made concerning these results. First, the relatively strong emphasis on statutory interpretation is both pleasing and expected given the number of statutes that impact on property law. 28 The importance of statutory interpretation as an essential outcome for law graduates has been the subject of increased focus over the past decade. In 2003 Justice Kirby noted that: ... the construction of statutes is now, probably, the single most important aspect of legal and judicial work. In Australia, courts have discovered that many lawyers intensely dislike this feature of their lives. They find the obligation to read Acts of Parliament, from beginning to end, so distasteful that they will do almost anything to postpone the labour.
The High Court of Australia has been moved to protest at this unwillingness to grapple with the words of the statutory text, instead of returning to the much loved words of judges, written long ago and far away, who uttered them before the legislature's text became the law. Whilst this tribute to the judiciary is touching, it does not represent the law. The world of common law principle is in retreat. It now circles in the orbit of statute. Where statute speaks-and particularly a curious statute like a Constitution or a Human Rights Actthere is no escaping the duty to give meaning to its words. That is what I, and every other 28 The main legislation concerns land and includes: the Torrens legislation; the general property law statutes; the numerous statutes relating to leasing; and strata or community title legislation. As noted in P Carruthers, N Skead and K Galloway, above n 6, since personal property law is not considered in great depth in most of the respondent universities, legislation dealing with personal property is less likely to be considered in the compulsory property unit. published in (2012) 12(2)   The minimal adoption of online activities as a means of incorporating skills or professional ethics into the property unit is, however, noteworthy and is consistent with the earlier responses regarding the absence of online teaching in property in the majority of the respondent universities. It appears that online activities are used to some extent by some of the respondents to facilitate collaborative exercises, and to incorporate practical conveyancing skills and statutory interpretation. 46 As suggested above, this may be an area that requires further exploration by property law teachers. If class time is freed up by the use of online activities, this will provide valuable additional class time which may be used to consider unit content more broadly or in greater detail; 47 or to develop the various skills that currently receive minimal or no attention in the property unit.
In order to ascertain other skills that may appropriately and successfully be incorporated into the property law unit, the authors asked respondents two further questions: 'Are there other skills, not listed above, that are covered in the unit? Please specify'; and 'Are there any innovative and/or successful practices you have adopted in the unit to enhance the development of skills?' The answers to these questions were wide-ranging and, in some cases, refreshing and thought provoking. At one end of the spectrum one respondent commented that '[n]o skills are explicitly taught and learned in property as taught here. 45 See Figure 2. 46 It would appear one respondent also uses online activities to incorporate oral communication skills, although it is not immediately apparent to the authors how this is achieved. 47 A number of respondents reported that they would like to introduce developing areas of property law into the unit but were unable to do so due to time constraints. At the same time the respondents considered there was very little material that could be removed from the unit. See the discussion in P Carruthers, N Skead and K Galloway, above n 6. The creative and thoughtful use of online exercises and programmes may, if adopted, significantly relieve the time and coverage pressures that are reported by respondents. published in (2012)  The development of oral communication skills through either oral presentations on property law topics; or the rigorous and robust incorporation of class participation, are also reported by two respondents. In the latter case, the respondent reflected upon the importance of oral communication as a professional legal skill: 48 Each of the respondent universities which has adopted this statutory interpretation exercise has used legislation concerning leases. One of the universities uses either residential tenancies legislation or commercial tenancy legislation and the other university uses a comprehensive suite of strata titles and community land legislation. published in (2012) 12(2) QUT Law and Justice Journal 66-84 It is not optional. I tell them that they cannot take $5000 from a client in good conscience, telling them they will represent them, if they cannot open their mouths on their client's behalf. I let the really shy students tell me in advance a case they would like to explain but I don't make it obvious they have prepared it. Prepared presentations just put the rest of the class to sleep. I make it clear that I am not assessing whether what they say is correct, just whether they have done the reading and thought about the law. "I didn't understand p458", counts as CP. Students like being made to do CP and a number of students have thanked me for making them participate for the first time ever, in particular the very quiet overseas students. This latter sentiment, which comments on the initially reluctant student's gratitude for mandatory class participation, is something that many teachers may have experienced when encouraging shy, or possibly ill-prepared, students to speak out and participate. For the teacher, this is a reward in itself. This observation is worth highlighting as, at times, the pursuit of content coverage coupled with non-contributing students, makes the passive, information transferral type class, appear as the attractive, and possibly the only,

Teaching of Property Law in the 21st Century?
Respondents were asked a final question: Do you have any other comments regarding the teaching of property law in the 21st century? Responses to this question were again wide ranging, however, it was possible to discern some common threads running through the responses.
Respondents identified a number of diverse factors that had the potential to impact on the teaching of their unit/s. The factors included the transition to the Juris Doctor; the switch to a trimester system; the low staff-student ratio; and the intrusion of more significant statutes. Respondents expressed concern that these factors could detrimentally affect assessment practices; feedback; skill development; class sizes; and the ability to teach broad principles in a more comparative context.
Other responses reflected upon the need to move away from the traditional teachings in property. One respondent was critical of the traditional content emphasis in property and commented: I think we can be a lot more creative by moving away from the content-based approach.
All the text books look similar -we're stuck in such a traditional framework and not sure how beneficial it is for our students. published in (2012) 12(2) QUT Law and Justice Journal 66-84 Another respondent suggested a radical rethink of the role of property law teachers. This respondent noted the disparities in the distribution of the world's property, '[i]n a world approaching 7 billion people and with women owning 1% of world property and the richest 20% of the world owning 80% of property it is time to start critically assessing western notions of property' and, further, that 'as property lawyers we have just as much responsibility for teaching students doctrine as we do teaching them to critique the unsustainable and unjust allocation of property'.
Together these responses highlight that skills are to be developed in students within a complex matrix of structural, doctrinal, contextual and philosophical issues that are inherently interrelated.

IV. CONCLUSION
The authors' survey of property law teachers reveals that, in line with the contemporary Australian higher education environment as well as legal education more specifically, property law students are being exposed to a variety of generic, academic and professional skills. However, the depth and extent of this exposure varies. Online teaching has potential for the development of resources, activities, assessments and interactions that could serve as a supplement to class (face-to-face) time either to expose students to content or to facilitate skills development.
It is therefore likely that a multi-faceted response is needed if property law teachers are to maximise the opportunity for student skill development in the context of property law.
First, a greater understanding of how skills may be taught is required. Secondly there is a need for greater institutional support for expanding the traditional curriculum, both in terms of increasing the teaching of skills, and increasing the variety of teaching and learning settings. Thirdly, a change in the infrastructure of the discipline area may be required through the introduction of skills-based resources.
Finally, it is noted that property law is only one unit within a law degree. In terms of skills as much as content, it is vital that the degree be considered as a whole, to scaffold and to reinforce skill development from an introductory base until consolidated in later