During my LLB degree at the University of Kent in England, I decided that I wanted to become a barrister. I chose this route instead of the solicitor route because I like the idea of specialising in a field, and I relish public speaking. I participated in mooting in both my LLB and LLM, and enjoyed the experience of answering questions about complex issues on the spot. I never had any intention of becoming a lecturer.
During my bar exams, I was informed of a PhD scholarship at King's College London that would cover international student fees and provide a stipend for 3 year. I had always wanted to do my PhD because I enjoy studying. I applied and was shocked when I was selected for this opportunity. During my PhD, I became more informed about what academia entails. I had some minor teaching experience in the past as a student ambassador, but I decided to apply for a visiting lectureship to determine if I wanted to go down the academic career path, or pursue my dream of practice.
I enjoyed teaching tutorials much more than I anticipated. I enjoyed interacting with students and seeing them progress. This experience made me decide to pursue the academic career route instead of the practice route. I realised through doing mini-pupillages (barrister work experience in UK) that barristers in my area of expertise, intellectual property, do not go to court very often. Whereas, lecturers have the opportunity to speak about complex topics everyday, and try to mould students into individuals who will contribute positively to the development of society.
The path that led me to choosing this career was an easy one, but starting teaching was much more challenging than expected. As a young lecturer, I was always concerned about not being sufficiently prepared as I was preparing several courses at the same time, often with little guidance or no prior knowledge of the subject area. Ensuring that all courses have standard course outlines and materials so that whoever takes up the course next can have a smoother transition is one of my goals. I have settled in to teaching now, but I still find preparation of new courses to be very time consuming. That being said, I am confident I have chosen the right path as I feel fulfilled in my career. Something I need to work on however, to become a successful academic, is balancing my teaching with research and administrative duties. I put so much time and effort into my teaching that I find it difficult to research during the semester. While I think it is important to give my best to students,
The relatability and enthusiasm of the Lecturer inspired me.
The lecturer is generally very helpful. She seeks to make learning exciting by implementing innovative classroom activities such as debates.
The debate that was conducted in place of the last lecture was a really fun and interesting twist to the course outline.
The content one is exposed to is what I appreciated and loved the most about this course. It fosters a greater understanding of the modern hemisphere of
commonwealth jurisdictions.
Ms. Perot was the best part of this course. She was a wonderfully capable and extremely knowledgeable lecturer who made a seemingly difficult course quite manageable and even enjoyable. She was also very helpful and accommodating in that when prompted, she went above and beyond in giving me guidance in this course. Additionally, Ms. Perot possesses a very warm and inviting demeanor which, on a personal level, made the world of difference in being able to get through this
course. It is axiomatic that she is an extremely dedicated and competent lecturer.
Included the use of power points which allowed students to follow along in classes and the interactivity of each lecture session.
Dr. Perot was the best lecturer I had this semester! She was really organized with learning materials and assignments. She gave us detailed documents explaining what is expected for our assignments with the rubric. That really helped in preparing for them. Additionally, she responded to any emails when we asked for clarification about our assignments. The tutorials really helped show us how to break down the questions and how to approach answering them. The example she provided us with in the tutorial document was extremely helpful! Her assignments were very interesting with the interpretation of the question as it really helped sharpen our critical thinking.
Dr. Perot was an absolutely exceptional lecturer with impeccable organizational skills in her discourses and a very assistive approach in the materials she gave us for each topic. She explained all the topics very clearly and concisely. I admired how passionate she was about the respective topics and it is my belief that this encouraged me to like the course even more. I will miss her lectures. She taught me how to approach the law and to always question things as opposed to taking it for its word. Her tutorials were one of my favourite parts of this course as she went so in depth to ensure we truly understood the work. I felt most comfortable in her tutorials and will really miss them. This semester was too short, I hope I get Dr. Perot as my lecturer again. I am unsure if she will see this but thank you again Dr. Perot! You truly made this course enjoyable and definitely made the transition from CAPE to Law (something I was very new to) very smooth.
Dr. Perot made this course extremely engaging and was very organized with all of the material from the start of the course, which made lectures and tutorials very easy to follow. Also, Dr. Perot is very friendly and approachable outside of class.
As a lover of history, the course content immediately had me hooked. Dr. Perot's teaching style complemented the subject material well and I had no issues understanding and following along in lectures. This was one of my favourite courses and I will definitely miss it.
How interactive it was. For instance, the use of debates to engage students
I liked the fact that if I didn’t understand something, I can go to Dr. Perot for assistance. She never once hesitated to help, she helped me understand and went out of her way to help. She’s a really great lecturer.
There was not any assignments or course works during the semester.
The reading material is too lengthy and time consuming.
The lecturer spoke very quickly which made it difficult to understand what she was saying
I would have appreciated some amount of coursework to assess if I was properly understanding the material and get feedback on my writing skills. That being said, the Writing Centre does help greatly with this issue, and Ms. Perot is very approachable and would be more than accommodating to help any student that asks, so this wasn't a major problem.
100% final exam, rather than part coursework, part final exam to aid students that have multiple learning requirements and those that understand the material but are faced with challenges within the exam.
The lecturer mainly used power points during the classes and I found that at times it was a bit hard to focus due to this fact
The required reading list is lengthy and so, I was not able to fully appreciate some of the content due to time constrains. Moreover, Dr. Perot is very detailed and at times, her passion caused her to speak quickly and so, it was difficult to understand and process all the information.
I enjoy learning and poring through my work and notes however there was no time to ‘learn’ / revise or internalize what was being taught because the assignments were too close.
At times, it was bit boring mainly because the same teaching method was used for each lecture.
Law and Legal Systems is a course I have taught since 2019 (I am awaiting 2021 feedback). When I received the course, the outline was very dense with a reading list that I found to be too extensive and inclusive of irrelevant materials. Slides were provided to me but I they were verbatim extracts from the textbook. I had no knowledge of this course since I did not study Caribbean legal systems in the UK. As such, I had to learn the content on a weekly basis as materials were given to me shortly before the start of teaching. I could not customise the course, and I felt there were many short comings. I was glad that I received positive feedback, but I noticed the feedback mainly related to my personality rather than my teaching itself. In addition, the comments on what could be improved made me reflect on how I could change the course. Many of the comments suggested including course work. This is a change that has to go through CETL and could be time consuming. However, the pandemic hit and teaching moved online. With this change came the ability to opt for course work, which I did. The problem that remained is that approval was given for course work after half of the semester was completed. This mean three assignments had to be done in quick succession, which was disadvantageous to the students. In 2021, I opted for 2 assignments instead - a multiple choice, and a final assessment consisting of 2 short answers and 1 essay question. I await feedback on the suitability of these assignments.
The criticisms of my speaking pace are fair, and it is something I am working on. I am naturally a fast speaker, particularly when I get excited about the topic. I am trying to speak at a more moderate pace. Additionally, before taking CUTL, I would mainly use PowerPoints in lectures, and make use of the poll function on BBC. Now I know about new technology such as quizzes, and I have tried to make my classes more interactive by letting students work on in class activities to cater to different learning styles. The problem that remains is the same students contribute even when other students are asked to share their thoughts. I am still contemplating on how I can increase engagement across the board.
I tailored the materials for the 2020 course so that irrelevant materials were removed, and materials were divided into required and advanced readings. Some students still find the material to be heavy, but this is a law course, and I cannot compromise on quality. Students who wish to practice law will be required to digest large amounts of information in a short period of time. The course needs to maintain a level of rigour to ensure that students are adequately prepared for the realities of work.
Peer Observation of Dr Emma Perot by Dr Ronald Roopnarine
Dr. Perot facilitated the observation of her class LAW 3170 (Law of Trust) on Wednesday March 23rd, 2022 @ 8:00 am sharing the BBC access link with the group.
Students were not informed of the presence of fellow group members.
General Observations
Dr. Perot’s class started about 5 minutes late as some students seemed to have been pre-occupied with another faculty engagement the night before. Dr. Perot was however able to ask one of the few students who were present to contact the other via the class what’s app group informing them that class was in session. This resulted in increased numbers within minutes which showcased the usefulness of both technology and multiple communication channels. Dr. Perot delivery style interactive and well-paced and complimented by a power point presentation that was well structured. I particularly liked the use of case studies and references to real world situations in relation to the topic at hand. Student interaction was evident throughout but appeared to be limited in terms of overall participation, where 2-3 students dominated the responses. Dr. Perot attempted to resolve this by calling specific names and constantly encouraging students to participate. Dr. Perot made connections to both past and future lectures throughout her session.
Feedback based on the Criteria established in Table 1.
· Presentation Style and Structure – Excellent
· Student engagement – Good
o Suggestion- Limited in terms of overall class participation, perhaps the inclusion of some in class activities can encourage more comprehensive participation.
· Use of technology – Good
o Suggestion to include some additional technologies that may enhance the classroom environment eg. Pollev, miroboards. Most discussion were led by the instructor, perhaps there is an opportunity to enhance peer engagement amongst students.
· Scaffolding – Excellent
Peer observation of Dr Emma Perot by Dr Byron Jones
(Same class as above)
Emma, this was a very informative and well delivered session. I noticed that your session was scheduled to begin at ten past the hour, any specific reason for this? In our faculty, the ten-minute cushion appears at the end of sessions to give students time to get to their other sessions. Is that the same? Your session began later than expected because of students attending late, but I do appreciate the patience you exercised to give them time to appear, be present and get settled. Once the session started, I immediately noticed the rapport you have with your students, though there were a few quiet ones. I recognized and appreciated your strategy of getting students to continue their active participation by not shutting them down when their responses are not fully accurate. In this regard, you provided them with the opportunity to reason through their responses, a strategy that encourages critical thinking. I am not sure if the students who were quiet are always quiet, but do you think a prompt/hypothetical situation presented to them would help to get them involved so that you can ascertain if they are following? In addition, I appreciated your use of polls within your session. I realized that the number of participants in the poll was greater than the active participants in the session. This seems to point to the fact that anonymity increases participation. This observation will be useful for my sessions. 10 Another ‘wonderment’ of your session came in the form of an interaction you were having with your students. What made it interesting is that you, through the recording, were speaking directly to the students absent from the session. I had not thought of that approach, because my focus was always on those present. However, in hindsight, your approach will make students more comfortable and relaxed, knowing that your focus and concern are not exclusive to the students present. This approach has triggered a thought of, not only me trying this in my sessions, but me going a bit further to try giving students feedback through audio recordings. What are your thoughts? Overall, a good and insightful session Emma
I am susceptible to halo bias (Malouff et al. 2014) and horn bias (Arnold and Pulich 2003). I want students who have performed well in class (Malouff 2008) to achieve good marks. But if a student has done poorly in another of my courses, I assume that they will perform poorly again. In contrast, if I do not know the student, I am neutral. To maintain neutrality, it would be worthwhile adopting Malouff et al’s (2014) suggestion about keeping students anonymous.
It is not possible to keep students anonymous for my next assessment, so I have utilized Korpans et al’s (2018) responsibilities. I have redesigned the assessment to be transparent and authentic, I have offered all groups meeting time to go through their plans, and I have encouraged a variety of approaches to be taken such as disagreeing with the essay prompt, focusing on specific stakeholders, and choosing their preferred topics for analysis. I do not think I suffer from affinity bias (Musgrave and Rom 2014) as I am open to contrasting perspectives.
During the marking process, I will use an analytic rubric (Stevens and Levi 2005) which requires me to carefully think about the allocation of marks under each criteria. Finally, I will try to avoid the contrast effect (Spear 2006) by taking a break in between particularly good or bad papers so that the following paper is not affected.
Sources:
Arnold, E., & Pulich, M. (2003). Personality conflicts and objectivity in appraising performance. The Health Care Manager, 22(3), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1097/00126450-200307000-00007
Korpan, C., Waye, L., Ami, N., & Tagharobi, K. (2018). Grading Student Writing: A guide for Instructors. University of Victoria. Retrieved from https://www.uvic.ca/learningandteaching/assets/docs/instructors/for-review/Teaching%20Support/grading-student-writing-for-instructors-january-2019.pdf
Malouff, J. (2008). Bias in grading. College Teaching, 56(3), 191–192. https://doi.org/10.3200/ctch.56.3.191-192
Malouff, J. M., Stein, S. J., Bothma, L. N., Coulter, K., & Emmerton, A. J. (2014). Preventing halo bias in grading the work of university students. Cogent Psychology, 1(1), 988937. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2014.988937
Musgrave, P., & Rom, M. (2014). Fair and balanced? experimental evidence on partisan bias in grading. American Politics Research, 43(3), 536–554.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x14561655
Spear, M. (1997). The influence of contrast effects upon teachers’ marks. Educational Research, 39(2), 229–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188970390209
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. (2005). Leveling the field: Using Rubrics to achieve greater equity in teaching and grading. Essays on Teaching Excellence. Retrieved from https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=edu_fac
I want my students to enter the working world with a foundation upon which they can develop their skills and be flexible in adjusting to the needs of their roles. Being exposed to authentic assessment (Wiggins, 1990) has helped me to understand how I can replicate real world experiences within a safe university setting, where students can receive constructive criticism (Fong et al, 2016) in a manner that nourishes development. I am working on ensuring my courses are constructively aligned (Biggs, 2003) as learning is more likely to take place if teaching is aligned with the course outcomes and assessment (Frankland et al, 2007). I am also making my courses idealistically aligned with the expectations of the working world so I can produce legal thinkers who will be able to successfully represent their clients, and develop Caribbean jurisprudence in a way that meets the needs of our post-colonial societies. Thus, I aim to inculcate the characteristics of a UWI graduate into my students.
To enhance alignment, I have redesigned my assessments to include group work, peer feedback, and self-reflection. Additionally, I design assignments in a transparent manner that does not undermine their authenticity. I was initially resistant to the transparency approach as described by Winkelmes (2013), and I maintained that too much transparency can result in perspective instruction that does not reflect the real world. However, I now think that using an analytic rubric achieves transparency and guards against bias (Malouff, 2008) thus making my assignments valid (Bonner and Chen, 2019), without compromising on authenticity.
Sources:
Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching for constructing learning. Higher Education Academy, 1(4)
Bonner, S. M., & Chen, P. P. (2019). Validity in classroom assessment. Systematic Classroom Assessment, 112–130. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315123127-10
Fong, C. J., Warner, J. R., Williams, K. M., Schallert, D. L., Chen, L.-H., Williamson, Z. H., & Lin, S. (2016). Deconstructing constructive criticism: The nature of academic emotions associated with constructive, positive, and negative feedback. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.019
Frankland, S., Moody, J., Cowdroy, R., Williams, A., Muldoon, N., & Lee, C. (2007). Aligning assessment with learning and teaching. Enhancing Teaching and Learning through Assessment, 63–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6226-1_3
Malouff, J. (2008). Bias in grading. College Teaching, 56(3), 191–192. https://doi.org/10.3200/ctch.56.3.191-192
Winkelmes, M. (2013). Transparency in Learning and Teaching: Faculty and Students Benefit Directly from a Shared Focus on Learning and Teaching Processes. NEA Higher Education Advocate, 30(1), 6–9.
Wiggins, G. (1990). The Case for Authentic Assessment. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. 2(2).https://doi.org/10.7275/ffb1-mm19