The Essence of Our Quest: Summary

This chapter shares our approach, in our first-year undergraduate law module, to making active learning work for all students, with a particular focus on the context of their individual differences. We highlight aspects of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach used to provide for diverse learning needs, thereby affording students multiple means of representation, engagement, action and expression. We include practical steps others can take in transferring our ideas to their own context.

The Gauntlet is Thrown: Introduction

Unless one is familiar with Latin, the meaning of the chiasmus unus pro-omnibus, omnes pro uno, might not be immediately obvious; its reversed version, ‘all for one and one for all’, is more recognisable as the motto of Alexandre Dumas’ three musketeers. We use the motto as the title of this chapter because it encapsulates the approach, design and delivery of our law school’s new Private Law module, which focuses on inclusivity, teamwork and shared responsibility. Consequently, the module’s resources are designed for all learners, learning is collaborative with students supporting one another and lesson instruction is differentiated, thus allowing multiple approaches. In addition, Blackboard, the virtual learning environment which supports the running of the module, utilises customisable settings allowing students to adjust the presentation of information to suit their needs. The module’s structure fits firmly within the UDL educational framework (CAST, 2024). This framework ensures that learning is accessible and effective for all students, regardless of their abilities, learning styles, or backgrounds. It focuses on providing multiple ways for students to engage, process information, demonstrate their knowledge and express their understanding and ideas. The goal of UDL is to create inclusive, flexible, and adaptable learning environments where every student has an equal opportunity to succeed. We adopted this approach in the Private Law module where teaching and learning became a shared responsibility and every student was supported; following the musketeers’ ethos, no one was left behind.

In this chapter we share our approach to making active learning work for all students in the module, with a particular focus on the context of their individual differences. We highlight aspects of the UDL approach used in tailoring the module to provide for diverse learning needs, thereby affording students multiple means of representation, engagement, action and expression. We also draw more widely from examples of the UDL approach we used in an earlier module initially delivered online during the Covid pandemic but later adapted for face-to-face delivery. We start with some context explaining the background to inception of the module. We then consider module delivery, feedback and assessment. We conclude with reflections on the module including its challenges, actions to address these and student feedback on their engagement and learning. We include some practical steps for others to follow this approach, and we hope to inspire readers to try some of the proven techniques in their own context.

The Origins of Our Quest: Context and Background

From September 2023 as part of a revalidated undergraduate law degree, the module team designed and delivered ‘Private Law’, a first year undergraduate module for around 400 students. Private law governs rights and duties that exist between individuals and/or organisations, rather than the State. This module introduced students to these duties and their application, within the fields of tort and contract law. It aimed to encourage students to consider how real-world private law issues are solved or why they might be unresolvable.

As part of the revalidation, the module was designed to address some of the teaching and learning issues identified with previous cohorts. One was the use of large lecture theatres to deliver module content. The debate and criticism surrounding the ‘sage on the [big] stage’ (King, 1993) approach to teaching and learning is not a new but a continuing one. Blight’s seminal work in the early 1970s questioned the value of traditional, passive lectures in large classrooms, arguing that they often fail to achieve their educational aims (Blight, 1971). Recently Loughlin suggested that low demands placed on both staff and students in transmissive lectures create an ‘illusion of attendance,’ where assumptions about learning and physical presence exceed what empirical data supports (Loughlin, 2024; Loughlin & Lindberg-Sand, 2023).

Our large lecture theatre is a rigid space accommodating 400+ students. This made incorporation of active learning strategies more difficult, allowing little opportunity for nurturing students’ critical thinking skills, developing their autonomy or increasing their engagement. Large lecture theatre delivery also hampered group cohesion and students’ abilities to engage with their peers and develop supportive groups. This was an important consideration when designing a course for first year undergraduates, new to university and exacerbated by the non-campus environment of our city faculty. We aimed to ensure that we developed the module to ‘foster collaboration, interdependence, and collective learning’ in accordance with UDL consideration 8.3. Another driver of the change in module design was to provide opportunities in smaller class environments to enable tutors to evaluate students’ understanding of the legal principles and their application as the module progressed. To meet these objectives in the course design and within our module, large lectures were replaced with seminar groups of around 50 students and tutorial groups of around 20.

In designing this module, we drew on our previous experience of adapting in-person teaching of our tort law module to online delivery during the Covid pandemic. We followed Willam Horton’s ‘Absorb, Do, Connect’ approach to online delivery (Horton, 2011). To introduce students to key concepts in a flipped classroom approach, we used pre-recorded short voiceover PowerPoints (named Knowledge Nuggets) for students to ‘absorb’ prior to joining the online synchronous classroom. In online lectures (to 200 plus students) and online tutorials (to around 25) we used simulations, quizzes, media clips, and breakout rooms, as well as other interactive activities, to enable students to ‘do’ something with the material they had absorbed and ‘connect’ legal principles and concepts to each other and their application in real-world scenarios. Statistics showed that over 70% of students attended the online synchronous classes over 70% of the time. We were keen to see if this was because students were at home during Covid lockdowns with little else to occupy them. Later, we evaluated the success of this approach through a ‘Students as Co-Creators’ University-funded research project (Abrams & Whyte, 2022): working with student partners we gathered data from the online cohort and the subsequent face-to-face cohort. Students valued the Knowledge Nuggets, both as an accessible and adaptable way to learn the legal principles and as a revision aid. They enjoyed the interactive activities and the range of active learning strategies. We therefore incorporated the more successful elements of this approach in designing the Private Law module.

The Battle Plan: Structuring the Learning Process

The module combined two areas of private law, tort and contract, previously delivered separately, each over a twelve-week period. The task was to refashion and rewrite the content, combining them in the same period. Consequently, we based the module content around common themes and principles by devising a set of Threshold Concepts (Myers & Land, 2003; 2005; 2006). These differed from the module Learning Outcomes which focused on the skills of analysis and application of the law to private law problems, research, communication and teamwork. Here we used Threshold Concepts to refer to the key gateway notions which students needed to grasp to understand the module, such as duties and responsibilities, breaches and causation. Using Threshold Concepts as a foundation enabled students to appreciate areas of congruence and difference across the two areas of Private Law and track these through the module’s units. They provided a goal for students to meet; each week, seminar and tutorial slides linked the content of that session to the Concept being explored. In this way we implemented UDL consideration 6.1, to set meaningful goals for our learners, using guides and checklists for scaffolding goal setting. This approach also enabled us to implement UDL consideration 6.3, organising the information and resources provided to our learners to enable them to categorise and discover themes and patterns across the areas of Private Law.

The module was designed to be delivered in a two-hour seminar (replacing the large lecture) and a 90-minute tutorial each week. It made use of the flipped classroom approach (King, 1993; Baig & Yadegaridehkordi, 2023; Specht & Saunders, 2023) whereby the main legal principles and key cases were delivered to students via short bite-sized voiceover PowerPoints called ‘Critical Concepts’. These were no more than 10 minutes long to maximise students’ engagement with them prior to class, as the information is chunked into ‘smaller elements helping to prevent cognitive overload’ (UDL consideration 3.3). Students were also provided with a written transcript of the recording to ensure accessibility and cater to different learning styles. This enabled learners to perceive information in multiple ways to ensure they had equal access to information (UDL consideration 1.2). Some of the Critical Concepts included media clips to retain students’ attention. In this way we implemented the UDL approach, illustrating key concepts through multiple media, ensuring that learners who might find information inaccessible through text were able to access these concepts in a more relatable and comprehensible way (UDL consideration 2.5). This pre-released content allowed class time to be spent on activities developed from and reliant on the Critical Concepts, improving students’ understanding and their critical and evaluative skills.

In seminars, tort and contract principles were blended in an authentic central case study based on a real-life scenario concerning an apprentice electrician injured in an accident at work. This developed each week to introduce new events, characters and legal principles. This progressive release of information guided learners in their step-by-step construction of knowledge, thus embedding that knowledge and understanding long term (UDL consideration 3.3). It enabled students to explore concepts that applied equally in tort and contract such as duties, obligations, breaches of those obligations, causative harm and remedies.

Group work was a central feature of the seminars. Students were expected to remain in their groups for the whole module and work together on activities to develop their understanding of, and ability to apply, the central legal principles to the case study. Initially, students were given flipchart paper and pens to record their groups’ output. To enable students to focus and connect as a group, activities that required use of mobile phones and laptops were not used early in the module. Each week, students were provided with a new section of the case study in class and were required to undertake tasks such as fact management (e.g. drawing legal relationships between parties), drafting, negotiation, research and client interviewing. Several activities aimed to replicate tasks that students might undertake as trainee solicitors, thereby providing an authentic experience in which they could see themselves in that role. Following each seminar, students were asked to reflect on their experience of group work that had taken place and were encouraged to do so using a reflection log. In the second year of delivery an improvement was made to embed this reflection activity into class time (see below). As the weeks progressed, we implemented UDL consideration 7.1 (optimising choice and autonomy) giving students the option of moving their flipchart group work output onto virtual mind mapping programmes like Miro or Lucidchart. Students were also given the option to create WhatsApp groups or rely on tutors to create Blackboard groups to communicate outside class. This provided students with choice and autonomy to ‘develop agency … and increase connection to their learning’ (UDL consideration 7.1).

All materials and activities were designed with accessibility and diverse learning styles in mind to meet the UDL guidelines relating to Action and Expression and Representation. Active learning classrooms were generally used with flexible furniture and multiple interactive whiteboards, creating collaborative spaces. Alternatives to mouse control, such as QR codes and interactive applications like Padlet and PollEverywhere, were used to obtain students’ responses. In this way, we varied our leaner’s methods for ‘response, navigation, and movement’ (UDL consideration 4.1). To enhance accessibility of materials, pre-session slides outlining each week’s class activities were provided. Later, more detailed post-session slides were released. All slides aligned with accessibility requirements ensuring access by all learners, including those using accessible technologies (UDL consideration 4.2). Seminar and tutorial slides were colour-coded using a standard template to facilitate differentiation and maintain consistency across the module and the teaching team of eight tutors. This gave students the security of knowing what to expect from each session and enabled them to use these templates as an organisational aid (UDL consideration 6.3).

Tutorial group work also scaffolded the Threshold Concepts and understanding of key legal principles and cases with additional active learning activities. A variety of media was used to deliver knowledge about legal principles and case law (UDL considerations 1.2, supporting multiple ways to perceive information and 2.5, illustrating through multiple media). Students learnt about offer and acceptance by looking at Apple’s terms and conditions in an activity that replicated making an online purchase. Tailor-made client videos enabled students to take part in the authentic experience of advising a client. Media clips (such as the Netflix series Pepsi, Where’s my Jet and a BBC Documentary about the Hoover Flights fiasco) were used to illustrate key contractual principles giving rise to newsworthy headlines. Students had opportunities to critique letters and simulated GenAI information, highlighting errors and suggesting improvements. In addition, an AI-generated avatar, created by a member of the teaching team, ‘joined’ an experimental class to discuss their claim with students.

To embed knowledge and understanding, seminars started with a recap of the previous week’s activities and a list of tasks or goals to accomplish in class (UDL consideration 3.1). The slides covered those tasks, signposting as students’ progressed through them. Critical Concepts were further recapped weekly in tutorials with an initial slide reminding students of the legal principles and key cases that had been covered in them (UDL consideration 3.1).

Social context was provided by embedding tasks that required students to consider the role of law in society. For instance, they researched welfare benefits and lawyers’ fees, which gave rise to discussions about social inequality and the ethics of renumerating lawyers based on successful outcomes. These discussions were prompted by developments in the case study giving students real-world perspectives on their learning, contextualised to their lives and thereby promoting their ‘relevance, value and authenticity’ (UDL consideration 7.2).

Measuring Our Musketeers: Feedback and Assessment

Throughout the module we provided students with ongoing formative feedback, and formative assessment, fully preparing them for the module’s two-part summative assessment. Part A of the summative task was authentic, involving advice to a client, and Part B was reflective, involving reflection on group work.

In terms of ongoing formative feedback, although most of the activities involved working together with and learning from peers, there were also opportunities for students to work alongside second year student mentors who had studied Private Law the previous year. They acted as ‘differentiated mentors’ who were able to motivate, guide and provide feedback to students on tasks with which they were familiar (UDL consideration 5.3). Additional formative feedback was provided synchronously in class with tutors facilitating group work and commenting on notes, diagrams and research completed by students. This multi-faceted approach provided students with a learning environment which embedded a ‘variety of formative assessment opportunities and scaffolds to support the development of learners’ fluencies’ (UDL consideration 5.3).

Formative assessment took place ‘informally’ and formally. A peer-assessed group legal quiz was undertaken during a seminar mid-semester. The subsequent plenary discussed strengths and common misconceptions, enabling us to evaluate understanding of the main legal principles and supporting cases in an active and engaging manner. This was followed by a formal formative assessment, which mirrored the summative, albeit at shorter length. Prior to submission we shared the assessment rubric so students could be clear on the metrics for success, thus increasing their confidence and reducing potential anxiety around assessments (Taylor et al., 2024). Staff marked the formative, providing individual feedback. A general cohort feedback document highlighted common themes and approaches across submissions and enhanced students’ capacity for monitoring their progress (UDL consideration 6.4).

To prepare for the final summative assessment, we devoted four sessions to consolidation of the module material. Using mind mapping diagrams to build connections between prior learning and new knowledge (UDL consideration 3.1), the module’s overall content was represented to students to visualise connections between areas of law and the legal relationships, obligations, breaches and remedies available (see figure 1 below). This was particularly beneficial for Part A, the client advice task. During these sessions we also examined models of reflection; focusing on the ‘What, So What, Now What?’ model (Borton, 1970; Kolb, 1984) as we considered this the most accessible for first years and the best approach to prepare students for Part B of the assessment.

Part A of the final summative assessment was an authentic one aiming “to integrate what happens in the classroom with employment, replicating the tasks and performance standards typically faced by professionals in the world of work” (Villarroel et al., 2018, p. 841). It required students, in their capacity as trainee lawyers, to write a memorandum to their supervisor on a client’s problem involving tortious and contractual issues. It tested students’ understanding of the legal principles and key cases and their skills of application. To support all students, particularly those requiring more structure, a memorandum template was provided. Additionally, rather than a general request for advice, the question highlighted specific aspects of the problem and potential claims about which advice was sought. Together, these features helped students to structure their answers.

Given the pivotal role of group work in the module, and the crucial role reflection plays in the learning process (Schön, 1983; Kolb, 1984), Part B of their final summative assessment required students to write 500 words of reflection, examining and evaluating their experience of seminar group work. The reflection was structured around questions to help students focus on areas of personal development gained through group work (Zimmerman, 2002). Combining knowledge and application of the law with a reflective element (Boud et al., 1985) meant that the assessment provided a level of challenge for stronger students as well as supporting weaker students to do well.

Battle Weary: Challenges in Delivery and Content

Initially, it was a challenge to form groups and provide them with a shared online space to record weekly work. In the first year of delivery, we used the ‘Groups’ function on Blackboard which limited students to an inflexible Word document to which photographs and images had to be attached. Finding it too static, few students took advantage of this. Creating online groups was cumbersome and undermined by the second challenge: students enrolling late or moving seminar groups due to timetabling issues. In addition, although some groups worked effectively, a few were beset by poor or fluctuating attendance, which sometimes required group amalgamation. Students could reflect on this flux in their assessments and for some, it was an opportunity to develop communication skills, resilience and flexibility. In the second year of delivery, we navigated this problem by encouraging students to create WhatsApp groups to enable them to more easily communicate whilst continuing to offer them the option of an online space through Blackboard. There was no take up of the second option; students often commented in their assessed reflection that WhatsApp groups worked well to keep them informed and on work if they missed classes. Despite difficulties in setting up the groups and fluctuations in attendance, students benefitted from group work beyond the classroom. Many reflected that they had formed good support networks and made friends, which is crucial to student retention (Kreig et al. 2023). In this respect the module succeeded in bringing students together in a way that the lecture format had not.

Some tutors found the materials for the seminars cumbersome; paper copies of new sections of the case study and flipcharts and pens had to be brought to class. In the second year of delivery, we promoted the use of online mapping software to address this, retaining the option of pen and flipchart paper to cater for students preferring physical materials. On balance, we plan to continue this approach, at least in the short term; the act of sitting around a central piece of paper helped to coalesce the groups at the early stage of joining university so this has considerable merit, despite the challenge. Moreover, not all students are as ‘tech-savvy’ as is often assumed (Paul & Crowe, 2023; Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017) and some learning styles are better suited to physical materials.

The lack of a recent appropriate textbook on private law for first year undergraduates also presented a challenge and informed our decision to deliver the legal principles through the Critical Concepts. The Concepts proved successful for most students to acquire an understanding of these principles. However, during the first year of delivery, stronger students communicated to their tutors that, having engaged fully with the Concepts, they would benefit from additional reading to deepen their contextual understanding of, for example, the policy considerations behind the development of legal obligations. In the second year of delivery, we therefore introduced some additional reading linked to contract and tort. These were accessible digitally via the module’s Blackboard reading list as well as physically in our university library.

Formulating our assessment criteria presented challenges. We used an analytic rubric to break the assessment down into specific criteria and performance levels (see Mikell, 2023). Following the first year of delivery we concluded that the rubric could inform students more clearly about our marking criteria and better assist markers in identifying and classifying submissions at both ends of the marking scales. We therefore revised the rubric, making more specific reference to aspects of the assessment that should be present or absent. For example, in terms of application of the law, the criteria for a third-class answer (40-49%) was amended from

an adequate ability to apply knowledge and to provide and communicate legal and non-legal solutions to the hypothetical client problem,

to the more informative

an adequate ability to apply legal principles and supporting evidence to the problem. An attempt to apply the legal principles & case law correctly with basic understanding and substantial gaps in knowledge. Limited solutions proposed. Communicates adequately with several errors.

The rubric was incorporated into student feedback so they could see how well they performed against these clearer criteria.

It was challenging to keep on task classes containing 50+ students working in groups, given some tendency to complete the activity and start chatting. Whilst group work was introduced partly to enable students to connect with peers, it was also important to ensure that students were able to engage with the activities fully. A solution would have been seminars delivered by two tutors, but resources prevented this. However, we were fortunate to have student mentors in some seminars, supporting tutors and keeping students focused.

In the first year of delivery, seminars focused on students’ exploration of legal concepts raised by the case study without their prior knowledge of the law. For example, students considering why there might be a responsibility from an employer to an employee. Subsequently the Critical Concepts were made available to students to introduce ‘the law’ prior to tutorials. However, we found that releasing the Concepts after the seminar made tutorials very challenging as they had to be recapped and applied in one 90-minute session. In the second year of delivery, we frontloaded the Concepts, releasing them prior to the seminars. Also, seminars were revised to include some discussion of the legal principles and an exploration of their relevance to the case study. Later, in tutorials students worked to apply the Concepts, making connections between the theoretical and practical application of the law.

The reflective element of assessment (Part B) presented an additional challenge. Submissions relied heavily on generic descriptions of both group work interactions and skills acquired, some of which appeared to have been produced by GenAI. To address this, following the formative assessment in the first year of delivery, we revised the reflection questions, moving away from emphasising skills acquired and focusing on emotional responses and personal development. This provided an opportunity for students to ‘process their emotions and reflect on their strengths and challenges’ (UDL consideration 9.2). Furthermore, in the second year of delivery, seminar time was allocated for students to complete a reflection log under tutor guidance. A template for the log was also provided containing questions to prompt reflection and suggested sentence starters to help students formulate their writing. Additionally, we revised one of the four consolidation sessions to deepen understanding of the ‘What, So What, Now What’ reflection model. Drawing on the previous cohort’s submissions, we provided students with good and less good examples of reflective writing. As well as the usual timetabled classes, the module also, as a necessity, made use of two whole cohort lectures. We used these to reinforce reflective practice for the assessment. Exemplars were again shared with students providing a clearer understanding of of the requirements for a good answer. Consequently, the submissions in the second year of delivery demonstrated less reliance on GenAI for the reflection than previously. This is likely to have resulted from increased scaffolding of reflective writing practice and the use of exemplars and templates.

We conclude by considering the impact of this delivery and content on staff workloads. Overall, workloads are unlikely to be adversely affected by module design time. For module leaders, there may be initial front loading of designing and disseminating class materials amongst the team to ensure parity of experience for students, but this is no different to any other module. Staff may spend slightly longer preparing the equipment for the classes (such as flipchart paper and pens) and familiarising themselves with media clips and active learning tasks. Managing group work in larger seminar classes may be more demanding than in smaller tutorial groups. This may be alleviated by the involvement of student mentors. Class management can also be supported by establishing ground rules setting out expectations for group work at the start of sessions. Limiting the word count for formative assessments and using an informative rubric can ensure that staff are not overburdened with marking yet are still able to provide meaningful feedback for students.

Returning to Battle: Outcomes and Enhancement

To measure the outcomes of the module’s delivery and gauge student views, our sources of information were Blackboard’s Gradebook data (which holds the modules’ assessment grades) and our student module evaluation surveys (SME). Students are asked to complete these anonymous online SMEs towards the end of the module delivery, and we analysed responses from the 2023/24 delivery and the 2024/25 delivery. Ethical approval for using this anonymised data was provided by the institution.

Gradebook data showed a high pass rate for the module; 86% in the first year (of which 62% achieved a 2:2 and above) and 94% in the second year (of which 72% achieved a 2:2 and above), both rates being recorded prior to the referral/deferral assessment period).

SME data showed that for the initial 23/24 delivery of the module, the response rate was 12.2% (53 from a possible 436). For the module’s second year of delivery the response rate was 12.8% (57 from a possible 446). Undoubtedly these are low rates, with a non-response bias of approximately 88% (Fincham, 2008). Zumrawi et al. (2014) estimate that for a module with over 100 students the validity threshold (response rate) should be ≥ 15% which contrasts with the 30% response rates universities see as typical (Zaitseva & Carey, 2023). However, there is no universally defined threshold for a “good” response rate. Although the rates were lower than ideal, the data collected may still be viewed as representing a meaningful contribution to understanding specific aspects of the module’s delivery, particularly when triangulated with other sources, for instance, reports from course committees, informal feedback from student mentors and feedback from the module team gathered during regular module team meetings.

Students provided positive feedback through the SME process, particularly about the case study. They appreciated its value in providing an insight into real-world application of the legal principles they were learning. One student commented, ‘This module made me realise I enjoy learning about business … learning about contracts and I also enjoy learning about Amir. Another said, ‘Contract … and Tort … are both very interesting and relates well to everyday life. I found tutorials intellectually stimulating’.

Students also valued the way in which the module developed their skills. As this student commented,

I enjoyed learning how to determine liability based on Tort … and Contract … legal principles. I found it enjoyable learning new legal concepts through [Amir’s] story by developing problem-solving skills and critical thinking during the development of the events that contributed to enhancing my understanding of the claims, damages and remedies.

Another added,

I like what I am learning – it is interesting I loved learning the principles alongside the scenarios in the seminars and applying the knowledge through the problem exercises in the tutorials.

Moreover, students enjoyed and recognised the value of group work, despite the challenges of fluctuating numbers and resulting realignment of some groups. One commented,

Honestly, I didn’t really think the group work would be great since my group went down from a 6-member group to a 3-member group, but overall, I think this was the part I liked the most during the seminars. It made concentration much easier.

Another wrote, ‘I like that we write facts about Amir’s [the subject of the case study] legal journey on the large chart sheet and then explain it to the class’.

Students also found the Critical Concepts a valuable resource, supported by the seminar activities. One commented ‘the critical slides are really helpful. The seminar story is very well explained, it makes learning about duty of care, contracts and negligence much more interesting’. As with their Knowledge Nuggets predecessor, a student found the ‘Critical Concept PowerPoints and voice recordings very useful during revision’.

Given the outcomes above, we have considered adaptations to enhance future delivery of the module. Having decided to frontload access to the Critical Concepts prior to the start of seminars (rather than prior to tutorials as in the first year of delivery), we intend to continue the introduction of more legal principles into the seminar case study thereby reducing the burdensome level of content in tutorials. This approach will scaffold students’ understanding of the principles more securely, enabling them to make stronger connections in their learning through the subsequent tutorial activities.

Another adaptation recognises the notable rise in our students’ reliance on emerging technologies in their assessments. This became more apparent in the second year of delivery, particularly in relation to Part A (advice to the client). Reliance went beyond the assistance of software tools, such as Grammarly, to improve writing quality. Students’ reliance on GenAI was evident in the repeated use of cases from other jurisdictions, cases which had not been covered in the module or advice which was not specific enough to relate to the problem given. For example, explaining both consumer and business to business contractual obligations when only one could apply. Our experience mirrors a finding from the Higher Education Policy Institute’s 2025 survey that 88% of undergraduate students reported using GenAI tools for assessments, a notable rise from 53% in 2024 (Foster, 2025). Moving forwards, as part of our continuous improvement process, we are considering ways to address this issue. Whilst we are training the next generation of lawyers who will certainly use AI in practice, it is vital that students learn the skill of evaluating legal options for the client, and the assessment should test their ability to apply the law to the specific facts of their client’s case. We plan to provide students with artefacts which more closely mirror the evidence a legal practitioner would evaluate in providing clients with advice on their claims.

In our initial design of the module, given the limited delivery time, we intended that the Critical Concepts would serve as the sole vehicle to deliver the legal principles. As mentioned, we subsequently added more reading to challenge stronger learners. We aim to continue this journey of providing enhanced materials, such as journal articles, podcasts and practitioner periodicals. This will enable these learners to delve deeper into the sociological, contextual and historical underpinning of Private Law.

We aim to increase our teaching team’s awareness of and responses to diverse learning needs by disseminating inclusive teaching toolkits. These include strategies to equip the team to adapt their teaching practice to better accommodate all learners. Our institution is currently developing a number of these resources including guides for teaching students with dyslexia, dyspraxia and ADHD and inclusive teaching toolkits. Similar resources have been produced by, for instance, Imperial College, York and Brunel Universities.

The Final Stroke: Conclusion

Private Law successfully blended two modules, Tort and Contract Law, each previously taught over 12 weeks. During the same time frame the module provided students with an overview of the main principles and key legal authorities in both areas. It tested students’ abilities to apply the law to a ‘real life’ client problem and reflect on their personal development and experience of working in groups whilst doing so. Although we faced challenges implementing this approach, such as managing group work in larger class sizes, stretching stronger students and balancing material across the seminars and tutorials, this ‘all for one and one for all’ approach resulted in successful module outcomes and positive student feedback. To assist others interested in adopting this method, Table 1 below sets out elements of our module design indicating how and why it incorporates UDL considerations.

1. Create a collaborative environment and a shared responsibility for learning. A crucial aspect of our module design was to foster a sense of community and belonging across the cohort, previously missing in large lecture delivery. Using UDL principles the module focused on providing students with a collaborative learning experience with a shared responsibility for their learning using groupwork as the mainstay of seminar activities. Indeed, the students’ reflective assessment revealed that seminar-based learning fostered closer working relationships with peers.
2. Design a wide variety of inclusive and engaging activities and materials. We ensured that activities in seminars and tutorials plus the range of materials used were designed to be inclusive and effective for all learners, regardless of their circumstances or learning style. They provided learners with multiple means of representation, engagement, action and expression to enhance their agency. These included various methods of conveying information such as media clips, recorded PowerPoints and tailor-made videos. Students were also provided with multiple means to engage with the materials including mind mapping software, physical materials, QR codes, colour-coded templates and quizzes.
3. Keep your eye on GenAI and regularly review module delivery. Continuing our Musketeers theme, we are adapting our battle tactics by adjusting and refining the module design and future proofing the assessment against overreliance on GenAI. However, as technology develops, we will seek ways to harness GenAI’s role in our implementation of the UDL framework by further incorporation into the module. This may enhance the module’s accessibility and its learning environment to maximise every student’s chance to succeed.

We urge others to try this approach, elements of which can be adapted in other contexts to increase learner agency and improve student engagement and outcomes. This inclusive approach, based on teamwork and shared responsibility, resonates with the ethos exemplified by Dumas’ three musketeers, and encapsulated in their motto, ‘all for one and one for all’.

References

Abrams, P., & Whyte, A. (2022). Engaging Your Core: Strategies for Strengthening Students’ Learning. University of Westminster Students as Co-Creators Project Report. https://cti.westminster.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/61/2022/09/CDC-1.pdf

Baig, M.I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2023). Flipped classroom in higher education: a systematic literature review and research challenges. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20(61), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00430-5

Bligh, D. A. (1971). What’s the Use of Lectures? University of London, Institute of Education.

Borton, T. (1970). Reach, touch, and teach; student concerns and process education. McGraw-Hill.

Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection: Turning Reflection into Learning. Routledge.

CAST (2024). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/

Fincham J. E. (2008). Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards, and the Journal. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 72(2), Article 43, 1-3 https://doi.org/10.5688/aj720243

Freeman, J. (2025). Student Generative AI Survey 2025. Higher Education Policy Institute. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2025/02/26/student-generative-ai-survey-2025/

Horton, W. (2011). E-Learning by Design (2nd ed.). Pfeiffer.

King, A. (1993). From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27558571

Kitchenham, A. (2008). The Evolution of John Mezirow’s Transformative Learning Theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344608322678

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Prentice-Hall.

Krieg, J. M., Martin, D. D., & Wright, A. C. (2023). Friends don’t let friends drop out. Education Economics, 32(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2023.2196006

Land, R., Cousin, G., Meyer, J. H., & Davies, P. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): implications for course design and evaluation. In Rust, C. (Ed.), Improving Student Learning—Equality and Diversity (pp. 53-64). Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Loughlin, C. (2024). The illusion of attendance: a critical study of large-class lectures. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-16. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2024.2441183

Loughlin, C., & Lindberg-Sand, Å. (2023). The use of lectures: effective pedagogy or seeds scattered on the wind? Higher Education 85, 283-299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00833-9

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (1): Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. In Rust, C. (Ed.), Improving Student Learning—Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice — Ten Years On (pp. 412-424). Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge (2): Epistemological Considerations and a Conceptual Framework for Teaching and Learning. Higher Education, 49, 373-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5

Meyer J. H. F., & Land R. (Eds.) (2006). Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. Routledge.

Mikell, J. G. (2023, January 3). Analytic rubric design fundamentals. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/analytic-rubric-design-fundamentals

Paul, H. W., & Crowe, M. M. (2023). Digital Literacy Inequities, Higher Education, and the New Digital Divide. International Journal of Intelligent Computing Research 14(1), 1177-1180.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.

Specht, D., & Saunders, G. (2023, April 5). How to get students to play their part in the flipped classroom. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/how-get-students-play-their-part-flipped-classroom

Taylor, B., Kisby, F., & Reedy, A. (2024). Rubrics in higher education: an exploration of undergraduate students’ understanding and perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 799-809. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2299330.

Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2017). Authentic assessment: creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396

Zaitseva, E., & Carey, P. (2023). Vocal, quiet and silent: exploring patterns of student engagement with module evaluation. Students at the heart conference. https://doi.org/10.24377/studentexp1426

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

Zumrawi, A. A., Bates, S. P., & Schroeder, M. (2014). What response rates are needed to make reliable inferences from student evaluations of teaching? Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(7-8), 557-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2014.997915

About the authors

Pamela Abrams and Avis Whyte are Senior Lecturers at the University of Westminster. They teach in the areas of Tort and Contract Law, Legal Systems and Skills and the Legal Profession. They are also Academic Professional Development Fellows at Westminster’s Centre for Education and Teaching Innovation.

Corresponding Author:  Pamela Abrams, P.Abrahams@westminster.ac.uk