Rationale

=**Rationale**=

This page is for the benefit of teachers who may wish to implement this differentiated unit of work within their Legal Studies classroom. It sets out:
 * an outline of the unit content and objectives;
 * a rationale for the structure of the unit; and
 * a guide to implementation of the unit.

**__Unit content and objectives__**
The unit of work covers two weeks of instruction in eight lessons. Each lesson addresses one objective for learning, each of which is derived from the [|Legal Studies syllabus], specifically, the area on 'Classification of Law'. Each lesson and its objectives are outlined on a separate page, which can be located in the navigation panel on the left of the screen. Each objective specifies the student learning outcome for that particular lesson.

The eight objectives for student learning are as follows:

Objective 1: Outline the differences between public and private law. Objective 2: Outline the different areas of public law: criminal law, administrative law and constitutional law. Objective 3: Outline the different areas of private law: contract law, tort law and property law. Objective 4: Outline the distinction between civil and criminal law proceedings. Objective 5: Understand the role and function of juries in criminal trials. Objective 6: Identify the role of legal personnel involved in the court process. Objective 7: Compare and contrast common and civil law systems. Objective 8: Observe and report on a court in session.

**__Rationale for unit structure__**

The overarching goal of this differentiated unit of instruction is to provide instruction on the topic in a range of ways so as to meet the differing **//needs, abilities, learning preferences and interests//** of the diverse range of students within any particular class. This differentiated unit of instruction is based on the Layered Curriculum® approach developed by Dr Kathie Nunley (2006). This is a student-centred approach to instruction which seeks to foster engagement through student choice, develop critical thinking skills and to encourage students to take responsibility for their learning (Nunley, 2006). Further information about this approach can be obtained by visiting [|Help4Teachers].

The lessons are carefully structured so as to cater for the differing abilities of students within the class. Each lessons lists a number of student assignments or tasks in three levels: A, B and C. Tasks within each of these levels are targeted at different cognitive domains within Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy of cognitive processes, and Anderson & Krathwohl’s (2001) revised taxonomy of cognitive processes, as follows:
 * **Level C **contains assignments in which students engage in lower order cognitive tasks in which they **//recall, remember and understand //**. These may include, for example, activities involving listing, summarising and describing content in a range of formats.
 * **Level B ** contains assignments in which students **//apply knowledge and analyse learned information //**. Such assignments may involve comparing and contrasting different aspects of the topic and making use of learned information in different contexts.
 * **Level A ** contains assignments whereby students undertake higher order cognitive tasks in which they **//evaluate and create //**. Such assignments may involve students exercising judgement based on learned information, or creating new information based on their learning.

Students are able to select between the range of tasks offered, to allow them to access the content in ways which match their ability level. To encourage students to engage in at least some higher order thinking tasks, there is a requirement that students must only complete a maximum of 20 points in Level C tasks for each objective, and must complete three Level A tasks during the unit. The wiki format allows students to view all available Level A tasks to assist them in selecting and completing those Level A tasks which are most appealing and accessible to them.

Each lesson also provides a range of learning activities to cater for a variety of different learning styles and preferences. It does so by incorporating activities which appeal to a range of the “multiple intelligences” identified by Gardner (1983 and 1999). For example, students with:
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">**linguistic** **intelligence** are catered for through the use of a range of reading and writing exercises;
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">**spatial** or **visual intelligence** are catered for through options to produce mindmaps, flowcharts and other visual organisers to record content and options to create such things as posters to represent information in a visual format;
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">**kinaesthetic** or **bodily intelligence** are catered for through the use of role play, hopscotch activities and options to create tactile learning aids such as flashcards; and
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">both **interpersonal** **intelligence** and **intrapersonal intelligence** are accommodated through the use of a mix of individual, pair and group work.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The structure of the unit of work facilitates student choice and allows students an opportunity to pursue specific areas of interest, while at the same time ensuring that core syllabus content is covered. Providing students with a chance to choose tasks that they perceive to be relevant to their personal interests offers support for student autonomy, and often leads to higher levels of motivation and task engagement (Assor, Kaplan & Roth, 2002, p.264).

**__Implementation of the unit__**

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Details of the points system, submission of work and other expectations relating to the differentiated unit of work are set out in full in the Student Contract. This document provides detailed guidelines on how the unit is to be implemented.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">At the commencement of the unit, the student contract is to be reviewed by students and they are to acknowledge that they understand and agree to it. To do this, students must add their acknowledgement to the student contract page of the wiki. A teacher implementing the wiki unit will need to customise this section of the contract to reflect the names of students within their class.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This wiki is designed to be the means through which students access and submit their work. Students can be directed to the relevant wiki page for each lesson, from which they can access the assignment choices, supporting resources and lesson materials uploaded by the teacher. Keep in mind that some of the resources include sample answers – these are for the benefit of teachers and should be removed before the unit is commenced!

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The unit also contains a number of integrated formative and summative measures through which student learning of the objectives can be assessed. Details of these are set out on the Assessment page.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This unit of work is designed to cover two weeks of instruction over eight lessons. This is, however, simply a guide. The precise timing and duration of the unit within any particular class will depend on any number of variables – for example: class ability levels, the teacher’s preferences for instruction, and prevailing homework expectations.

**__References__**

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl (Eds.). (2001). //A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives//. New York: Longman.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours in predicting student's engagement in school work. //British Journal of Educational Psychology//, //72//, 261-278.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). //<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals //<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">. London: Longman Group.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Gardner, K. (1983). //Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences//. New York: Basic Books.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Gardner, H. (1999). //Intelligence reframed : multiple intelligences for the 21st century//. New York: Basic Books.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Nunley, K. (2006). //Differentiating the High School Classroom.// Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Nunley, K. (n.d) //Help4Teachers//. Retrieved 12 October 2011 from http://www.help4teachers.com