Forskjell mellom versjoner av «Bruker:Yuliyac@uio.no»
| Linje 1: | Linje 1: | ||
| − | Subject: Comparative Private Law JUS 5240 | + | '''Subject''': Comparative Private Law JUS 5240 |
| − | Date: 29 August 2016 | + | '''Date:''' 29 August 2016 |
Number of students involved: 48 | Number of students involved: 48 | ||
| − | Type of activity: lecture | + | '''Type of activity:''' lecture |
| − | Title of the lecture: Introduction to the course and overview. What we are going to compare? | + | '''Title of the lecture:''' Introduction to the course and overview. What we are going to compare? |
| − | Questions/tasks (combination of yes/no question with reflection): | + | '''Questions/tasks''' (combination of yes/no question with reflection): |
1. Have you heard about CISG and UNIDROIT? | 1. Have you heard about CISG and UNIDROIT? | ||
2. Have you studied international private law? | 2. Have you studied international private law? | ||
| Linje 14: | Linje 14: | ||
4. What are your expectations from the course? | 4. What are your expectations from the course? | ||
| − | Time allocated: 5 minutes | + | '''Time allocated:''' 5 minutes |
| + | |||
| + | '''Aim of the writing exercise:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1) Literally to wake up the students (the lecture took place at 8:15 am on Monday) | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2) to catch attention and to put students into work at the outset (“effect of warming up”) | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3) to have an information on general level of students (question 1, question 2) | ||
| + | |||
| + | 4) to problematize the lecture (question 3) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
5) to have the feedback on expectations (questions 4) and to use the feedback on the second lecture in order to demonstrate the diversities of contemporary views on object and function of Private Comparative Law because the students responses reflected most of the contemporary approached toward Private Comparative Law. | 5) to have the feedback on expectations (questions 4) and to use the feedback on the second lecture in order to demonstrate the diversities of contemporary views on object and function of Private Comparative Law because the students responses reflected most of the contemporary approached toward Private Comparative Law. | ||
| − | Results: | + | '''Results:''' |
| − | 1) students were waken up | + | |
| − | 2) they were more concentrated and more interested | + | 1) students were waken up |
| − | 3) I received an overview of the level of the students | + | |
| + | 2) they were more concentrated and more interested | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3) I received an overview of the level of the students | ||
| + | |||
4) At the same time, the question on expectation was perceived without enthusiasm during the first lecture. I gave a new life to it in the course of the subsequent lecture while commenting on approaches towards Private Comparative Law. | 4) At the same time, the question on expectation was perceived without enthusiasm during the first lecture. I gave a new life to it in the course of the subsequent lecture while commenting on approaches towards Private Comparative Law. | ||
| − | Other observations: | + | '''Other observations:''' |
Many students preferred to type and to send the answers via post instead of handwriting. Most students preferred to have their answers signed instead of anonymity (the choice was given). Questions forcing students to reflect with subsequent analysis have more stimulating effect than the questions bearing informative function for the lecturer. | Many students preferred to type and to send the answers via post instead of handwriting. Most students preferred to have their answers signed instead of anonymity (the choice was given). Questions forcing students to reflect with subsequent analysis have more stimulating effect than the questions bearing informative function for the lecturer. | ||
Nåværende revisjon fra 6. sep. 2016 kl. 21:46
Subject: Comparative Private Law JUS 5240
Date: 29 August 2016 Number of students involved: 48
Type of activity: lecture
Title of the lecture: Introduction to the course and overview. What we are going to compare?
Questions/tasks (combination of yes/no question with reflection): 1. Have you heard about CISG and UNIDROIT? 2. Have you studied international private law? 3. Write 3 most problematic areas of contract law in your own jurisdiction (2 minutes) 4. What are your expectations from the course?
Time allocated: 5 minutes
Aim of the writing exercise:
1) Literally to wake up the students (the lecture took place at 8:15 am on Monday)
2) to catch attention and to put students into work at the outset (“effect of warming up”)
3) to have an information on general level of students (question 1, question 2)
4) to problematize the lecture (question 3)
5) to have the feedback on expectations (questions 4) and to use the feedback on the second lecture in order to demonstrate the diversities of contemporary views on object and function of Private Comparative Law because the students responses reflected most of the contemporary approached toward Private Comparative Law.
Results:
1) students were waken up
2) they were more concentrated and more interested
3) I received an overview of the level of the students
4) At the same time, the question on expectation was perceived without enthusiasm during the first lecture. I gave a new life to it in the course of the subsequent lecture while commenting on approaches towards Private Comparative Law.
Other observations: Many students preferred to type and to send the answers via post instead of handwriting. Most students preferred to have their answers signed instead of anonymity (the choice was given). Questions forcing students to reflect with subsequent analysis have more stimulating effect than the questions bearing informative function for the lecturer.
