The European space for higher education and the teaching of law: the Spanish case

Abstract

This article presents the slow but necessary adaptation of Spanish Faculties of Law to the European Space for Higher Education (ESHE). Historically, Spanish universities have valued the professor’s research rather than his efforts in education. This has produced a lack of innovation in Spanish teaching as well as little development of the personal attention to the student. In this context, the ESHE is perceived in Spanish Faculties of Law as an opportunity to make significant innovations, especially with regard to educational methodologies. Law Faculties must support extensive changes in the curricula and syllabus to incorporate the principles and procedures of the ESHE. Spanish universities have traditionally used lectures to teach. They have produced receptive but passive students. Now the challenge is to include the student at the centre of the process of learning. Spanish Faculties of Law, together with the rest of European law schools, have to train active and interactive students because they have to prepare them for the labour market. It is necessary to change the teaching method so as to include practical work, seminars, individual and team work, tutorials, etc. Seventy‐five per cent of the Spanish universities already have included instruments to improve the quality of the studies, but there is still much to be done. The article finishes with a brief note on how all this applies to legal education of both international and European Law.

Keywords:

• application in Spain of European space higher education
• change of Spanish method for law teaching
• change of university methodology
• interactive teaching of law

Notes

1. Delgado, A.M., and Oliver, R. (2007), ‘La evaluación contínua en un nuevo escenario docente,’ Revista de Universidad y sociedad del conocimiento, 3(1), 10. www.uoc.edu/rusc/3/1/dt/esp/delgado_oliver.pdf

2. PISA report (2003), OECD (PISA: Program for International Student Assessment). This report provides information for each country. Available at http://pisa.oecd.org/document/50. These data are also corroborated by specialists in education sciences and psychology: Martínez Pons, J.A. (2005), ‘Correlación Universidad‐Enseñanza media,’ Vivat Academia, 66. www.2.uah.es/vivatacademia/anteriores/n66.; Flaquer, J. (2002), ‘Entrevista,’ Noticias de Tecnun. www.tecnun.es/not2002.

3. Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 concerning European cooperation for the quality guarantee in higher education, OJ L 270/56, 7 October 1998.

4. Commission Communication of 5 February 2003 concerning the role of universities in the Europe of knowledge, COM(2003) 58 final (not published in the Official Journal).

5. Council Resolution of 25 November 2003 on the ‘Development of human capital for social cohesion and competitiveness in the knowledge society,’ OJ C 295/05.

6. Commission Communication of 10 January 2003, To invest effectively in educational training: an imperative for Europe, COM(2002) 799 (not published in the Official Journal).

7. Commission Communication of 20 April 2005, To mobilize the European intellectual capital: create the needed conditions so that the universities can fully contribute to the Lisbon strategy, COM (2005) 152 final. The European Parliament and the Council support this strategy too as we can see in the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on further European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education (2006/143/EC), OJ L 64/60.

8. To check this information, see De Esteban Martín, L., and Martínez Cuadrado, M. (eds.) (2006), Guía del EEES, Madrid: Madrid Community.

9. Ruiz Corbella, M., and Villa Sánchez, A (2004), ‘La red de educación y el Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior,’ Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 21–37.

10. In the Bologna Declaration the European Education Ministers require that EU Member States seek to achieve the following objectives in their countries:

1. To adopt an easily readable and comparable degree system in order to promote job opportunities and international competitiveness.

2. To establish a system of degrees based at two main levels. The first level degree will be relevant or appropriate for the European labour market. The second level, which requires the first level to be passed, should lead towards the achievement of masters or PhDs.

3. To establish a common system of credits in order to promote the mobility and compatibility of students and graduates.

4. To promote the mobility and different opportunities of academic training.

5. To guarantee the quality and to develop educative methodologies that are comparable.

6. To promote the necessary European dimensions in higher education, particularly with regard to curricular development, inter‐institutional cooperation, mobility schemes and integrated programmes of study, training and research.

11. Council Advice 98/561/EC, 24 September of 1998, concerning European cooperation for the quality guarantee in higher education.

12. Camiña Catalá, C. (2007), El Mundo: Suplemento CAMPUS, 490, 6 June. www.elmundo.es/suplementos/campus/2007/490. In this same sense, Álvarez‐Osorio says that the number of hours does not guarantee the achievement of the educational objectives. These can be achieved by the development of team work, critical reading and the use of lessons. The aim is that graduates acquire an established education based on the objectives, that they are pleased with what they learn and that they have the ability to enter the labour market (Álvarez‐Osorio, A. (2007), El Mundo: Suplemento CAMPUS, 490, 6 June 2007. www.elmundo.es/suplementos/campus/2007/490).

13. Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament of 10 May 2006, Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities – Education, research and innovation, COM(2006) 208 final.

14. Royal Decree (R.D.) 49/2004, 19 January, about study programmes and official degrees homologation and their validity in all the national territories (BOE 22 January 2004, no. 19, p. 2667).

15. R.D. 55/2005, 21 January 2005, by which the educational structure in universities is established and the official university degrees are regulated (BOE 25 January 2005, no. 21, p. 2842) and R.D. 56/2005, 21 January 2005, which regulates PhD studies (BOE 25 January 2005, no. 21, p. 2846) both modified by R.D.1509/2005, 16 December 2005, which alters R.D. 55/2005 and R.D. 56/2005 (BOE 20 December 2005, no. 303, p. 41455).

16. García San José, D. (2005), La enseñanza‐aprendizaje del Derecho Internacional Público en el EEES, Murcia: Ediciones Laborum.

17. Commission Communication of 5 February 2003, The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge, COM (2003) 58 final (not published in the Official Journal).

18. Palazón, A. (2005), ‘Hacia un nuevo perfil del docente universitario,’ Educaweb.com, 6 June 2005. www.educaweb.com/EducaNews/interface/asp.

19. Commission Communication to the Council and European Parliament of 9 September 2006, Efficiency and equality in the European systems of education, COM(2006) 481 final.

20. Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament of 10 May 2006, Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities – Education, research and innovation, COM(2006) 208 final.

21. Commission Communication of 20 April 2005, To mobilize the European intellectual capital: create the needed conditions so that the universities can fully contribute to the Lisbon strategy, COM (2005) 152 final. Also see Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on further European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education (2006/143/EC), OJ L 64/60 and Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 concerning European cooperation for the quality guarantee in higher education, OJ L 270/56, 7 October 1998.

22. Taylor, P., and Aggor, R. (2007), ‘Higher Education and Participatory Development,’ Global University Network of Innovation, 26 June 2007, see www.guni-rmies.net/news/detail.php?id=1075.

23. MEC (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia) (2006), Propuestas para una renovación de las metodologías educativas de la Universidad, Madrid, p. 8.

24. Christensen, C.R. (2004), ‘Introduction,’ El arte y el oficio de la enseñanza, ed. M. Morganroth, Madrid: Publicaciones Fundación Universitaria San Pablo, pp. 9–27 and following, p. 28.

25. About the change in the professor’s role, see: Valcárcel Cases, M. (2005), ‘Formación del personal en el marco del espacio Europeo de Educación Superior,’ in La evaluación, acreditación y certificación en el marco de la convergencia europea, ed. M.A. Collado Yurrita, Ciudad Real: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Castilla‐La Mancha, pp. 105–128; Pascual Pacheco, R., and Auzmendi Escribano, E. (1993) Liderazgo transformacional en los centros docentes, Bilbao: Mensajero; and Villa Sánchez, A. (2006), ‘El proceso de convergencia europeo y el papel del profesorado,’ in Foro de Educación, n. 7–8, pp. 103–117; From this author: Villa Sánchez, A. (2004), ‘Convergencia europea y actualización del profesorado,’ in Hacia una enseñanza universitaria centrada en el aprendizaje: Libro Homenaje a Pedro Morales Vallejo, coords. Torre Puente, J.C., and Gil Coria, E., Madrid: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Pontificra de Comillas, pp. 271–320.; and Villa Sánchez, A. (1988), ‘La formación del profesorado en la encrucijada,’ in Perspectivas y problemas de la función docente, ed. A. Villa Sánchez, Madrid: Editorial Narcea, pp. 24–38.

26. MEC (2005), Propuestas para la renovación de las metodologías educativas en la Universidad, April 2005. www2.uah.es/formación_profesorado_universitario.

27. Decision 2317/2003/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 5 December 2003 establishing a programme for a better quality of higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through cooperation between countries (OJ L 345/1 12 December 2003).

28. MEC: Propuestas, op. cit., p. 134.

29. Wilkinson, J. (2004), ‘Variedades de la enseñanza,’ in El arte y el oficio de la enseñanza, ed. M. Morganroth, Madrid: Publicaciones Fundación Universitaria San Pablo, p. 27 and following, p. 31; and Dubrow, H. (2004), ‘Teoría y práctica de la clase magistral,’ in El arte y el oficio de la enseñanza, ed. M. Morganroth, Madrid: Publicaciones Fundación Universitaria San Pablo, p. 61 and following.

30. Ideas observed in the Report elaborated by the Commission order of the Spanish Ministry of Education through the Council of University Coordination already mentioned.

31. Solabarrieta Eizaguirre, J., and Auzmendi Escribano, E. (2003), Cómo diseñar y realizar tutorías en la formación ‘on line’, Bilbao: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Deusto, p. 56.

32. About the professor’s evaluation see: Morales Vallejo, P. (1993), La evaluación del profesor: una visión de los principales problemas y enfoques en diversos contextos, Vitoria‐Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco; Sosa Moreno, F., Villardón Gallego, L., Fraile Blázquez, A., and Rodriguez Pulido, J. (1996), Los equipos directivos ante el uso de la evaluación, Bilbao: ICE; Collado Yurrita, M.A. (ed.) (2005), La evaluación, acreditación y certificación en el marco de la convergencia europea, Ciudad Real: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Castilla‐La Mancha.

33. Jedrey, C. (2004), ‘Calificar y evaluar,’ in El arte y el oficio de la enseñanza, ed. M. Morganroth, Madrid: Publicaciones Fundación Universitaria San Pablo, 150–65., at p. 155.