This study examines second-year law students’ experiences of evaluating administrative decisions across two successive course implementations. In 2023 (N=250), students were randomly assigned to either an Independent Scoring Format (ISF), where they rated individual decisions, or Comparative Judgement (CJ), where they compared pairs of decisions. Post-activity survey data, including open-ended responses, were analysed for both groups. In 2024 (N=270), Adaptive Comparative Judgement (ACJ) was introduced with a larger pool of decisions and structured written justifications. Ratings of perceived usefulness were positive, with no statistically significant differences between CJ and ISF. The qualitative analysis suggests that comparative formats supported learning through contrast and prioritisation, while ISF highlighted difficulties in applying overlapping criteria consistently to individual texts. ACJ made students’ grounds for preference more explicit, but also increased cognitive demand, underscoring the need for scaffolding and calibration. The findings inform the design of formative assessment for fostering evaluative judgement in legal education.
Egelandsdal et al. (Thu,) studied this question.