Dispute Resolution

The brief

The Dispute Resolution module trains solicitors preparing for the SQE. It runs as a blended course, part in-person and part online. The challenge was the material itself: dense, procedural, factual, and by its nature quite dry, with multiple external documents that learners have to move between as they work. Making that both memorable and testable, without hiding the difficulty of the underlying content, was the design problem.

My role

I led both the project management and the learning design, working with the subject experts to convert their material into a working online module and coordinating the wider build.

How I approached it

Because so much of the module depends on referring to external documents (forms, guidance, procedural checklists), I built custom iframe embeds so those documents sit inside the learning environment itself, with interactive instructions layered on top. That way learners are not fighting their way between tabs and losing the point being made about a specific clause or step.

The interactive testing was designed to work at the level of the real exam. Activities were built around applying procedural knowledge to worked scenarios, so learners rehearsed the judgement the SQE actually tests, which recall questions alone cannot do.

Law was not my subject, so getting up to speed quickly was part of the job. I used AI as a research aid to help me understand unfamiliar areas of civil procedure and the specific rules involved, which meant I could design interactions and page flows that reflected how the law actually works. The legal content itself came from the academic team's own materials and tutor notes, and those remained the authority on what was correct.

The interactions, recreated

These are five interactions I designed for the module, rebuilt around an invented dispute between a bakery and an oven supplier, so the teaching design can be shown without the university's course material. Under each one is what it does and why it is designed that way. If you would like to try them for yourself, the working demos are here.

Seeing the whole process first

In the module, learners met a six-stage walkthrough of a civil trial before studying any stage in detail. People take in detail far more easily when they already know where it fits, so seeing the whole route first makes everything after it easier to follow. Each stage opens only when the learner chooses, and a progress bar shows what is left, so the same tool works as a guided tour the first time and a quick reference afterwards.

Drafting against a model answer

In the module, learners drafted a court claim form and placed it directly above a finished model to compare the two. Writing a formal document is a skill that only improves with practice and a good example to measure against. Seeing their own attempt beside the model makes the gaps obvious without a tutor having to mark it, and the checklist turns a vague sense of "that looks about right" into specific points to tick off. The recreation uses a complaint letter, but the idea is the same, and the file never leaves the learner's own device.

Arguing both sides

In the module, learners prepared for a hearing by sorting arguments according to which side they helped, then thinking through how the other side would respond. Good advocates prepare their opponent's case as carefully as their own, so the activity builds that habit directly. Every answer comes with a reason, so getting one wrong still teaches something. I used buttons instead of drag and drop, so it works with a keyboard or a touchscreen as well as a mouse.

Finding the real issues

In the module, learners worked through a contract dispute and decided which questions a judge would actually need to settle. In most disputes far more is agreed than people expect. Separating what is agreed from what is actually contested means attention goes where the real questions are, and it shows clearly where an independent expert could help. Feedback only appears for questions the learner has answered, so the activity cannot be completed just by revealing the answers.

Reflection with tutor notes

Throughout the module, learners were asked to write their own answer to a question before they could see the tutor's view. Committing to an answer first is what makes the comparison worthwhile. It is easy to agree with an expert after reading them, and far more revealing to see where your own thinking differed. I wrote these notes from the tutors' own guidance, so learners working on their own still had expert feedback built in.

Outcome

The module has been in use as part of the SQE preparation programme. Because the underlying content is proprietary, I cannot share the live module publicly. The recreations above use invented content to show the same teaching patterns, and I am happy to walk through the original design on request.

What I would do differently

With more time I would have developed branching scenarios around courtroom roleplay, using locally generated video for spoken dialogue so learners could rehearse the moment of advocacy itself, not just the rules that shape it. That is the direction I would take the module in next.