Monday, August 20, 2007
The start of a new semester is a good time to take stock of our teaching methods and make conscious improvements. One place many of us need to begin is with techniques for increasing active learning among our students.
Because students remember about ten percent of what they hear and about ninety percent of what they do, those things that encourage active participation in classroom discussions can be exceptionally effective in helping our students retain concepts and develop sound reasoning skills. Several fairly simple techniques can greatly increase active learning even for those not directly called upon to respond during a particular class period.
For example, while your teaching method may be to focus primarily on one student while discussing a case, you can draw the rest of the class into that discussion by frequently asking other class members to comment on what they are hearing: "Ms. Jones, what is your reaction to Mr. Smith's characterization of the court's reasoning?" You need not spend much time with Ms. Jones before returning to Mr. Smith, but all students are immediately on alert that they cannot afford to drift during the discussion.
You can also pull everyone in by "beaming" questions to the entire class: "When I call on you, be prepared to explain the IRAC syllogism." Give the class thirty to forty seconds to think about the answer, and then call on a particular student. By the time that student is called on, most of the class will have formulated a response that is correct and will be better able, as a result, to retain the concept and evaluate their colleague's response.
Sometimes, having students take sixty seconds brainstorm on paper a list possible answers to a question (for example, possible causes of action springing from a complex hypothetical) can put them in a much better position to answer the question more thoughtfully.
Similarly, posing a question and having students discuss potential answers briefly with those sitting next to them can deepen their thinking and enrich the conversation when individual students are subsequently called on to respond before the whole class.
A number of other effective strategies exist, of course; but these few are easy to implement, take little class time, and need be used only infrequently to have a significant effect on students' learning. (Dan Weddle)
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
If you are looking for good resources dealing with both learning and teaching in law school, check out Prof. Barbara Glesner Fines's "Teaching and Learning Law Website." Prof. Glesner Fines provides abundant resources and practical advice. (Dan Weddle)
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
I agree with today's posting that there are some definite negative aspects that can occur with lap tops in the classroom. Having just been assigned to a sub-committee at our law school to look at this problem because of some of the negatives listed, I have been involved in several conversations on the pros and cons, possible remedies, etc. We are just beginning our work, but it has caused me to give more thought to the issues. (Most law schools are concerned with these issues; hence, the topic is on the agenda at the teaching methods AALS workshop this summer.)
Personally, I hope that law schools will consider some of the positive aspects of lap top use before banning lap tops completely. I think some restrictions are needed, but I am less certain that total bans are necessary. Although as professors we have academic freedom, we need to make our decisions with consideration of all the aspects of our student learners rather than as a reaction to some "bad" learners.
I know that many other pros and cons will be presented to me through thoughtful discussions with colleagues and students in the coming weeks, but I wanted to list some of my current observations. I may change my mind about some aspects of the issue, but I am definitely in search of compromises that improve learning for all students and not just some learners. (My thanks to colleagues and students for their comments, suggestions, and examples as I have mulled over the issues to come to my current thoughts. There are too many viewpoints and sources to name. And, I would not want to describe wrongly someone else's position through my own processing "lens.")
Forgive the length of my submission, but putting the thoughts on paper helps me to see what gaps still need to be considered and may help others process the issues. I know that my ASP colleagues and others will provide thoughtful comments to assist me (and all of us) in this journey for a solution.
The reasons that I hope that law schools can find "rules of the road" that will allow for compromise and not mean a complete ban are as follows:
- Students who transcribe every word and disengage their brains to become stenographers are not new. (Not all lap-top users do transcription, by the way.) Plenty of students (whether past or present) have hand-written notes with the exact same transcription style because they have developed abbreviations and other "shorthand" methods. Because undergraduate courses may have required regurgitation of the lectures for an "A" grade, some new law students have come from educational backgrounds where transcribing and not thinking in class equaled the road to success. Even upper-division students may use this method of note-taking if they have not been shown more effective ways. One of the transitions in which law students need guidance is that note-taking in law school needs to be adjusted because law school in-class experiences are building toward application and not regurgitation. Our focus should be on helping all students learn ways to be more discriminating note-takers. If we focus on making lap tops the culprit for bad note-taking, then we miss the opportunity to correct the real problem.
- Learning styles differ among students and to say that no students should be allowed lap tops creates problems for some learners.
- Strong-preference verbal (read/write) learners usually gain more from some hand-written materials (though not necessarily class notes). There are far fewer of these strong-preference verbal learners in our classes than we might expect. Many professors probably have a very strong-preference verbal style. However, many of our students have grown up in a very different educational landscape where teaching methods varied, and students were encouraged to use their different learning preferences. (Obviously, all of our students read and write, but the point is that it is often not a strong-preference style for our students.)
- Strong-preference kinesthetic-tactile learners actually use typing to focus in class because it is movement and touch which complements their learning. (And, no, it is not the same with hand-writing for most of them.) There are significant numbers of these strong-preference KT learners in our classrooms. Some KT's do multi-task. However, I have found that once these students are cautioned about why they need to avoid any multi-tasking during class to take advantage of lap tops for learning, these students use the technology to advantage and appropriately.
- Strong-preference visual learners at times learn better with typed notes because they are able literally to "see" the material with the "clean" look of the typed page. Also, the technology helps them to add visual elements during class that increase learning from their notes and briefs. For many of these learners, a note pad is only useful to capture graphics used by the professor or that the student thinks of during class to visualize a concept or relationship.
- Strong-preference sensing-sequential and sensing-global students need more detail in their notes than global-intuitive students because they learn from facts, practicalities, and details. One size fits all note-taking does not work. For sensing-sequential learners hand writing their notes may well cause them more anxiety and less focus on the discussion in class because they will fear that they are not getting everything down that is needed for them to learn. Sensing-globals will possibly compensate a bit better, but only if verbal (read/write) is also one of their stronger preferences.
- Because research shows that deeper understanding and learning take place when students process the material themselves, we all encourage students to make outlines to help them focus on the big picture and inter-relationships as well as understand the application for the black letter law. Lap tops encourage students to produce their own outlines. It is extremely easy for a law student to cut and paste typed briefs and class notes and to add insights to form a condensed big picture/inter-relationships/application version of the course. By restricting lap top class notes, two problems that jeopardize learning are likely to increase. First, students will be more likely to go with their briefs and class notes alone (which may not focus on the big picture, inter-relationships, and application) rather than type out a whole new outline. Second, students who want a typed outline will short cut and use commercial outlines or other people's old outlines rather than make their own from scratch because it seems such an ordeal without typed class notes.
- I also encourage students to take their own class notes rather than depend on "scripts" which are handed down over the years for professors whose courses do not change in major ways. Taking one's own notes forces processing of the information rather than depending on another person's processing. (Not only may the other learner have different learning styles, but the other learner may be wrong.) Students who are not allowed to type their own class notes may rely on a script which is more appealing than the effort of re-typing hand-written notes. As a result, learning may well decrease for students who would have typed their own notes if allowed to do so.
- Students in this generation are tech savvy. They are used to typing and using the computer technology to improve learning. For example, students use split-screen so that they can view briefs and class notes or outlines and class notes simultaneously. Alternatively, some students will toggle among these documents. Students use computer organizers to organize their briefs, notes, and outlines. If we want students to process after class, then we need to enable them to do it in ways that are conducive to this generation's modes of processing. (And, the truth is that many students cannot even read their own handwriting these days and cannot write quickly because they are so used to typing. In fact, I have been told that some elementary schools do not even teach cursive writing any longer!)
- Most of us would have to admit that we had law professors who talked 90-miles a minute, were regularly confusing, and/or were not very organized in their class presentations. And, despite my best efforts, I would have to confess that I have a few days when my fast-talking Northern mode kicks in or I may not have been as clear and organized as I hoped to be because I know my material so well. Students often need to sift through lecture notes to make sense of what happened in class and condense or re-organize material into a useable format. That sifting and re-organizing process is much easier with typed notes offering the technology to cut and paste, edit with bullet points and numbered steps, use find/replace, etc.
- We may need to consider how changes in our teaching methods can help our high-tech students to learn more effectively with or without lap tops. I shall only give three examples here. PowerPoint slides or other graphics that are available on-line or as hard copies to all students can assist in learning. Students who know that these slides will be available later do not feel as compelled to take as many notes and can concentrate instead on listening to the discussion and elaborating the slides in their notes. (However, PowerPoint slides need to be more than merely lengthy paragraphs stuck on slides or slides filled with distracting "bells and whistles.") Flow charts, tables or other graphics that capture many of the class points and relational aspects of the material can also be used in the same way. Preview (for global-intuitive learners) and summary (for sequential-sensing learners) skeleton outlines can help students to organize and understand the material more effectively.
- There are students who have legitimate reasonable accommodations for disabilities which require that they be able to have lap tops to use in class. Even a complete ban on lap tops will need to accommodate these students. By stating that there is a complete ban and then having exceptions, these students are immediately marked as "disabled" among their peers. (Some of the requisite disabilities are not obvious and visible to others already so they only become "visible" when the students are made exceptions to a new lap top ban. For some disabled students, this identification as disabled to everyone is a big issue.)
- Many of our law schools have touted our wireless capabilities, lap-top financial aid, lap-top purchasing programs, high-tech courtrooms and/or other technology prowess. By banning lap tops completely, we seem to be making an odd statement in light of all of our marketing. Restrictions with reasonable policies, procedures, and penalties seem more compatible to our descriptions of ourselves as high-tech than complete bans do.
- Some professors state that students will never use lap tops in the courtroom or with a clients in practice so that they are just requiring what will happen in those settings in order to increase listening skills. This argument has some merit. We can all become better listeners with or without lap tops. However, the non-use of lap tops in legal settings is not as complete as suggested. It may be true for some areas of practice and in some courtrooms. However, I have sat in courtrooms where lap tops were used during the trial for a variety of purposes with court approval. Many states have made major financial commitments to technology use in their courtrooms including at the attorneys' tables during trial. And, I have also seen lap tops used in client meetings effectively for drafting, strategizing, and note-taking without being disruptive, unprofessional, or insulting to the client. Lap tops can be professional tools if the technology is approved/explained/used appropriately in these settings. A complete ban is no longer the reality for all of the legal profession.
I totally agree that there are some inconsiderate, rude, abusive, and learning-challenged technology users at our law schools. But, we don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water. Instead, we need to deal with the problems and find solutions to allow students to use the technology in ways conducive to learning without penalizing those who are already responsible users who learn better with technology.
So, how do we go about deciding effective ways of computer use in the classroom? Each law school will need to make its own decisions that match its environment and concerns. Here are some suggestions based on discussions that I have had so far:
- Have a law school study group to look at issues for the specific law school with members on all sides of the issue and with student, faculty and administrative input. This study group can research the issue, gain information from other law schools if desired, and determine strategies that are appropriate to the specific law school.
- Have clear law school policies on what technology uses are not allowed in the classroom. Surfing the net, instant messaging, shopping on-line, e-mailing, flashing graphics, and snide remarks about others in class would no doubt top the list. Most students as well as faculty and administrators would readily support banning these behaviors. Wording could be such as to include a catch-all that divides class-relevant educational uses from non-class-relevant educational uses to capture "creative" examples that may crop up.
- Well-reasoned policies, procedures, and penalties should be well-publicized. And, the penalties should be enforced. It does no good if a professor or law school states that "X" will happen, but nothing in fact happens. Some law schools have granted anonymity for students who turn others in so that "retaliation" is not possible.
- Have discussions with law students about the policies, procedures, and penalties during appropriate sessions (Orientation, class meetings, SBA sponsored events, or other venues that suit a particular law school). Responsibility and professionalism can be included in these discussions. Most law students are responsible and will react favorably to reasonable and explained policies, procedures, and penalties.
- Investigate technology for the specific campus that may solve some of the problems. Some campuses are able to limit Internet access in classroom spaces while still activating it in other law school areas. Some law schools are using privacy screens which make distracting graphics, screensavers, and other non-class items less annoying to responsible users.
- Solicit strategies that work from professors who have successful use of the computer in their classrooms. I have heard of professors taking 5 minutes the first day to discuss responsible use and what will happen if students misuse computers (the student becomes the "expert" for the rest of the class; the student is reported to the Dean's office; the student is pointed out for non-class use). I have heard of professors who "roam" the aisles as they teach, thus curing some of the problems. I have heard of professors having students sign statements on proper use with the realization that they will be reported for disciplinary action if they violate the conditions. I have heard of suggestions that the registration schedule should list the professor's lap top policy so that students can sign up for other sections if multiple sections are available.
Lap top use and misuse are important issues. There are many valid arguments pro and con. We shall not all agree on the final stance taken by our law schools and our colleagues, but a stance will probably be needed (with academic freedom considered, of course). I just hope that as ASP professionals we will be a thoughtful part of these discussions and an active part of the solutions to the problem. (alj)
I know this suggestion is fraught with difficulties, but I think it is worth considering: maybe law professors should restrict or ban the use of laptops, particularly in large classes. In talking with struggling students, I have found a couple of common problems that are probably widely shared by many other students.
The first is the one we all know about. Students are surfing the Internet, answering emails, instant messaging, etc. They grew up multitasking with technology and think it works. A recent empirical study, however, showed that multitasking significantly interferes with the long-term ability to apply information that was obtained during the multitasking. They are hamstringing the very skill they will need for success on exams and for learning to apply the law in effective ways.
The second problem is that students who are not surfing, etc., are too often acting like stenographers, typing continuously everything they hear in class. They are passively and indiscriminately recording a load of information, much of which will not be useful to them. I have recommended to several that they close their laptops and begin taking notes by hand. They come back and tell me that they are forced to discriminate among ideas and that they are significantly more intellectually engaged in the discussion.
Another nasty piece of this is that law schools are finding that students are using their computers to attack other students during class by spreading messages simultaneously to all the students – ridiculing answers, attacking individuals’ intelligence or character, etc. It is bad enough when someone does that to a student on a particular day, but what schools are finding is that some students are routinely targeted by a handful of other students. It was so bad at one school that the dean wrote an article about it, warning other schools that the practice is more rampant than we realize.
Finally, I hear complaints from students about how distracting it is to have nearby students surfing the Internet, etc. It can be tough to pay close attention when a screen three feet in front of them is flashing websites and videos. How many of us could conduct class while trying to look past a screen full of moving images? No wonder some of our students seem surprisingly distracted and disengaged.
I know that restricting students’ use of technology in the classroom is controversial; but many students are hurting themselves; and, worse, many are interfering with others’ learning. At the very least, we need to figure out how to stop the abuses. That’s a tough thing to do from the front of a room with sixty students and dozens of laptops.(dbw)
Monday, January 15, 2007
I was speaking with Lorraine Lalli from Roger Williams the other day, and she commented that among the chief struggles for first-year students is an inability to see the forest for the trees. They may understand a case; they may even master its principles; but they have a tough time seeing how the case fits into the larger scheme of things, how a rule connects to themes and principles running through a particular area of law or to themes running across legal disciplines. If we can teach them how to find those larger connections, we will have taught them something much more valuable than any case. (dbw)
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
A reader suggested to me today that this blog devote some discussion to the difficulties faced by law students with ADHD. I think the suggestion is a good one. Let me begin, at least, with a recommended article. Professor Robin A. Boyle recently published "Law Students with Attention Deficit Disorder: How to Reach Them, How to Teach Them," 39 J. Marshall L. R. 349 (2006).
Among other things, the article gives a helpful overview of empirical research concerning ADD and ADHD, as well as the implications of that research for law school pedagogy. Included in those implications are twenty-five insightful, practical suggestions for more effectively addressing the needs of law students with ADD and ADHD. (dbw)
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Asking the right questions
Typically, new students come to law school as a relatively self sufficient group of people. Many have excelled academically, in their careers, and sometimes both. And while not every law student achieved the 90th percentile on the LSAT exam, most come to law school willing to work extremely hard in order to achieve success. Prior to law school, working harder always meant better grades and the Dean’s List, and the unstated assumption is that the law school experience won’t be any different.
Despite all this, or maybe because of it, many law students have a blind spot when it comes to their legal education – in inability, or an unwillingness, to ask questions. At this point, I could list a large number of things that we – and by “we” I mean all law school educators – do to encourage students to ask questions. However, I’m more interested in discussing the things that we may be doing that discourage students from asking questions.
For example, many teach using some form of the Socratic dialogue. Those who teach using this methodology might suggest that these dialogues both encourage and require students to take part and ask questions. Of course, the words “encourage” and “require” have entirely different meanings. Students who must to speak in class may feel disinclined to ask a question once they have satisfied the requirement of answering a teacher’s questions. Also, many use the Socratic dialogue as a way of posing questions to our students as opposed to answering their questions. In a traditional Socratic dialogue – the kind replicated by John Houseman on the paper chase – the professor turns the student’s question into another question that is then directed back at that student.
From our perspective, we are forcing students to confront unstated assumptions inherent in their questions or to consider an alternative point of view. From the student’s perspective, particularly during the first days of the law school experience, a simple “yes” or “no” might have been more helpful.
A common fear among students is that they will appear “stupid” when asking questions in class. Taking this idea a step further, some fear that they are the only one who is confused. And to quote Abraham Lincoln, it is “[b]etter to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.” As a professor, however, what I see is everyone in class writing down the answers to those so called foolish questions.
Turning the spotlight on myself, are there aspects to my teaching that suggest to students that their questions are “stupid”? Am I too dismissive of student questions? I don’t think so, but am I the best judge of this? How many of us receive feedback from students, beyond end of the year evaluations, where we solicit this sort of information? Again, I believe I am sensitive when students questions that indicate they are struggling, but what if class is running late? What if the same person has asked 5 questions in a row? What if we are getting way off track? I hope that my words still indicate a willingness to take on more questions, but do my body language and the tone of my voice indicate exasperation?
Of course, most of us have office hours, and we may even recommend that students use these forums for asking certain questions. Allow me to suggest that announcing office hours at the outset of the semester may not send a strong enough message that you are available. Even if we do remind students of our office hours, our actions can speak more loudly than our words. Do we schedule committee meetings during office hours? Are we working on our latest law review article when students knock on the door? By itself, this isn’t a problem, but a look that conveys annoyance at having to put aside this work sends a clear message to our students as to our priorities.
I realize that, for the most part, I am preaching to the choir. Still, it doesn’t hurt to turn the spotlight back on ourselves on occasion.
Just my two cents . . . (hnr)
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Another great resource for an overview of key skills law students must acquire is Prof. Vernellia Randall's slide show, The Law School Learning Pyramid. In the slide show, Prof. Randall lays out the key intellectual skills from simplest to most complex, in a form very much like Bloom's famous taxonomy of learning behaviors. She then ties those skills to specific activities in a"Strategic Study" plan.(dbw)
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
I spent some time this morning in my daughter’s third grade classroom: you know, one of those family breakfasts where we let the children eat donut holes for breakfast and then leave them with the teachers. The cause for our celebration this morning was our children’s completion of their first research project. Each child researched and wrote a report on an animal of her choosing as well as completing a diorama. Best of all, they did it all at school so we didn’t see any of it until today.
I was blown away at what these kids could do, and even more blown away at the fact that the third grade teachers taught analysis and synthesis techniques to eight and nine-year-olds.
To begin doing their research, the kids did a bunch of reading on their animals (my daughter did owls) and then put their most important bits of information on index cards-the info on the front and the source on the back. They were given a chapter structure for their report and then had to sort their information cards into those categories (habitat, babies, etc.). After this activity, they had to write an informative and compelling report about their animals. Then they had to edit—three times-- before they were done.
Does this sound familiar? To me this seemed like all the basics of legal writing. Gather your data, sort and fit it to the format and write an educational and persuasive report on what you have found. This is also a lot like exam writing technique: sort out the issues, use your information (rules) and write a compelling report on your findings. My point here is not that legal analysis is so simple a third grader could do it, but rather, if it can be taught to third graders certainly we should be able to teach it to our students as well. But we do not always succeed in doing it. I plan to ask a lot questions at my parent/teacher conference about how it happened in the 3G classroom and will report back.
In the meantime, I am very happy that my child will have learned some of this basic writing technique in third grade. I hope it repeats in the curriculum as they go forward. Did you know that snowy owls (like Hedwig in the Harry Potter books and movies) are actually silent and therefore the complaints that Hedwig is noisy must be inaccurate? I am proud to say I learned that from my third grader's report. After all, why else did we spend an obscene amount of money to live in the world’s smallest house if not for the schools? (ezs)
Sunday, April 9, 2006
One of the most common weaknesses students exhibit on essay exams is the inability to lay out explicitly all of the logical steps in the analysis of an issue. They often know the material and can even walk through the analytical steps accurately in their minds, but they fail to walk the reader through those same steps. The result is often a clipped explanation that requires the reader (i.e., the grader) to infer the steps in the logic. The grader, of course, will do no such thing and will never give points for what is not on the paper.
Explaining to students what it is they are missing can often be a challenge, but Professor Verneillia R. Randall of the University of Dayton School of Law provides a very helpful illustration of the problem in her "Distinguishing Analytical Sentence from a Conclusionary Sentence." Her set of example sentences would form an excellent basis for a session highlighting the analytical pieces students often imply rather than express. If students can learn to identify and include those same critical pieces in their analyses of issues, they can begin to correct the incomplete answers they often give on exams. (dbw)
Sunday, February 26, 2006
You're gonna love this.
Your notes, student notes ... whaddya think?
Do you have some tech ideas you use that others might be interested in? Send me an e-mail note.
Monday, November 28, 2005
(With apologies to the Buggles, who had their (I believe) one hit with “Video Killed the Radio Star” back in 1979.)
Our ASP class attendance is down, way down. We offer a number of helpful classes throughout the fall semester: case briefing, outlining, exam writing and multiple choice tips. In past years, student attendance peaked for outlining and declined gradually until we got to exam writing and multiple choice tips, when it re-peaked; but it remained fairly steady throughout the semester at thirty to forty students each session.
These days I am looking at maybe ten to twenty students a session, even the exam writing and multiple choice sessions. Outlining was still very well attended, but we offered it earlier this year than in years past. When our Counseling Center came in to do a class on stress management, I was mortified that we had dragged them here for only three students; and this was our day student session, which usually draws more students than our evening session.
So, what gives? Perhaps this year’s students are more confident and think they need less help. We know we offer the class during a time when no first year classes are scheduled, so class conflict isn’t the culprit. I shower every day, and I’ve stopped singing in class (well, for the most part). I’ve avoided the Blue’s Clues analogies (I know the students know what I mean but, oddly, they seem embarrassed to admit it). What I am beginning to think is that we have hi-teched ourselves into obsolescence.
We tape each and every class on video and in MP3 format. We post our handouts and the MP3’s (to download) on our Campus Cruiser site. We lend out the video tapes. So why come to class when you can have class whenever you want? I mean, there may be people out there driving to school while listening to me on their MP3 players. How scary for anyone else driving in the Boston area, because I just know my classes are positively riveting.
There are probably students who have invited me into their homes (and had me up at all hours no doubt) so they could cull my exam secrets, but I don’t know who they are.
Is this an effective way to teach? More importantly, is this an effective way to learn? I don’t know, but I suppose I will find out after the grades are in since the students who did poorly will have to see me IN PERSON in the spring. Singing and all. (ezs)
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
How about some List Serve action. Here are a few provided by Washburn School of Law.
LAWTEACH@lists.washlaw.edu – A list serve devoted to law teaching (as you may have guessed from its name).
LawTeachTech@lists.washlaw.edu – Law Teaching Technology list serve.
TEACHLAWRES@lists.washlaw.edu – Discussion list devoted to conversations about teaching legal research in all kinds of settings, using formal and informal types of instruction; of interest to librarians, professors, and others.
AALSCONF@listserv.syr.edu – Conference on New Ideas for Experienced Teachers of the Association of American Law Schools.
How does one subscribe? Go HERE and click on the appropriate subscription spot.
Please send me some feedback about these listserves, and I'll share it with all. (djt)
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Did you know that body language accounts for over 90% of a conversation?
Body language can be used to help teach a class, conduct an interview (from either side of the desk), give a presentation or deliver an appellate argument. For lawyers (and law students, and those who teach them), information and practice in this area is critical.
Cara Hale Alter, who owns and operates Speechskills, a communication consulting firm in San Francisco, helps lawyers communicate better. This month (September 2005), her article, "Does Your Body Speak Your Language?" appears in California Lawyer Magazine. (My thanks to the magazine and the author for permission to reproduce the article on this site.)
Ms. Alter reminds us that "People make up their minds about others at lightning speed – without attempting to analyze why they find them likable, authoritative, credible or insert-adjective-here. These conclusions are based on observable cues – nonverbal signals such as the position of a chin, width of a stance, speed of gestures, or duration of eye contact."
"Take control," she implores, "of your nonverbal signs."
Law schools talk about "thinking like a lawyer" quite a bit. We teach students how to "write like lawyers." How much emphasis do we put on talking "like a lawyer?"
We teach in two (basic) ways: by providing information and by modeling. When you meet students in your office, when you present workshops, when you speak at orientation ... do you "... bolster your appearance of authority and confidence" as Ms. Alter suggests, by focusing on stronger volume, crisper articulation, use of the lower tones of your voice? Are you conscious of your body language when you need to appear approachable and receptive?
The article, appearing in a magazine targeted at the profession, is for lawyers. Encourage your students to start practicing now to be the lawyers they aspire to be.
Your thoughts? (djt)
Saturday, August 13, 2005
If you know Ruth Ann McKinney, and her work, you know what I mean when I say that when I read this sentence, I knew the author who wrote it was on the right track: "Professor McKinney's approach is as close to perfect as I've found and is well worth copying." (The same author includes material from, and praise for, Professors Cathaleen Roach, Kris Knaplund, and Paula Lustbader.)
The sentence was not written subsequent to publication of Ruth's recent book Reading Like a Lawyer. No, this was written after publication of Ruth's brief article, "Using Small Groups to Solve Big Problems," in the Winter 1994 edition of "The Learning Curve" (back in the Days when Kris Knaplund was the Learning Curve Editor).
Who wrote these essays? Stephen R. Marsh, who describes himself as a "dedicated teacher with multiple publications, significant practice experience and diverse research interests." (Read his CV)
The first essay, "Why A Solution Is Necessary," provides an historical context, explaining what (in the author's opinion) is wrong with legal education, and why.
"Reaching Solutions" addresses the teaching of substantive law, legal writing skills, and legal skills.
"Applications" provides the nuts and bolts of how to implement the solutions proposed in the prior essay, including what can be done and what should be done.
The appendix to this collection contains the perspectives of other authors and commentators.
Provocative? Oh, I don't know. See what YOU think. Example: "...one group is even worse than doctors. That group is law professors. Just like the doctors, the profs know, or should know, that the methods they use to teach actually make it harder to learn the material. That is, law professors provide a net negative input into the learning process. Is it any wonder that some professors have developed an incredible level of arrogance, have displaced themselves, and treat the students and support faculty like dirt, isolating themselves from all others?"
Agree? Disagree? Correspond with attorney Marsh by email to discover his many other writings.
(If you are unfamiliar with "The Learning Curve," visit the April 14th blog entry featuring the Curve and its current editor, Natt Gantt.) (djt)
Monday, August 1, 2005
Kirsten A. Dauphinais, Director of Legal Writing and Assistant Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law, has produced a detailed and insightful article (11 WLLREALJ 1) about legal education in light of Howard Gardner's theory of Multiple Intelligences.
Writing in the most recent issue (Winter, 2005) of Washington and Lee's Race and Ethnic Ancestry Law Journal, Professor Dauphinais explains the Multiple Intelligences theory and endorses the proposition that taking a new, more expansive approach to recognizing and evaluating student capabilities could help legal educators provide a better education for aspiring lawyers.
Professor Dauphinais posits, "...just as we tend to admit law students who were just like we were, so too do we evaluate them in the way we were evaluated. ... Perhaps we should not hold ourselves out as the exclusive paradigm for 'how to think like a lawyer.' Law professors are but a narrow, and one might argue, not very representative, segment of the overall lawyering population."
Consider this bold assertion: "There should be movement away from legal education as a spectator sport, where students are relegated to the role of onlooker, while the instructor performs before the class. Under such a model, the more students are actively engaged in the learning process, the better they retain the knowledge."
Just a thought: after reading this article, consider passing it along to your teaching colleagues. (djt)