Law School Academic Support Blog

Wise Interventions: A Searchable Research Database

Thanks to the work of social psychologists Gregory Walton (Stanford) and Timothy Wilson (Univ. of Virginia), here's a wonderful searchable database of research articles about interventions to concretely improve learning, life, and community.  

https://wise-interventions/research.

And there's more great news...

It's a free!  In fact, it's one of my go-to sources as I look for ways to enhance student learning.  

(Scott Johns).

Is There Time to Turn Things Around?

At my law school, it is 40 total days, and 23 class days, until the first final exam. For some students, now is the time of reckoning.

There are always a few students who get a late-semester wake-up call: the 3Ls affecting insouciance who heretofore mouthed "C=J.D." but now want to demonstrate their mettle to a mentor; the 2Ls who did so well during the first year they initially assumed they could cruise through 2L year without effort; the 1Ls so impressed with their above-median LSAT they can't acknowledge their work product falls short of the mark; the students in any year who have spent the first months of the semester struggling with illness or family emergencies or pure bad luck.  Ten weeks into the semester, they wonder if there is time to turn things around. 

If the answer to every legal question is "It depends," the answer to "Is there time to turn things around?  Can I pull this off?" is "Maybe. Are you willing to do what it takes?" Can you accomplish a lot in the last 40 days?  Yes.  Will you be as successful as you would have been if you spent all semester working on it? Probably not. Will it be good enough? That depends on your own hard and strategic work. 

Strategies must necessarily differ for different kinds of courses, but here is an approach that can be helpful for law school courses with a comprehensive final exams:

• Read the syllabus.  "What? I don't have time for that -- I have to catch up!" I repeat -- read the syllabus. Knowledge is power, and the syllabus lays out the expectations of your professor, including topics covered, the grading scheme, and penalties for missed classes. Pay attention to what you are supposed to know and how you are evaluated.
• Move forward, never backwards.  You will just fall further behind if you decide to go back to read and brief the cases from day 1.  Instead, do the current work to the best of your ability.
  Does that mean blowing off all you have missed?  By no means. Rather, for material you have missed:
  • Ask for help.  Ask friends if they are willing to share class notes. Buy lunch for a classmate who offers to walk you through how to analyze key issues. Ask to borrow outlines not to copy, but to give you a start on creating your own. Check for any materials your professor has posted on learning platforms or made available through the law library.
  • Work through simple problems. You will learn much more by problem-solving than by reading casebooks or even excellent study supplements. Look for supplements that offer problems or exercises, and go straight to the problems without reading the background text.  Think deeply as you work your way through the problems, and do your best. And whether you get the problems right or wrong (as with true/false or multiple choice questions), read the explanatory answers until you understand why your answer or reasoning was right or wrong.
  • Utilize spaced repetition. You can use spaced repetition with your own flashcards or by using software resources available commercially or through your law library.
• Work your way through complex practice exams. If you have access to former midterms or finals, work your way through the complex problems. Pay special attention to the analytical steps you must take, and the order of reasoning. Gain an understanding of the big picture as well as the specific rules.
• Communicate with your professor.  If you are demonstrating your willingness to do the hard work, your professors will usually be happy to help.
• Decide the hard work is worth it.  When you are seriously behind, the work needed to turn things around will be considerable. Marshall your inner resources to help you stay motivated, work effectively, and devote the time and energy needed to complete the work.

(Nancy Luebbert)

Starting from Scratch

Even the greatest was once a beginner. Don’t be afraid to take that first step.  – Muhammad Ali

While academic support programs are commonly recognized today in legal education, such prevalence has not for long existed. What was once a concept for increasing access to the legal profession, is now a construct mandated by the American Bar Association (“ABA”).  ABA Standard 309 (b) requires law schools to provide academic support designed to afford students a reasonable opportunity to complete its program, graduate, and become members of the legal profession. Compliance with this standard is not measured by bar passage alone. Many schools who, for decades, have not had a distinct program or department devoted to academic support now seek to hire ASP professionals to build a specific program of academic support.

While it is wonderful news to incoming and existing law students that more elite schools are subscribing to academic support as we know it today, it can be equally redoubtable for those new to academic support to direct or build programs for which they have no blueprint. A substantial number of faculty and administrators hired to lead academic support programs, do so without ever having experienced an academic support program themselves. This is so largely because academic support programming is a comparatively new phenomenon that was not prevalent in the legal academy when the Boomers and Gen-Xers, who now predominate deanships and search committees studied law.

Goldie Pritchard, Adjunct Professor and Director of Academic Success at Michigan State University College of Law, is the founding director who built from scratch her school’s law school academic support program. She describes the role and duties of ASP work:

Academic support professionals are problem solvers who are willing to put in the time and effort to help guide students as they navigate their law school learning and bar exam preparation process. We are simultaneously juggling interactions with several different students, each with several different needs, and at a variety of points in their individual progression. We help students manage emotions and address non-academic needs. Doing this type of work is what gets us up in the morning and keeps us going.

Those of us who’ve made a career of our calling understand Pritchard’s words all too well. If you are tasked with creating ground level academic support programming, you can take comfort in knowing that there is a myriad of experienced human resources to turn to for guidance and example. There is not one member of the ASP community that I would hesitate to call upon for help or suggestions. To those who are newly minted program directors without the benefit of in-school predecessors, you can afford to be confidently assertive. Your law school has selected you to create programming because of great confidence in your capabilities, professional judgment, and career experience. Don't deny yourselves or your students the benefit of your instincts.

Fears and professional hesitancy associated with being first or building from scratch are understandable. Remember that prototype program design is, by definition, imperfect and subject to enhancement and improvement. The first iteration of your program is already a marked improvement over the nonexistent or prior patchy programming promulgated by a cache of volunteer or voluntold faculty and other departmental administrators. My advice to you: don’t hold back your suggestions, input, and well-vetted requests for financial expenditures to support your creative vision to improve academic outcomes for the students and graduates whom your position was implemented to serve.

(Marsha Griggs)

Neuromyths

The Legal Skills Prof. Blog had 2 excellent posts last week regarding metacognition.  The posts discuss different commonly held myths by students and faculty that have detrimental effects on learning.  My experience is not only do these myths exist, but the hardest thing to overcome is the entrenched nature of the beliefs.  As the posts suggest, students tend to continually slide into comfort over scientifically proven methods.  I highly encourage reading the 2 posts.

Educational Neuromyths and Cognitive Biases

The pernicious falsehood about visual learners and other neuromyths

(Steven Foster)

Law Success Instructor at St. Mary's School of Law

St. Mary's School of Law is seeking a Law Success Instructor to work in their innovative program.

About Us

The Office of Law Success at St. Mary’s University School of Law is on a mission is to ensure that our students are successful in law school, on the bar exam, and in practice.  We achieve this mission by being:

• An innovative, data-driven program that thrives on new ideas and methodologies for success
• Dedicated teachers engaged in developing our students and ourselves
• Committed to the academic success of our law students through individualized development that meets each student where they are
• Providing one-of-a-kind assistance to our students during bar exam prep
• A team of people passionately dedicated to changing the face of what it means to guide law students to success today

About You

You come to the office five days a week (except holidays) energized and excited knowing that the day ahead will involve:

• Teaching upper level writing or bar preparation courses
• Planning and execution of bar exam preparation programming
• Meetings with students to provide academic support, counseling, and skills development
• Reviewing student work and providing feedback to develop them as young professionals
• Working with your team to develop program materials that serve our students
• Hard, but incredibly rewarding work in helping mold future lawyers

You Also Need

• A JD degree and a strong academic record
• Excellent writing and research skills
• A minimum of two years of legal work since graduating with your JD
• To submit a cover letter showing your interest in the position and describing why you are a fit for this role
• To submit a curriculum vita and official transcript
• To submit a writing sample demonstrating your excellent research and writing skills

A Few More Details

• Experience in bar exam preparation or coaching is strongly preferred
• This is a non-tenure track, ten-month position (January-October) with a one-year contract, with options for renewal after evaluation
• The starting salary is set at $65,000 depending upon prior experience
• To apply please go to: http://stmarytx.applicantpro.com/jobs/
• Offers of employment are contingent upon successful completion of a background check

If this fits you, you have until November 8, 2019 to apply!

New Faculty Positions at University of Richmond

The University of Richmond created 2 new faculty positions to help students develop both legal analysis and professional skills.  The description for the positions are exactly what ASPers do each day.  Here is the information:

"Two newly posted faculty positions at the University of Richmond School of Law are aimed at helping students adapt to a changing legal profession. The school plans to hire a Director of Legal Innovation and Entrepreneurship and the Director of Professional Identity Formation starting with the 2020-2021 school year.

“Our vision is for these two offerings to be signature programs of the Richmond Law experience," said Jessica Erickson, Associate Dean of Faculty Development. Through the Professional Identity Formation program, students will develop "the habits of mind and character" that are associated with professional excellence in the legal field. Meanwhile, students will learn a broad toolbox of skills – from project management to data analytics – in the Legal Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program. The programs will include a mandatory course in the first year, as well as upper-level electives and co-curricular offerings. "These two programs will work in tandem to make our students as well-rounded as possible and truly prepare them for the modern legal profession," said Erickson. "Traditional legal doctrine and skills will always be the cornerstone of legal education, but lawyers today need a broader toolkit to serve their clients effectively."

Learn more:

Director for Professional Identity Formation - https://law.richmond.edu/faculty/hiring/professional_ID.html

Director for Legal Innovation & Entrepreneurship position - https://law.richmond.edu/faculty/hiring/innovation.html"

Ritual Matters

Twenty times I've sat in the University ballroom in mid-semester, hearing welcoming speeches from representatives of the University, the College of Law, the state bar, and the state judiciary. Twenty times, I've seen students, staff, and faculty dressed to the nines and rapt in attention, whatever the lecture's subject matter. The signature event at my law school is the annual Sherman J. Bellwood Lecture, named after the state judge who left a generous (and evidently quite unexpected) bequest to fund endowed lectures. During the Bellwood Lectures, we've heard about topics ranging from federal Indian law to Abraham Lincoln, from racial injustice to climate change. We've heard perspectives from the right, left, and middle of the political spectrum, with speakers from Janet Reno to Kenneth Feinberg, Haleh Esfandiari to Alan Simpson.

The exposure to different ideas matters, as does the exposure to key persons in academia, the bar, the judiciary, and public policy. But as I left this year's lecture, I couldn't help but think about how much the very ritual of Bellwood matters. It undoubtedly mirrors similar events in schools across the country: a meet & greet to allow the student body to meet the distinguished speaker, an "in-house" panel with the guest speaker, a large public lecture, and several formal receptions and meals with invited dignitaries as well as law students, faculty, and staff. At and after the public lecture, I noticed students were energized: they were discussing ideas of justice and policy, whether directly connected to the lecture or not. I thought how important this event was, not only to bring the speakers' new ideas and insights to the school, but perhaps more importantly to remind all of us of the power of big ideas. Rather than dwelling on the pages of reading, or the disappointing grades from quizzes and midterms, students were prompted to think of those passions that drove them to law school: "Who or what do I care about? How can I serve these people or values in my legal practice?"

Every law school has rituals of welcoming in (convocation) and sending forth (commencement). The legal profession has rituals for swearing in members of the bar and of the judiciary. Rituals help us concentrate, learn, and viscerally understand our system of shared values. For example, when our state supreme court justices step down from the bench after oral argument to shake hands with counsel, this simple ritual powerfully speaks to the value placed on collegiality in our bench and bar. Rituals overdone can become stultifying customs or habits, but done at the right frequency, and with the right amount of emphasis, can help us lift us out of the ennui and lethargy that often creeps into our thinking and actions. Daniel Kirzane writes, "Both rituals and education seek to order, orient, and transform." In the coming months, I'll be on the lookout for ways of incorporating meaningful rituals, great and small, to celebrate, focus, and transform in my small corner of the legal community.

(Nancy Luebbert)

The Charisma of Numbers

Today's Washington Post has a fascinating and disturbing article about the company HireVue and its signature product, an artificial intelligence hiring system through which employers can set up automated "interviews" with prospective employees.  The system "uses candidates’ computer or cellphone cameras to analyze their facial movements, word choice and speaking voice before ranking them against other applicants based on an automatically generated 'employability' score."  Based on these scores, HireVue's clients -- which include large organizations like Unilever and Goldman Sachs -- can choose which candidates they would like to bring in for actual human interaction.

The growing reliance of employers on HireVue and its competitors suggests several issues of interest to law students.  Can we expect that someday soon, they too will be forced to welcome their new computer overlords by developing another set of skills -- namely, the art of using just the right expressions and intonations to appeal to the interviewing algorithm?  How do we even know what appeals to that algorithm, and whether the appealing features actually bear any relationship to job performance, if HireVue releases no information about what it is measuring, what it assigns value to, or, indeed, even what a candidate did wrong?  (The mystery and validity issues echo some complaints about the UBE, but at least bar examinees are told their scores.)  Like it or not, this Pandora's boxing ring is now open, and it's only a matter of time until young attorneys are sent in to altercate.

To get some perspective on the rigor of the HireVue system, the Post reporter spoke to researchers in applicable fields, including Luke Stark, an AI researcher who was

skeptical of HireVue’s ability to predict a worker’s personality from their intonations and turns of phrase. . . . Systems like HireVue, he said, have become quite skilled at spitting out data points that seem convincing, even when they’re not backed by science. And he finds this “charisma of numbers” really troubling because of the overconfidence employers might lend them while seeking to decide the path of applicants’ careers.

The charisma of numbers is something I feel I run up against over and over again.  And I say this as a person who values data and statistics!  I believe it is difficult to make consistently effective decisions or to take wise action without obtaining and evaluating relevant numerical information.  And, true, in a field in which our success is largely measured numerically (GPAs, retention rates, bar passage rates), numbers can possess either star power or infamy.

But, notwithstanding their dazzle and clout, numbers should only be powerful if they are attached to something meaningful.  If they are being misused or misunderstood, that can mean mistaking the sizzle for the steak.   Figures can be seductive when they seem rounded, or extravagant, or provocative, or revealing.  It's easy to jump on the conspicuously appealing numbers -- the highest GPA, the apparently significant pattern in MBE scores, the increase in median starting salaries -- just as it's easy to be attracted to the confident, well-spoken cutie who walks into the party.  But the GPA might be based on a disproportionate number of generously graded courses; the MBE pattern might be statistically insignificant; the median salary increase might represent slippage, not advancement, if similar schools are seeing an even larger increase.  Causes, reliability, and context all matter.

The danger of the charisma of numbers is that sometimes, even when a person is only looking at the surface, they don't feel like they are being shallow, because numbers are supposed to be scientific and rational.  We need to remember, and teach our students and colleagues, that, even with the most alluring numbers, you should really spend some time with them first, get to know their flaws and idiosyncrasies, before you commit to them.

[Bill MacDonald]

Productive Procrastination

My constant battle is putting aside time wasters, and I have to watch out for procrastination. Staying on the path of something you’re trying to create has much to do with having confidence in yourself and in your capacity to realize the things you want out of life. – Ruby Dee

Anyone in the dissertation process or in any stage of researching or writing a scholarly article knows that procrastination, not perfection, is the enemy of completion. Even the most well-intended scholars struggle with finding the will and motivation to write. Caring professors fall into the lure of putting off grading until the last possible moment – often to the disappointment of students eagerly awaiting grades. Students, in all fields, and at all levels, will wait until the last conceivable second to complete or even begin a task. We all fall prey to procrastination in one form or another.

Ironically, procrastination is a natural occurrence in the lives of highly productive individuals. Procrastination, as a form of managed delay, can generate productive and invigorating levels of adrenaline.  According to Dr. Adam Gonzalez, “[w]hen you experience anxiety, it is often in response to an actual or perceived threat.” At low or moderate levels, anxiety can help increase productivity. Productive levels of anxiety may lead to hyper-focus and allows adaptive response to external demands like a challenging job or a tight deadline. However, this productive procrastination, while effective in the short term, can have negative long-term consequences, like over-commitment, disorganization, and unhealthy stress levels .

Procrastination can be both a contributor to, and a consequence of, cognitive distortions. One survey found that procrastination was a top reason that Ph.D. candidates failed to complete their dissertations. Another study identified four major cognitive distortions that lead to academic procrastination.*

1. Overestimating how much time is left to perform a task;
2. Overestimating future motivation for a task;
3. Underestimating how long certain activities will take to complete; and
4. Mistakenly assuming that a “right” frame of mind is needed to work on a project.

Although the study focused on student procrastination, each of the listed distortions can be equally applied to academics. The year-round deadlines for submissions, edits, proposals, evaluations and feedback can necessitate some degree of procrastination as a means of self-preservation. We engage in managed delay to strategically decide which tasks must be immediately completed, and which tasks can be put off or allotted comparatively less time and attention. We want our students to be well-prepared for class and professional life. Yet, there is no future in legal education wherein some students do not come to class unprepared. No scholarly psychological study will prevent the eleventh-hour email seeking an extension of a deadline imposed weeks, if not months, earlier. Perhaps self-reflection about our own effectively managed tendencies toward procrastination will cause us to be more compassionate when left to respond to the self-delayed outcomes of our students, family, and coworkers.  

*Ferrari, J. R., Johnson, J. L., & McCown, W. G. (1995). The Plenum series in social/clinical psychology. Procrastination and task avoidance: Theory, research, and treatment. New York, NY, US: Plenum Press.

(Marsha Griggs)

Football Clichés to Use with Students

We are halfway through the best time of the year, college football season.  As a kid, I always wanted to be a football coach.  I watched games all day Saturday, then I watched the coaches' shows during the week.  I wanted to understand the strategy.  I obviously did not take that path, but the intellectual curiosity is still there.  I still listen to post-game shows and analysis.  My wife needles me with "you just watched the game, why do you need the recap?"  She has a great point, but how will I know if my perception of the defensive line play was accurate if I don't listen to the recap?  

The recaps have the information I crave, but they also have the best clichés.  Every week, I hear some variation of the following:

1.  The game is never as good as you think or as bad as you think (a newer one from Oklahoma's coaches recently).

2.  We will enjoy this win today, but then, it is on to next week.

3.  We must get better each week, so we have a few things to clean up before the next game.

4.  Don't listen to the "rat poison." (Nick Saban made famous, and now, Jalen Hurts says it every week at Oklahoma).

5.  One play, drive, quarter, half, or game at a time.

The statements are obviously clichés, and some call it "coach speak."  However, I think the statements have value for our students if they pay attention to the meaning.  Let's look at each statement.

1.  The game is never as good as you think or as bad as you think.

This is absolutely true, and our students need to embrace this idea.  Too many students walk out of exams thinking it was either terrible or awesome.  Very few are correct.  If the test was that hard, it was hard for everyone.  If you think you knocked it out of the park, there is a chance everyone else feels the same way.  The review and feedback after exams is what matters.

2.  We will enjoy this win today, but then it is on to next week.

I encourage students to celebrate success.  Making it through law school is tough.  Every milestone from completing the first midterm to making it through the first semester should be celebrated.  However, I also tell students it is time to get to work the next day.  Finals, or the bar exam, won't change based on how long we celebrate.  The goal is still to be prepared by a certain day.

3.  We must get better each week, so we have a few things to clean up before the next game.

I use a form of this statement all the time with students.  Early the first semester, I over emphasize that I don't care if they are first or last in the class.  The goal is to get better every semester.  Employers want attorneys that can improve and learn throughout his/her career.  Self-reflection and improvement plans setup a great career.

4.  Don't listen to the "rat poison."  

This one is newer but funny.  The idea is to not let the media over inflate players' egos.  The same is true for our students.  Students should focus on getting better and self-assessment.  Don't listen to classmates talk about how great your class answers were.  Don't let previous grades lull you into complacency.  Every class and every test requires proper preparation.

5.  One play, drive, quarter, half, or game at a time.

Law school and the bar exam are overwhelming.  Over 500 hours of work for 10 weeks during the summer or countless hours of preparation for 14 weeks during the semester can cause anxiety and immobilize the calmest students.  The key is to only focus on today.  Do the work for today.  Complete the practice questions for today.  Focus on today because taking 1 step each day will eventually lead to the destination.

(Steven Foster)

Professor of Practice at Nova Southeastern

Nova Southeastern is looking to expand its Academic Success Department and is looking for a Professor of Practice to join the team.

Susan Landrum said if you are interested in working in a collaborative environment that prioritizes academic and bar support, I encourage you to apply. The link to the job description, listed as an Academic Success & Professionalism Program Instructor, is available here.

Susan said she would talk to anyone who may be interested in the position at [email protected].

SWCASP Save the Date and Call for Proposals

Save the Date and Call for Proposals for the

8^th Annual Southwestern Consortium of Academic Support Professionals Workshop on March 6^th, 2020 

ASP Across the Curriculum

at

Texas Tech University School of Law

in Lubbock, Texas 

The Southwestern Consortium of Academic Support Professionals will host a one day conference focused on developing Academic Support programs throughout the curriculum.  ASPers are amazing at the work we do, but we have limited interactions with students.  Students need skills work reinforced throughout every year of law school.  ASP skills range from metacognition to specific test taking skills.  The goal of the conference is to provide ideas for participants to take back to law schools that will encourage everyone at the school to help students improve. 

Registration will be open to anyone interested in academic support.  Registration forms, hotel information, and additional details will be provided in early January. 

We are encouraging those interested in presenting to submit a proposal to Steven Foster at [email protected] by November 1^st, 2019.

 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact:

Steven Foster ([email protected])

Director of Academic Achievement at Oklahoma City University

 

Cassie Christopher ([email protected])

Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Bar Success

 

Chelsea Baldwin ([email protected])

Director, Academic Success Programs

What Can We Learn from the "Best Learners in the Universe"

Ok...here's a thought experiment...

What person or name first comes to mind as the best learner of all time?  

Feel free to blurt it out...

Perhaps Albert Einstein?

Or Marie Curie?  

Or maybe the great scholar, teacher, and mathematician Hypatia?

Well, according to cognitive scientist Alison Gopnik (U.C. Berkeley), it turns out that "...babies are the best learners in the universe." A. Gopnik, The Ultimate Learning Machine, Wall Street Journal (Oct 12, 2019)  

In fact, as a research psychologist, Dr. Gopnik explains that the key to successful development of artificial intelligence requires that computers learn to learn to learn and think like human babies.  Id. And, that's very difficult for machines to do.  Id. Computers are brilliant in processing lots and lots of data but not nearly so good as babies and toddlers in accurately making sense and judgements about the world around them with very little data to boot. Id.  And, most of the time, we have very little data, too.  

Take law school for example.  

We read perhaps a handful of cases on intentional torts.  Perhaps a few on contract formation or consideration.  A few more about equal protection. And, out of just a few experiences we are suppose to generalize, to synthesize, to figure out what intentional torts are all about, or contract law, or equal protection analysis.

So, that begs the question.  

Perhaps we as legal educators might also learn a few things about how to learn by also exploring how babies learn to learn...and learn so expertly and so quickly with so little knowledge at the start [since we too --in our work with law students --often given our law students very little to go on to figure out "the law."].

According to Dr. Gopnik, babies learn through the process of making a mess.  Or, as Dr. Gopnik accentuates, "MESS," which is an acronym that stands for building models about the world that they observe, curiously exploring the world around then, and learning in social experiences with others. Id.  

For example, with respect to models, toddlers and even babies can construct common sense models about such topics as physics and even psychology.  Id. With respect to psychology, even a one-year old baby, when seeing an adult drop a pen, will try to help pick up the pen for the adult out of apparent empathy for the other (but not if the adult was seen by the baby intentionally dropping the pen).  Id. You see, little toddlers have already learned through curious observations about gravity and even about human intentions too.  Id.

With respect to exploring the world, "[babies] are insatiably curious and active experimenters.  Parents call this 'getting into everything.'" Id. Toddlers love to explore, to test out everything, to take things apart and to try to put them together.  Id. It's this sort of "playful experimentation" that is another secret to the ability of children to learn so adeptly.  Id.

The final factor relates to learning in social contexts.  Babies learn by observing people around them, who have the benefit of often times years of experiences, by trying to imitate them.  But there's even more.  Take the situation of toddlers learning to tie sneakers.  Id.  Try as you might, it turns out that it is very difficult to teach computers to learn to tie sneakers [I think it would take lots of mathematical code!].  But children learn to tie shoes by watching others, focusing on the purpose of the task and not just the steps, which leads to learning.  Id. That's something that's just plain difficult for machines to do.

In fact, computers can't generalize very well at all from limited data (i.e., they aren't very good at creating accurate common sense models); they don't really experience the world around them (except to the extent that humans pre-program computers to "act" in particular ways; and they don't have an ability to watch what others are doing (and extract out of those observed activities what purposes might be lurking in one's activities).  

So, that takes us back to law school.  What can we learn about learning the law from babies?

First, as law students read cases (or even before), students can create models or theories about what might lay ahead as they read case after case (or what principle or principles might hold them together).  In short, law students can formulate hypotheses about what they are preparing to read.

Second, as law students work on learning, students should be encouraged to tinker with the cases, to explore them, to be curiously playful.  In particular, law students can imagine different facts, different judges, and whether those sorts of changes might change outcomes.

Third, as law students learn to solve legal problems, faculty should explore with them how they solve legal problems, perhaps walking through reading essay questions and then even writing out answers in real time, with students then having the opportunity to practice themselves by trying to imitate what they watched experts perform.  And, students should be encouraged to think about the purpose behind solving the legal problems and reading the cases.

I know.  There's a lot of deep cognitive science behind learning.  But, perhaps the key to learning is not quite as difficult as we (or at least I) sometimes make it out to be.  Life is complex; perhaps learning is not so complex; perhaps it's one of life's beautiful secrets that we - as legal educators and as law students - can learn from the smallest among us.  

So, next time you see a baby, pay attention; there are important life lessons to be learned!

(Scott Johns)

 

One Way to Examine the Educational Experience

I have been reading about the concept of "community of inquiry", a model that attempts to explain how, in a variety of contexts, groups of individuals work together to share and develop knowledge.  The concept originated as a philosophical explanation of the process of scientific inquiry, but has come to be applied in other areas, including education.  One of the foundational premises that distinguishes the community of inquiry model from more traditional epistemological theories is that knowledge should not be conceived of as fixed and absolute truth that can be discerned by any single rational observer, but instead as a contingent and potentially fluid understanding of truth that depends upon common agreement in a social context for its legitimacy.  It is not hard to see the value of such a premise in learning and teaching the law.

Community of inquiry is too rich and intricate a concept to be explicated entirely in a single blog post.  However, one aspect of community of interest theory, as applied to education, is easy to grasp, and potentially a helpful way to examine the robustness of a course, workshop, or other legal educational experience. 

In this schema, a meaningful and effective educational experience depends on three interdependent elements:

• Social presence: This is the ability of those in the community of interest to perceive others, and to be perceived themselves, as real individuals in that community.  This facilitates interaction and collaboration.  Notably, this concept arose early in consideration of online learning platforms, where social presence may not arise naturally.  At the same time, even in live classrooms, factors such as a teacher's openness and receptivity, opportunities for students to be heard, and activities and platforms through which students can work together can all enhance social presence.
• Cognitive presence: This is the extent to which the necessary "raw materials" are available and accessible for members of the community to use to construct and confirm meaning and thus to develop their own knowledge.  These raw materials include reading materials, lectures, experimentation, feedback, and the like -- much of what traditional models of education consider to be the greater part of education.
• Teaching presence: In the law school context, teaching presence usually refers to the carrying out of two essential functions by the professor or lecturer: first, the design of the educational experience, including the selection of content and activities; and second, the facilitation of that educational experience, meaning the real-time execution of those activities and provision of assessment arising from them.

In the broadest terms possible, these three presences correspond to the people who will learn, the stuff they are supposed to learn, and the teacher who will help them learn it.  What I think is useful about this model is that it suggests¹ that we can look at pairs of these elements to help us determine how to improve three sometimes noticeably troublesome aspects of the learning experience: climate in the classroom, productivity of discourse, and transmission of content.

• Climate in the classroom is defined by the intersection of teaching presence and social presence.  Thus, problems with climate (inattention, unruliness, anxiety, competition, etc.) can be addressed by considering changes not just to how the teacher is leading the class (teaching presence), but also to the structures that facilitate social participation.
• Productivity of discourse is defined by the intersection of social presence and cognitive presence.  Here, then, the sense that students are not making the best use of their opportunities to interact with the teacher and with each other can be addressed by considering changes not just to the structures that facilitate social participation, but also to the raw materials that are available and accessible to the students to use for discourse.
• Transmission of content is defined by the interaction of cognitive presence and social presence.  If students do not seem to be absorbing enough of the information provided in class for them to be able to build upon what they already know to construct new meaning, this can be addressed by considering changes not just to the raw materials that are available and accessible, but also to how the teacher is leading the class.

There is a lot more to explore in the community of inquiry model; this handy and practical way to think about possible ways to improve classroom experience seemed like a good place to start.

[Bill MacDonald]

¹ See https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/; http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_Critical_Inquiry_model.pdf

 

Are We Hiding the Ball?

Consider the disturbing possibility that in law there is no ball or that, if there is one, no one has a really good account of what it looks like. – Pierre Schlag

The Socratic method is an iconic hallmark of legal education. Even in the face of evolving pedagogy, the Socratic method continues to be regarded as an excellent instructional tool that develops important skills and teaches students to think quickly. Yet, the Socratic method remains one of the most widely used, and possibly equally misused, tools relied upon by law faculty.

Taken to extremes, some scholars espouse the position that Socratic-style teaching should deliberately induce confusion in learners. Professor Rick Hills distinguishes “hopeless confusion” from “productive confusion” the latter in which the instructor “helps the student recognize that the way out of confusion is through focused thought and problem solving, by providing necessary information and suggesting strategies when appropriate.”¹ Regardless of the distinction, students are likely to interpret instructor-induced confusion as withholding essential information or “hiding the ball.”

In his article by the same title, Pierre Schlag identifies the ironic significance of the “hiding the ball” metaphor: instead of promoting curiosity in new law students, it seduces their attention away from fundamental inquiry into law. Law students seem to prefer direct instruction that identifies the general rules and their distinctions. Professors commonly refer to this instructive style as “bar review.” Professor Hills recounted, [e]very once in a while, I engage in this “bar review” style lecturing just to make it easier. When I do, my [course evaluations] predictably tick up.²

Hills’ example begs the question to what extent should student preferences be considered in establishing legal education norms. In the face of changing enrollment demographics and declining bar passage, would being more direct with learning deliverables produce more practice ready graduates, or would it dilute the quality of legal education as we know it? Washburn Law Professor Jeffrey Jackson says that the Socratic method should not be the sole means for teaching law, but it can be a complementary tool to other methods of teaching, like Legal Writing and Analysis. By using a combination of teaching methods that provide a variety of approaches, the learning experience of law students can be greatly enhanced.³ Professor Jackson’s model allows for the type of multi-modal instruction that today’s law students deserve. 

1  Roderick M. Hills, Jr., William T. Comfort III Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, In defense of hiding the ball in law school classes: Does being confused help you learn stuff?

2 Pierre Schlag, Hiding the Ball, 71 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1681 (1996). 

3 Jeffrey D. Jackson, Socrates and Langdell In Legal Writing: Is the Socratic Method a Proper Tool for Legal Writing Courses?, 43 Cal. W. L. Rev. 267 (2007).

(Marsha Griggs)

Professor of Practice in the Office of Academic Success and Bar Readiness at UNT Dallas College of Law

UNT Dallas College of Law is hiring a Professor of Practice for the Office of Academic Success and Bar Readiness. https://unt-dallas.peopleadmin.com/postings/4435

The role includes: teaching and assisting in the development of academic success and bar readiness related courses and workshops; providing individual academic support and bar readiness counseling to students in all stages of their studies, including those struggling academically and those preparing for the bar exam; serving as an individual support to bar takers, monitoring the progress of bar takers, and providing the encouragement and empathy necessary to contribute to successful bar exam passage; and assisting in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of student data and bar exam data.

The UNT Dallas College of Law is a new public law school whose inaugural class started in Fall 2014. The College of Law currently has, and plans to continue having, one full-time section of approximately 80-90 students, and one part-time evening division of between 40-60 students. For the near-term, each entering class will include a day section and an evening section of approximately these sizes. The College of Law’s goals are: (1) widening access to legal education for those who could be superb legal professionals but who cannot realistically access a legal education given factors including location, cost, and the current role of the LSAT in admission to and financing of law school; (2) providing an educational program focused on excellence in developing practice-related competencies, through a curriculum mapped to those competencies and using best instructional practices, including multiple formative and summative assessment throughout, engaged class design, and a spectrum of experiential education; (3) creating opportunity for our students by keeping tuition and debt low and producing graduates with high value and ability in multiple segments of the market for legal services; (4) becoming a national leader in advancing understanding of best legal education practices, of professional formation, and of the relationship between legal education and the evolving practice and business of law; (5) improving access to justice for underserved legal needs; and (6) serving as a valuable partner in civic engagement with the City of Dallas and the North Texas region.

NECASP Call for Proposals Deadline

Request for Proposals: Presentation and Scholarly “Works in Progress”

New England Consortium of Academic Support Professionals (NECASP) Conference

Friday December 13, 2019
Vermont Law School
South Royalton, VT

NECASP will be holding its annual one-day conference and has designated time for presentations. Our
topic this year is “Admission to Admission: Getting students the tools they need to build the bridge
from day 1 to swearing-in.” We will gather in Vermont to share and explore ideas with ASP colleagues
on how to prepare students for admission to the bar and all that entails (academics, bar passage,
character and fitness, and professionalism) beginning from their admission to law school. We welcome
a broad range of proposals – from presenters in the New England Region and beyond – and at various
stages of completion – from idea to fruition.

If you wish to present, the proposal process is as follows:
1. Submit your proposal by October 14, 2019 , via email to Joe Brennan at
[email protected]
2. Proposals may be submitted as a Word document or as a PDF
3. Proposals must include the following:
    a. Name and title of presenter
    b. Law School
    c. Address, email address, and telephone number for presenter
    d. Title
    e. Short description of the presentation including time requested
    f. Bio of the presenter
    g. If a scholarly work in progress, an abstract no more than 500 words
    h. Media or computer presentation needs
4. As noted above, proposals are due on Monday, October 14, 2019.

The NECASP Board will review the proposals and reply to each by Monday, November 4, 2019.

If you have any questions about your proposal, please do not hesitate to contact one of us, and we hope
to see many of you in Vermont later this year!

2019-2020 NECASP Board members:
Chair: Joe Brennan
Director of Academic Success and Professor of Law
Vermont Law School
[email protected]

Vice Chair: Liz Stillman
Associate Professor of Academic Support
Suffolk University Law School
[email protected]

Secretary: Amy Vaughan-Thomas
Director of Academic Success
University of Massachusetts School of Law
[email protected]

Midwestern Academic Support Conference

Talk to Me

As Bill MacDonald reminded us in yesterday's post, this is the time of academic potential and progress. It's also the time of raw nerves. While there's no panacea, there's a good starting place -- and that's talking it out. (And a little patience and humility help, too.)

In the first flush of excitement at the beginning of fall semester, we all tend to be on our best behavior. Faculty and staff want to show 1Ls that they chose the right law school; 1Ls and transfer students want to show the law school that its faith in admitting them was justified. Every person -- whether faculty, staff, upper-division student, or incoming student -- wants to put her or his best foot forward. It is the honeymoon phase of law school. At the end of the semester, as final projects wind up and exams loom, and as we have come to understand each others' foibles, we are too engaged in the big stuff to pay much attention to minor shortcomings. Like a long marriage, there is a sense of understanding and acceptance, even when we acknowledge that the relationship may not be not perfect. 

But the middle of the semester? That's when mannerisms which at first seemed charmingly awkward now grate on your nerves. That's when the workload, initially so manageable, now seems to loom over every hour of the day and night, weekday and weekend. That's when instructors, instead of praising every good-faith effort, now critique openly or press for more concise and precise answers in the classroom and for more tightly-reasoned, well-constructed written work product. That's when the e-mail deluge threatens to overwhelm every person in the law school, with every message being urgent and needing immediate attention, even while you must attend more mandatory meetings and respond to more. So the stress level goes up, and up, and up, and tolerance for others can plummet.

In A Short & Happy Guide to Being a Law Student (which I'd submit is also a pretty good guide to being an ASPer), Paula Franzese suggests, "Give everyone and everything the benefit of the doubt. . . . People will rise or fall to your level of expectancy about them. When someone disappoints you, simply say to yourself, 'She wasn't in her right mind just then. She'll get back to good.'" 

To Professor Franzese's wise words, I'd add a second piece of advice, which is to go to the source. Did the professor (or student) say something which seemed inappropriate? Are they doing something that is making it hard for you to do your best? If it feels safe, try talking with them directly.

If you don't feel safe, the conversation cannot be direct. For example, if a person screams in your face and punches a fist through the wall, or invades your personal space and growls, "I know where you live, and I'm watching you" (both happened to me in my law school career), you cannot have a safe direct conversation.

Notice I didn't say "If it feels comfortable." Because hard conversations are often uncomfortable, but having the direct conversation often makes matters better. So if a person made an insensitive remark, or someone is wearing so much body spray you can't be in the same room, or if an instructor is piling on what seems to be an excessive amount of homework, or -- well, you can fill in scores of other examples -- then the best way to address the problem is usually the direct approach. Go talk with them, and listen to them. Assertive speech and active listening aren't just skills for the classroom -- they are skills for life, and for the practice of law. Act on the assumption that most people are of good will and don't want to offend you or sabotage your work. Moreover, the folks who have (usually inadvertently) caused you discomfort will appreciate hearing from you first-hand rather than hearing of your disgruntlement from others. They can apologize or explain directly to you, rather than involving others or going through layers of bureaucracy. So respect yourself and respect others by talking with them. You'll probably be pleasantly surprised.

(Nancy Luebbert)

The Calm Before the Storm

One of my favorite seasons of the academic year runs between the last week of September and Halloween.  In terms of academic meteorology, conditions are ideal for the formation of manageable disturbances, especially among first-year students: after a warming period of several weeks, they become a bit unsettled due to some mid-term squalls, but they retain a great deal of stored energy and begin to show signs of increasing organization, giving them plenty of room to develop before being overtaken by the late fall gloom that presages the tempest of finals.  

Most of the students who breeze into my office at this time possess the three things I value most in my advisees: the motivation to try to improve their legal writing and/or analysis, the belief that they actually can improve, and the time to devote to that improvement.  Earlier in the year, they may have more time but, without having received any feedback on their work, less motivation to improve.  Come November, with finals looming, they may have motivation to spare, but a dearth of time, and, in some cases, a stunted belief in their own ability to improve.  But right now, a lot of students have that ideal blend of motivation, belief, and time.

The more I have worked with students, the more I have come to see that the most important characteristic of time is not quantity but distribution.  It is usually more helpful for me to meet with a student for 30 minutes every week than for 60 or even 90 minutes every two weeks.  The quicker, more frequent meetings not only help the student feel more connected.  Shorter meetings also force us to focus our work on one or two main skills each week.  With more time, it might be tempting to try to cover every weakness in a student's repertoire -- active reading, organization of information, grammar, argument structure, analytical content, judgment, persuasive diction, etc. -- but this can be overwhelming.  A student trying to improve in a dozen areas at once may not make progress in any of them.  It is too much to think about, and there may be little sense of prioritization.

But when a student walks away from a discussion of their work with one or two clear messages about how to improve in one or two specific tasks, that makes their job for the week focused and manageable.  And if that's why they focus on in their homework between meetings, then we can start the next meeting by looking for the improvement in those areas, and then follow up by addressing one or two new areas for improvement that can build upon the previous week.  Timely feedback on, and immediate use of, the skills that a student works on is the best way to both hone and retain those skills.  Thus, with appropriate exercises to complete between meetings, a student can make and preserve more progress in two hours of meeting time spread out over four weekly meetings than in two or even three hours of meeting time split between one meeting in week one and a follow-up meeting in week four.

After Halloween, the demands of writing assignments due, the stress of upcoming finals, and the interruptions of the holidays make it a lot more difficult to arrange these kinds of punchy weekly meetings.  Now is the time to encourage your students to take advantage of the calm before the academic storm.

[Bill MacDonald]