Best Practices for Legal Education

By:  Andi Curcio and Eileen Kaufman

For most doctrinal faculty, teaching is a relatively solitary activity. While our clinical and legal writing colleagues regularly collaborate, and we encourage student collaborative learning, doctrinal faculty tend to draft our syllabus, develop our lesson plans, teach our courses and design and administer our assessments largely without input from colleagues.

We operate this way because it is part of legal academic culture, because we deem solitary class planning to be more efficient, and because we value independence in deciding what to teach, how to teach and what and how to assess.

Last Fall, two of us – experienced law professors working at different law schools and both teaching a large section Evidence course- decided to break with the cultural tradition of flying solo when it comes to doctrinal teaching.

We found that collaboration did not take more time than working on our own. Nor did collaboration impinge on our academic freedom. In fact, the collaborative process challenged us to engage deeply with both the material and our pedagogy in ways that made us stronger teachers.

Below, we raise questions to consider when deciding to collaborate, describe our collaborative model, and highlight the benefits that resulted from our collaborative work.

Questions Before Collaborating

Why collaborate? The first question you must answer is whether you want to collaborate and if so, what you want out of the experience. For example, do you want to engage in give-and-take that enhances your teaching, have a sounding board for tough doctrinal or teaching issues, experiment with new teaching materials and techniques, improve your efficiency by a “divide and conquer” approach to class planning and/or assessments?

How extensive a collaboration? Once you identify why you want to collaborate, you can better decide how much collaboration works for you. The collaboration could be as informal as simply using each other as a resource when confronting tough questions. You could take the collaboration one step further and agree to a common syllabus. Or you could dive way in and co-design all teaching materials, assessments, and grading rubrics.

Who should you collaborate with? The final, and perhaps most important, question is who to work with. Do you want to work with someone who has a similar teaching philosophy, prepares in advance or tends to wait until the last minute, has the same or a different level of teaching experience, works at the same institution or a different one? Whatever the answer to those questions, the key to a successful collaboration is finding someone you respect and can communicate with comfortably, freely and honestly.

Our Collaborative Method

We briefly discuss our collaborative method, answering the questions above, to illustrate one way to engage in doctrinal teaching collaboration.

Choosing A Collaborator and Collaboration Method:  We had known each other for years and had worked together on other projects. One of us had taught Evidence for 15 years, the other, although an experienced teacher, was relatively new to the subject. We deeply respected each other as teachers and knew we would learn a lot from each other.

We chose the full-blown model of collaboration that included using the same course materials, employing clickers in the classroom, and co-designing all teaching materials, assessments and grading rubrics.  Our collaborative goals included enhancing student learning of complex and difficult material, improving our teaching, and developing fair and reliable assessments.

Implementing the Collaborative Model: With our collaborative goals in mind, we selected a book that neither of us had previously used, that we thought would work best for both sets of students. We then made decisions about course content and coverage and the number and type of assessments. Once those decisions were made, one of us drafted the syllabus and the other edited it.

Although we each prepared our own classes, we shared power points and hypotheticals so that our classes fairly closely mirrored each other. If one of us taught a class first, and ran into an area or problem that confused students, we alerted the other to the problem and discussed ways to remedy the confusion.

We utilized a number of assessments – TWEN quizzes, practice essays followed by detailed grading rubrics, a self-assessment, a midterm and a final exam. For all of the assessments, one of us took the lead and the other edited the exam. We reversed roles for the grading rubric – if one of us drafted the exam, the other drafted the rubric. This distributed the workload and helped enormously in spotting ambiguities or problems that might undermine the question’s validity.

While we spoke somewhat regularly, most of our collaborative work was done via email so we could do it at our respective convenience.

The Benefits

The collaborative process allowed us to benefit from each other’s knowledge, skills and ideas. We had a sounding board to discuss how best to teach a complex doctrinal issue. We had another set of eyes to help ensure exam questions were clearly written, and that the questions, as well as the overall exam, tested what we sought to assess. When grading, we were able to compare how we were making the “close calls.”

Teaching Benefits:  As the semester progressed, we shared thoughts and ideas about how to shift our teaching when students struggled with either concepts or analyses. For example, we realized early on that the use of clickers in the classroom was helping students on multiple choice questions but was not addressing analytical skills. Since we were using the same classroom materials and assessments, we were able to track and compare performance and make important adjustments as the semester progressed.

We discussed problems we both observed with our respective students’ legal analysis. We brainstormed solutions and decided we should: take a minute of class time for students to write out a rule before launching into hypotheticals or discussions of the rule; require students to provide more analysis in their explanations of clicker questions; and use clicker slides to drill black letter law and application of law to new facts.  We added more practice essays and incorporated teaching methodologies that focused on building students’ analytical and essay writing skills.

These changes to our teaching methodologies may not have occurred had we both been teaching our own courses.

Assessment Benefits:  Working together on assessments was tremendously helpful. The drafting stage took somewhat longer because another set of eyes resulted in changes to the initial draft, but the collaboration unquestionably improved our efficiency when it came to grading.  Because we engaged in fairly extensive give and take in the exam drafting process, we avoided some of the drafting mistakes that sometimes lead to grading issues. Additionally, comparing how we were applying the rubric reassured us that our judgment calls made pedagogical sense and allowed us to more efficiently grade because we did not angst over the judgment calls.

Our Take Away

For the reasons outlined above, we believe that the collaboration improved our teaching, and hopefully improved our students’ learning. It also simply was fun to work together.

While collaboration amongst doctrinal faculty members may not be the norm, and may not be for everyone, we found it incredibly rewarding and we encourage others to experiment with it.

As a true testament to its value, we are doing it again next Fall.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

While thinking about his Negotiations course, Best Practices Reader and University of Missouri Law Professor John Lande developed an exercise to provide insight into how the act of negotiation intersects with professional identity.  Prof. Lande’s article guides professors who wish to have their students explore this subject.  The exercise involves thinking about what a client relationship could be and the expectations associated with the relationship through the examination of law firm websites.  You can read more about one way to engage students in thoughts about professional identity here .

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on Insights and Advice regarding Professional Identity

New ABA Standard 314 requires laws schools to use “formative assessments” a fancy phrase for a simple concept: giving students feedback on how they are progressing in a course. Anyone who has seen the data knows that formative assessment helps student learning. Most schools of higher education have used formative assessments for years. Law teaching is a latecomer to this process.

As an Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, I have the role in our school of helping to promote formative assessment in our classes. I have used formative assessment for several years. However, I wanted to develop a method that was effective but not overly time-consuming.   I think that most law professors, if they care about their students, will try out a method if it does not overload them.

I pondered the area of civil procedure that I find consistently less impressive results on final exams than I would expect.   The area of removal came to mind. The requirements for removal are spelled out in the removal statutes. Yet the requirements are many—and picky too.   If the defendant removing a case does not cross her “t’s” and dot her “I’s,” she faces remand for a seemingly minor omission.

So, here was the exercise. I wrote a letter to the students, as a client from a state other than the one in which they were lawyers. I told the “lawyers” that I was a nonresident and wanted to know whether my case could be taken from state court where it was filed to federal court. I also said that I liked to know each step in the process and so wanted them to explain those steps and all deadlines.

Students received this letter the day we finished removal and had a week to prepare a response letter. I developed a checklist of the removal requirements and had my Teaching Assistant (TA) take a first run through, checking the steps that had been accurately described and putting an X next to those that were not described. The form ended with two categories: “This case is vulnerable to a motion to remand [with a blank after that] and “This case is safe from a motion to remand [again, with a blank line after].”

I then checked the TA’s marks against each letter—a process that took about an hour and a half for almost 70 students.   More than half missed something in the removal requirements such that I could mark the box that said the case was vulnerable to remand. The most teling point for most students was my marking the box that showed their case was vulnerable to a remand because they had not read the statute carefully and followed through diligently.

This feedback seemed to help. Many students made appointments to revisit removal and see how they had missed a requirement. The final exam results showed the strongest command of removal I have seen in 13 years of teaching this subject.

I already knew that providing feedback to students helped learning. What I had not established before is that the formative assessment can be done effectively without a great deal of time and effort. Using a TA helped with that, sure. Her work helped me to go more quickly through the letters and spot omissions.

I will now offer this formative assessment as an example for my colleagues. I’ll encourage my colleagues to consider ways in which they can develop similar ways to provide students feedback. The adoption of Standard 314 mandates such teaching, but the truth is law school ought to have been doing this already.   Now, I can advocate for providing students feedback and credibly say it does not have to take excessive time. Not wanting to use the “you’d better comply with Standard 314” card, I hope that the example will encourage professors to explore formative assessment. Once they see the benefits, my hope is that the benefits of the process will sell itself. Of course, for the recalcitrant, there’s always the reminder of an ABA site visit.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

The second issue of Touro Law Center’s Journal of Experiential Learning is now available online at http://www.tourolaw.edu/jel/?pageid=997.

This issue is devoted to incubator and residency programs and their contribution to legal education, particularly to the post-JD part of the educational continuum.  The creator of the law school incubator movement, Fred Rooney,  served as the guest editor for this edition.  Articles for the Incubator & Residency issue include:

Volume I, Number 2, Fall 2015
Table of Contents:

• Introduction
  • Incubator Development at Home and Abroad: Anecdotal Stories from the Trenches<http://www.tourolaw.edu/JEL/Articles/vol1-2-15/INCUBATOR_DEVELOPMENT.pdf>
    Fred Rooney, Guest Editor
•  Articles
  • Law School Based Incubators and Access to Justice – Perspectives from Deans<http://www.tourolaw.edu/JEL/Articles/vol1-2-15/LAW_SCHOOL_BASED_INCUBATORS%20_AND_ACCESS%20TO.pdf>
    Patricia Salkin, Ellen Suni, Niels Schaumann and Mary Lu Bilek
  •  Incubating Community Law Practices: Post-Graduate Models for Lawyer Training & Access to Law<http://www.tourolaw.edu/JEL/Articles/vol1-2-15/INCUBATING_COMMUNITY_LAW_PRACTICES.pdf>
    Luz E. Herrera
  • The Pro Bono Requirement in Incubator Programs: A Reflection on Structuring Pro Bono Work for Program Attorneys<http://www.tourolaw.edu/JEL/Articles/vol1-2-15/PRO_BONO_REQUIREMENT_INCUBATOR_PROGRAMS.pdf>
    Davida Finger
  • Innovate, Collaborate,& Serve: Louisiana’s “LIFT” – A Legal Incubator and Accelerator Program Startup Guide<http://www.tourolaw.edu/JEL/Articles/vol1-2-15/INNOVATE_COLLABORATE_SERVE.pdf>
    Amy Duncun
  • Creating A Post-Graduate Incubator Program Through A Law School-Bar Association Partnership<http://www.tourolaw.edu/JEL/Articles/vol1-2-15/CREATING_POST-GRADUATE_INCUBATOR.pdf>
    Robyn L. Meadows, J. Palmer Lockard and Elizabeth G. Simcox
  • A Custom Tailored Form of Post-Graduate Legal Training: The Rhode Island Center for Justice<http://www.tourolaw.edu/JEL/Articles/vol1-2-15/CUSTOM_TAILORED_FORM_POST-GRADUATE.pdf>
    Robert McCreanor
  • Implementing Psychological Resilience Training in Law Incubators<http://www.tourolaw.edu/JEL/Articles/vol1-2-15/IMPLEMENTING_PSYCHOLOGICAL_RESILIENCE.pdf>
    M. Mark Heekin
  • The Special Role of Career Services Professionals in the Development and Success of Law School Incubator Programs<http://www.tourolaw.edu/JEL/Articles/vol1-2-15/THE%20SPECIAL%20ROLE%20OF%20CAREER%20SERVICES.PDF>
    Sumana Wolf and Erica Edwards-Oneal

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

For professors assigning group work for credit, there is a website that can help allocate the share of credit to be given to each person. It’s called Spliddit (spliddit.org), and was developed by a Carnegie Mellon computer scientist. The idea is not ‘about doing the calculations for you, it’s about using a fair method that you probably wouldn’t have thought about yourself.” As described in a campus publication explaining the site, “the algorithm…works by asking each contributor to ignore his or her own effort and instead assess how much each of the other colleagues contributed to the final product.”

As more and more professors utilize group work in their classes, this website could be of great utility. While I have not used it myself, and while we know many law professors and many law students are mathaverse, it may be worth a look, especially since it doesn’t actually require the professor or the student do actually do or understand higher mathermatics.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on Spliddit.org

Bar examination passage rates are down again in many states. Last year’s results led to accusations that exam administration caused the decline, and counteraccusations that schools were at fault for admitting less qualified students than in prior years. Determining the possible cause of this year’s decline is complicated by the addition of a new subject (Civil Procedure) to the Multistate Bar Exam. In response to the declines, some blame an easy scapegoat — too many electives (especially experiential courses) and too few bar-tested courses. While limiting experiential or clinical courses or credits or mandating more bar courses presents an easy way of appearing  to do something,  there is no available evidence that students who take more experiential or clinical courses do worse on  the bar exam, and only a limited, weak positive correlation between bar courses and bar exam success.

Fueling this finger pointing against experiential courses was a comment from the president of the National Conference of Bar Examiner s (NCBE) on factors that could explain the decline in bar passage percentages: “In addition, the rise of experiential learning may have crowded out time for students to take additional ‘black-letter’ courses that would have strengthened their knowledge of the law and their synthesis of what they learned during the first year.”¹ She suggested another factor could be that schools are requiring fewer bar courses, “thereby permitting students to miss (or avoid) core subjects that will appear on the bar exam.” A possible connection between clinical courses and declining bar scores was also later raised by the NCBE’s director of testing and research.²

Unfortunately for the debate over the causes of bar exam failure and what schools might do to address the problem, these statements were made without reference to any supporting evidence. Indeed, none exists. In response to my inquiry whether there was any empirical basis for asserting that students with more experiential coursework perform, on average, worse on the bar exam or that taking more bar courses will increase  a student’s chances of success, the NCBE president replied that she was unaware of any research but would check with her testing staff. A follow up six months later confirmed there still was no supporting study to share.

I too am unaware of any published study examining the relationship between experiential or clinical coursework and bar passage. There are a number of studies showing the value of clinical courses in enhancing the practice skills and professional identity of students. But no data on the relationship of coursework to bar success include results for experiential courses. Studies do consistently find that law school grades and LSAT scores have the strongest relationship to bar exam success.³

Regarding a relationship between enrollment in bar courses and bar passage, published studies show no, or a small, positive relationship, but only for a narrow range of students. The earliest study sought to determine whether an Indiana bar admission rule mandating successful completion of courses in 14 subject matter areas was likely to increase the probability of passing the bar examination. Reviewing data from three administrations of the exam, the authors found “[n]o course or group of courses had any consistent relationship to success or failure on the bar exam.”⁴ They concluded:

The lack of consistent positive and significant relationships between taking or not taking bar- related courses and bar examination pass rates suggests that requiring these courses will not increase the likelihood that law school graduates, at risk of failure, will pass rather than fail the exam.

The most recent study reviewed coursework and bar results for students at St. Louis  University (SLU) and Hofstra University. Five years of bar results for SLU students showed:

No statistically significant relationship between the number of upper division, bar examination subject matter courses taken and bar examination passage for graduates who ranked in the first, second, or fourth quartiles or for graduates who ranked in the bottom 10 percent of their graduating class.⁵

There was a statistically significant relationship for students in the third quartile but only 4.1% of the difference in bar passage rates for that group could be explained by the number of bar examination su bject-matter courses taken while in law school; 95.9% of the difference in this quartile between those who passed and those who did not was due to other factors. A follow-up study with data provided by Hofstra similarly found no relationship between the number of bar subject-matter courses taken and bar passage for graduates who ranked in the first, second, or fourth quartiles and only a weak relationship for students in the third quartile.⁶The most likely explanation for these results is that students  in the top half of the class already pass the bar at sufficiently high rates that additional bar courses help very little, if any, and that students in the bottom quartile are so lacking in analytic skills that merely putting them in the audience of yet another lecture class fails to address the cause of, or provide a solution to, their problems.

So, while some authors claim, without empirical support, that bar courses will improve a student odds of passing the exam,⁷ and while schools continue to advise their students that the key to bar success is enrollment in bar courses, published studies do not support those claims.

But, all is not lost. Statistical analysis of bar performance at a number of schools has found that specially designed academic support and bar passage programs can improve passage rates, especially for students who have not performed well in law school.⁸ As one statistician told me, “accurately identifying [at]-risk [students] and then ensuring access to targeted, effective programs does make a difference.”

Of course these programs require a much greater commitment of a school’s resource than simply piling more bar courses on at-risk students. Yet, irresponsibly scapegoating experiential courses for bar failure or forcing students to take more upper-class bar courses as a purported solution is, as the authors of the most respected study warned, “overly simplistic” and “will not solve the bar examination failure problem.”⁹

Notes

^1. Erica Moser, President’s Page, THE BAR EXAMINER 4, 6 (Dec. 2014).
↩

^2.Mark A. Albanese, The July 201, MBE: Rogue Wave or Storm Surge, THE BAR EXAMINER 35, 46 (June 2015).↩

^3. See, e.g., Michael T. Kane, et al., Pass Rates and Persistence on the New York Bar Examination Including Breakdowns for Racial/Ethnic Groups, THE BAR EXAM- INER 6, 15 & n. 7 (Nov. 2007); Keith A. Kaufman, et al., Passing the Bar Exam: Psychological, Educational, and Demographic Predictors of Success, 57 J. LEGAL EDUC. 205, 214 (2007).
↩

^4. 4 Philips Cutright, et al., Course Selection, Student Characteristics and Bar Examination Performance: The Indiana University Law School Experience, 27 J. LEGAL EDUC. 127, 136 (1975).↩

^5. Douglas K. Rush & Hisako Matsuo, Does Law School Curriculum Affect Bar Examination Passage? An Empirical Analysis of Factors Related to Bar Examination Passage Between 2001 and 2006 at a Midwestern Law School, 57 J. LEGAL EDUC. 224, 233 (2007).↩

^6. Id. at 224.↩

^7. See, e.g., “Students should take most bar-tested courses during law school . . . . Although there is a lack of empirical evidence that taking bar courses correlates with bar success.” Denise Riebe, A Bar Review for Law Schools: Getting Students on Board to Pass Their Bar Exams, 45 BRANDEIS L. REV. 269, 308 (2006-07). Ironically, the footnote associated with the recommendation that students take most bar-tested courses contradictorily states: “Although law school professionals routinely advise students to take bar-tested courses, there does not appear to be any statistically verifiable support for the practice.” ↩

^8. See, e.g., Scott Johns, Empirical Reflections: A Statistical Examination of Bar Exam Program Interventions, 54 U. LOUIS- VILLE L. REV. (forthcoming 2016) (University of Denver); Mario W. Mainero, We Should Not Rely on Commercial Bar Reviews to Do Our Job: Why Labor- Intensive Comprehensive Bar Examination Preparation Can and Should Be a Part of the La w School Mission , at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2546001; Derek Alphran, et al., Yes We Can Pass the Bar. University of the District of Columbia, David A Clarke School of Law Bar Passage Initiatives and Bar Pass Rates – From the Titanic to the Queen Mary, 14 U.D.C. L. REV. 9 (2011)(U.D.C.); Linda Jellum & Emmeline Paulette Reeves, Cool Data on a Hot Issue: Empirical Evidence that a Law School Bar Support Program Enhances Bar Performance, 5 NEVADA L. REV. 646 (2005) (University of Richmond). ↩

^9. Rush & Matsuo, supra at 236. One of the authors of the study explained, “if you want students to pass bar exams, teach more logic, reasoning and test taking skills.” Doug Rush, Comment to Did You Know That “Bar Courses” Don’t Matter?, Best Practices for Legal Educ., July 25, 2008, http://bestpracticeslegaled.albanylawblogs.org/2008/07/25/335/#comment-289.↩

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

The new year (and the new semester) is here like a gust of refreshing cool after a fall of unseasonable weather. Let me offer some new food for thought as readers have time to reflect perhaps over the upcoming long weekend honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

• New Reading. I wanted to recommend a couple of things worthwhile readings that have just come my way.
  1. I enjoyed the opening plenary at the AALS annual meeting, featuring a very thought-provoking paper on the future of the legal profession (and legal education) in coming days. The presenters were Ben Heineman, Jr. and David Wilkins (with Bill Lee as a co-author). The paper is available at https://clp.law.harvard.edu/assets/Professionalism-Project-Essay_11.20.14.pdf . Its title is “Lawyers as Professionals and Citizens.” The authors welcome comments.
  2. A second significant paper considers empirical evidence relating to types of experiential education and student enrollment and satisfaction tied to different career goals. Take a look at Margaret Reuter and Joanne Ingham’s paper, The Practice Value of Experiential Legal Education: An Examination of Enrollment Patterns, Course Intensity, and Career Relevance, 22 Clinical L. Rev. 181 (2015) which uses significant NALP data to illuminate these questions. It’s also available through SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2704573
  3. Finally, a post from Stanford’s Rick Reis, of Stanford’s Tomorrow’s Professor initiative (noted in an earlier posting) is worth consideration. It summaries some important lessons on the challenges of institutional assessment and offers an excellent wet of websites that can help law schools and their faculties meet the new challenges resulting from strengthened ABA requirements. (TP Msg. #1455 Planning Effective Assessment] https://tomprof.stanford.edu/.

• Reflections on Teaching. I’m teaching a large section of property law again this spring, after a couple of years with other assignments. I’m also 65 and have been talking with my husband about prospects of retirement. So, I’ve been unusually reflective about my teaching this term, and have found that very liberating. I have been thinking about what I’ve learned in 35 years of teaching, and about what endures, and what my students might best gain from me (in addition to mastering basic principles of property law). So, this week I’ve spent more time offering reflections on history and jurisprudence (and perhaps a little less on doctrinal hypotheticals than had been the case in some past years). Yesterday I talked at length about Johnson v. M’Intosh (the first of Justice Marshall’s “Indian trilogy”) and explained what I’d been learning about the great Cherokee chief, John Ross and about his nemesis President Andrew Jackson (I strongly recommend “Jacksonland” by Scott Inskeep that covers this territory exceedingly well). Today I told them about law reform litigation and the case of State v. Shack (in which New Jersey’s great state supreme court of the 1970’s held that a farmer who had employed a large number of migrant farm workers could not claim that he had a right to exclude a legal aid lawyer and a doctor who had come to see clients and patients). Somehow stopping to think about what I really know, and what is most worth knowing and sharing has been especially uplifting. My experience may be of interest to others of you who are at different life changes. Ask yourself “what do I know that is most important at this time in life to share with my students”… and act accordingly.

Good luck with the start of the semester.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Professor Carol Dweck talks about a powerful message:  “not yet”  https://www.ted.com/talks/carol_dweck_the_power_of_believing_that_you_can_improve?language=en.  Her studies demonstrate that when students understand that learning occurs on a continuum and they simply have “not yet” mastered a concept, they develop a “growth mindset” that leads to significant learning gains.

Professor Dweck notes that students with a “growth mind set” engage with the material and develop a passion for learning. They want to see how far they can push themselves. They realize they can improve and that they just have to figure out how to do so. This growth mindset actually engages neurons – a physiological process which paves the way to significant learning gains.

In contrast, she notes that students with a “fixed mindset” seek external validation of their self-worth via a “good grade”.  A fixed mindset causes students to run from failure rather than look at mistakes and failure as opportunities to learn. Students with a fixed mindset literally activate many fewer neurons than those with a growth mindset.

Professor Dweck emphasizes that a growth mindset involves understanding that you will be able to master a problem but you may need to work really hard, try new strategies and seek input from others when you get stuck – http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/09/23/carol-dweck-revisits-the-growth-mindset.html – all critical components of good lawyering.

Learning outcomes present the opportunity to create a growth mindset in ourselves and in our students. Learning outcomes remind us that our job is to facilitate student growth along the learning continuum.  They are a tool to help students learn how to think deeply about the processes and strategies necessary to tackle new material and challenges throughout their careers. They help students move from “not yet” to “I got this step, bring on a new challenge”.

The cycle of learning outcomes and assessment puts the growth mindset into practice. As educators, we identify the outcomes, gather and interpret evidence about achievement of the outcomes, and we use the evidence to modify our teaching to further improve student learning.  For both student and teacher, learning outcomes present an opportunity for intellectual engagement with the material as we strategize how to improve.

The growth mindset can also be incorporated into our formative assessments. These assessments allow students to see if they have mastered the material “yet” or if they need to work harder and  try different approaches.  Law professors can  use formative assessments to reward the effort and perseverance that lead to mastery of the material and in doing so, we can reinforce the concept of “you don’t have this yet, but you have the ability to figure it out.”

For example, in her doctrinal courses, Professor Sandra Simpson periodically posts a five question multiple choice quiz on TWEN. Each correct and incorrect multiple choice answer comes with an explanation.   She awards points toward the final grade when a student gets all five answers right. The kicker: a student can take the quiz as many times as he or she wants in order to get all five correct answers. This kind of assessment shifts the focus from the need to immediately get an “A” to the process of developing ways to identify the information and strategies needed to master the material in order to get an “A”.  It encourages the growth mindset.

Accreditation standards now require us to identify and measure learning outcomes and engage in formative assessments. When we do so, it is useful to keep in mind the power of “not yet” and  growth mindset principles.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Power of “Not Yet”, Learning Outcomes & Assessment

Many years ago as a young professional, prior to law school, I was assigned the book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” by Steven Covey. A leadership program I was enrolled in required its reading and prompted refection and discussion on the book’s principles among my fellow participants.

Although reductive and self-promoting, Covey’s book was a helpful entry point for me into certain fundamental approaches to professional success.  The one “habit” I still have instant recall of is Sharpening the Saw.

Sharpening the Saw, as I remember it, was the habit of taking a break from work to make sure the tools one needs to do said work are in good working order. In short, it means feeding the brain and body with restoration to keep it in good working order.

My students are buzzing around me these days sawing at a frenetic pace as they prepare for final exams, write papers, and in my clinic complete their clients’ casework. I hope the students I have worked with this year have learned a little something from me about sharpening their saws.

In both my clinical and my lecture courses I include outside material and my own commentary about the need for lawyers to keep our brains and bodies in good working order. Our professional responsibility obligations demand it, in my opinion.

Last week I was away from school, and my clinic for all five “business” days–although one of them was a national holiday, and the days prior to and after it were days we had no classes.  Still, I was nervous about leaving town although circumstances in my personal life necessitated it.  At some point in the week prior to the trip I made a very conscious decision to be unavailable, except by cell phone for true emergencies. I added an e-mail autoreply. I informed my director and my staff.  I did not check e-mail.  There were no emergencies.

And this week, my saw feels razor-sharp.  My performance and energy levels are at peak.  My patience is uncharacteristically not thin.  I can close my jaw.  My students survived last week, as did my clients and staff.  I’ll be adding to my syllabi for this semester some space for this anecdote, and connecting it to existing material from experts on teaching resilience and balance in legal education.  Covey may be off-trend, but his point is well taken.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on Sharpening the Saw

It can be challenging for legal writing professors to find the time for scholarship:  creating problems, grading memorandum, meeting with students, and the many other demands of teaching leave little time for anything else. However, legal writing professors in particular benefit from scholarship, whether to meet a scholarship requirement for job advancement, indulge an individual academic interest, or pursue a love of writing.  Personally, I identify even more with the challenges my students face when I am actively engaged in writing as well.  As the co-chair of the Legal Writing Institute’s Scholarship and Development Outreach Committee, I am happy to announce that we are offering a free webinar geared to new and emerging scholars.  With travel budgets tight we hope that many of our colleagues will take advantage of this opportunity to learn about how those in our field find the time and support for their scholarship efforts.  Details about the webinar follow:

The Legal Writing Institute’s Scholarship & Development Committee is offering a free, interactive webinar for new and emerging scholars: The Perfect Time is Now:  Getting Started and Finding Support for Your Scholarship.

The webinar will take place on December 10, 2015 from 1:00-2:00 p.m. EST, and will feature recognized scholars from across the country who will offer tips and advice as follows:

Adventures in Scholarship: Journeys Taken and Lessons Learned

• Linda Edwards, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Colleagues, Collaboration & Community

• Shailini George & Stephanie Hartung, Suffolk University Law School

Scholarship Groups:  How to Start and Maintain Your Own

• Nantiya Ruan,, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law
• Todd Stafford, University of Colorado Law School
• Ken Chestek, University of Wyoming College of Law

To RSVP, please email Micah Desaire at mdesaire@law.du.edu and you will receive an email with a link for participation.

For further information or questions please contact Shailini George (sgeorge@suffolk.edu) or Nantiya Ruan (nurd@law.du.edu).

Filed under: Uncategorized | Comments Off on Free Webinar for New and Emerging Legal Writing Scholars