Volume IX, Issue 2,

Winter 2002-2003

 

Using “Hi-Tech” Tools In A Traditional Classroom Environment — A Two Semester Experiment

 

By:  Professor Robert E. Oliphant

 

 

Cite as: Robert E. Oliphant, Using "Hi-Tech" Tools In A Traditional Classroom Environment - A Two Semester Experiment, 9 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 5 (Winter 2002-2003), at http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v9i5/Article5.html.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

I. INTRODUCTION

II. ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION

III. CLASSROOM "HI-TECH" EQUIPMENT

IV. SELECTING A LEARNING THEORY

V. PROFESSOR'S COMMITMENT TO THE ENTERPRISE

VI. CLASSROOM DISTRACTIONS CAUSED BY ACCESS TO COMPUTERS

A. Keyboard Noise

VII. NOTE-TAKING

A. Providing Students Pre-Lecture Outlines

B. Post-Lecture Outlines

VIII. PROJECTING STATUTES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND CASES<

IX.THE CHALLENGE OF FINDING PEDAGOGICALY USEFUL INTERNET SITES

X. IN-CLASS AND OUT-OF-CLASS QUIZES

XI. E-MAIL

A. Survey

B. Threaded Discussions

C. Communication With the Instructor

D. Synchronous Chatrooms

 E. Socialization

XII. EFFICIENCY

XIII. CONCLUSIONS

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION

{1}             The most amazing thing is that we are all using computers, learning, and trying but the majority of us are not computer geeks. We are a group that is willing to learn and help.[1]

{2}             Whether we like it or not, technology has become an integral part of our lives and affects virtually every aspect of the legal profession — from the solo practitioner in northern Minnesota to the partner in a 400-person Wall Street firm.  Technology has transformed how lawyers communicate, manage files, present cases to juries, and handle their professional and personal activities.  It has been warmly received by the practicing bar.   

{3}             In contrast, technology has received, at best, a chilly reception from most faculty and administrators within the legal academy[2] While the precise number of faculty who are taking advantage of technology that is now available to them in newly constructed or renovated “hi-tech” classrooms is unknown, one suspects that it is small.

{4}             The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to share the strategies, techniques and outcomes of a one-year “hi-tech” educational experiment[3] conducted by the author and three of his colleagues with fifty-five volunteer first-year law students at William Mitchell College of Law during the 2001-02 school year;[4] a nd second, to encourage further in-depth law school experimentation with “hi-tech” tools and techniques.

{5}             The team assembled for this experiment sought to assess the educational efficacy of using technology in a first-year section of students taking courses in civil procedure, contracts, property and torts.[5]  All of the students were required to supply their own laptop computer, and each computer was equipped with a wireless transmitter provided by the college at its expense.  All classes were held in a “hi-tech” law school classroom specifically reserved for the section. [6]

{6}             The faculty[7]volunteers were not necessarily the most sophisticated “hi-tech” users among the teaching staff.  However, they were motivated to learn more about the impact that technology might have on law student learning, and they generously set aside time from their crowded schedules to participate in the experiment.  None received release time during the two-semester experiment, and they continued with their regularly assigned teaching, administrative, and scholarly obligations.  As one might anticipate, there was an inverse relationship between the time a team member devoted to experimenting with “hi-tech” tools and the pressure to meet traditional publication deadlines — as the pressure for a written product increased, the available time to experiment with “hi-tech” teaching/learning tools decreased.

{7}             The team consciously avoided overwhelming students with extraordinary “hi-tech” demands and conferred among themselves on numerous occasions to discuss each instructor’s “hi-tech” goals.[8] During the experiment, two team members utilized a variety of “hi-tech” teaching tools and techniques on a regular basis, the third used them modestly, and the fourth occasionally.   

{8}             All of the students in the “hi-tech” section were volunteers[9] who, during the first-year registration process, opted to participate in it.   Although the college administration was initially apprehensive about attracting sixty volunteers to the section, it filled by the opening day of fall classes.  For a variety of reasons, one of which may have been the consistent utilization of computers in the classroom, five of the initial sixty students enrolled in the “hi-tech” section eventually withdrew from one or more of the four course offerings.[10]  There was some surprise when more women than men enrolled in the section [11] and when it was discovered that the students possessed widely varying degrees of computer experience — from novice to expert — with less than a half dozen expert computer users in the group.[12] 

{9}             The College’s Information Systems department (IS) created a pre-orientation student schedule when the incoming student laptops were tested and equipped with wireless cards.  Each student’s laptop computer and the section’s “hi-tech” classroom were ready on the first day of fall classes.[13]

 

II. ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS

{10}         I was very apprehensive coming into this section.  I am not "computer literate," when you said paper was obsolete I almost had a breakdown.  I think the computer is extremely useful.  I like being able to look at things while you are lecturing.  Being able to edit the rules is a wonderful tool.[14]

{11}         Administrative functions for the team were handled by an electronic course management interface called Blackboard,[15] and traditional casebooks and supplements were used in all four of the courses that made up the section.  With the exception of the casebooks and supplements, paper was eliminated by the author in his civil procedure course, and reliance upon paper was reduced in the other courses.  Course syllabi, e-mail messages, general student notices, PowerPoint slides and similar materials were usually posted to Blackboard.  The supplemental course materials, once posted, were available to the students over the Internet around the clock.

{12}         Individual class size varied in the section’s four courses from fifty-five to sixty students.  However, class size did not appear to create any serious administrative problems.  While there were periods of unusually heavy e-mail traffic between team members and students, none of the faculty perceived that the e-mail messages “buried them.”[16]

{13}         One administrative assistant was selected at the outset of the experiment to coordinate all of the team’s “hi-tech” needs, and these tasks were added to the assistant’s normal faculty support chores.  The administrative assistant helped faculty by posting material to the various Blackboard course sites and provided students with technical assistance regarding the use of Blackboard.  

{14}         In the past, cautious faculty members using Blackboard have provided students with paper copies of the materials already posted to the interface.  During the experiment, this practice was discontinued without complaint from students.  Overall, the electronic administration of classes via Blackboard presented only occasional minor problems.

III. CLASSROOM “HI-TECH” EQUIPMENT

{15}         The section’s classroom was equipped with typical “hi-tech” tools.  Paneled, sliding white boards, located at the front of the classroom, contained sections that revealed video screens when opened.  Video screen images were created by the use of a rear screen projection system.[17]A Crestron controller provided faculty with control over all of the “hi-tech” classroom functions, including sound,[18] lighting,[19] the Elmo overhead projector, VCR, and access to a networked or portable computer.  Each student’s seat was equipped with access to a power outlet, and each student’s computer was outfitted with a wireless receiver installed by the College’s IS department.  Two transmitters mounted in the classroom provided students with adequate wireless connection to the Internet.  To reduce the need to move the students, computers, and related paraphernalia from room to room, the Registrar permanently assigned a single “hi-tech” classroom to the section where all courses assigned to various team members of the teaching team were conducted.

{16}         The “hi-tech” classroom set-up provided faculty with ready access to the Internet and “hi-tech” equipment that allowed them to show videotapes, give PowerPoint presentations, play CD-ROMs, or use the Elmo to project anything that had not been electronically scanned.  The classroom ceiling contained a built-in stereophonic sound system, and stationary and portable microphones were always available.[2]

IV. SELECTING A LEARNING THEORY[21]

{17}         [T] he typical law professor “has never thought about legal education. He has thought about law.”[22]

{18}         The team’s student learning strategy,[23]or working hypothesis, ran somewhat counter to the more orthodox views held by many within the legal academy.  The team surmised that appropriate utilization of “hi-tech” tools may enhance student learning and satisfaction because it “allows students to choose among various sensory stimuli according to their own learning styles.”[24] The team was uneasy with the traditional law school view that “one‑size‑fits‑all”[25] in legal education and challenged the assumption that large classes must operate with complete reliance on the Socratic Method.[26]

{19}         This “one-size-fits-all” thinking is evident in most law school admissions programs, where it is assumed that pre-tests can eliminate anyone from the applicant pool who cannot succeed in law school.[27]  The admissions process typically relies upon a combination of an applicant’s Law School Aptitude Test ("LSAT") score and undergraduate grade point average to determine an admissions score.  The applicant’s admissions score is then equated with future law school success or failure.[28]  It is also widely assumed that once an applicant is admitted to the first year, he or she will learn best by reading casebooks and attending classes that rely upon the Socratic teaching method.[29]           

{20}         The Socratic teaching method is typically used in large law school classes of from as few as thirty-five to more than one hundred students.  It is viewed as efficient, simple to administer, and lucrative.  The model heavily relies upon classroom dialogue and a single student assessment, which comes at the end of the semester in the form of an essay examination.

{21}         While the weaknesses of the Socratic model are well known, most faculty have been reluctant to move away from it.[30]  One obvious weakness is its inability to provide individualized assessment of a student’s progress on a regular, ongoing basis during matriculation in a course. 

{22}         Supporters of Socratic teaching often reject suggestions that classroom teaching should be varied because law students may process information differently,[31] or possess a variety of personality characteristics[32] at may affect their ability to learn the law. Only modest attention is paid to suggestions that learners may have different cognitive strengths and styles[33] or that cultural diversity, and levels of worldly knowledge may affect individual learning. 

{23}         The stalwart adherence to the present teaching model is most evident during faculty discussions involving the possibility of delivering “distance” legal education.   Distance learning opponents argue that virtually all law school teaching must occur in a face-to-face classroom environment because this allows an instructor to examine bewilderment, body language, and vocabulary, which, they maintain, is significant to the learning process.[34]  Proponents of distance learning respond that the assumption that faculty and students see one-another on a regular basis where this interchange occurs is fallacious.[35] In most cases, especially where student enrollment exceeds thirty-five, such contact is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.   Furthermore, experience within the academy has shown that a professor teaching large classes typically regularly interacts with only a handful of students and seldom, if ever, interacts with a majority of the class.

{24}         In this experiment, the team did not completely abandon the Socratic method of teaching.  Rather, the goal was to experimentally use a variety of “hi-tech” tools and techniques to enhance learning potential while retaining a great deal of the traditional classroom approach.[36]  The team members generally agreed that personality assessment tools such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator suggest that students may process information differently and theorized that the use of “hi-tech” tools and teaching techniques increased the prospects for enhanced student learning.  The team also generally agreed that there was substance to claims that visually-reinforced information is easier to understand and remember, and in some settings, that it is more effective than an oral presentation.[37] They felt that appropriate use of visuals provides clarity and enables legal concepts to be grasped more quickly by some students.[38]  The team also recognized that learning is enhanced by student involvement, stimulation, motivation, and a general willingness to internalize material.  

V. A PROFESSOR'S COMMITMENT TO THE ENTERPRISE

{25}         The most important factor leading to the ultimate success or failure of the use of “hi-tech” techniques in a classroom is the instructor’s commitment to them.[39] Without a consistent, patient determination to experiment, while keeping in mind that failure is often as useful as success in developing new avenues of learning, it is doubtful that more than a handful of faculty will make extensive use of “hi-tech” tools on a regular basis.[40] 

{26}         While skepticism toward the use of “hi-tech” tools in education is on the decline, [41] there is little to suggest that change will occur at anything more than a glacial pace.[42] This may be explained in part by the additional burdens that “hi-tech” tools place on instructors to learn new teaching skills and the associated need to develop separate skill sets to operate the hardware and software driving the tools.[43]  The foot-dragging may also be explained by a general lack of significant support among faculty and law school administrators for the development of “hi-tech” teaching methods and materials.  For example, tenure-seeking faculty will likely receive little credit for time spent developing “hi-tech” teaching methods.[44]   Furthermore, faculty egos and personalities are historically so closely linked to the “sage on the stage” notion that the fear of losing this unique position, or at a minimum, allowing technology to interfere with it, may be sufficient to trigger the same vigorous opposition to technology in the classroom that distance learning has incurred.[45]

VI. CLASSROOM DISTRACTIONS CAUSED BY ACCESS TO COMPUTERS

{27}         One distraction (although I do sit in the back row) is viewing one particular student playing games almost exclusively during class, regardless of the professor. I have been able to position my computer in such a way that I can avoid seeing most of the green screen of Solitaire; however, the clicking of the mouse buttons is somewhat distracting at times.[46]

{28}         At the outset of the experimental project, the team members were uneasy about possible distractions because students in the “hi-tech section had continuous access to computers and the Internet.  Would there be a tendency for bored students to play computer games, catch up on e-mail, or surf the Internet?  If so, how distracting would this be to the professor and the students?  The team believed that uncontrolled classroom computer access could significantly interfere with classroom pedagogy, and concern was heightened when an article appeared in the New York Times,[47] where a professor expressed exasperation over the distracting nature of computers in his classroom.[48]

{29}         The Times article triggered a national e-mail discussion among law school faculty, that highlighted the wide disparity of views regarding computers in the classroom.  Those opposing computers in the classroom generally sided with anecdotal evidence similar to that provided by one listserv contributor, who claimed that in one of his classes there were “23 laptops in operation and 20 or 21 of them had the game of solitaire up and running during the class.”[49]

{30}         Those favoring computers in the classroom generally sided with anecdotal evidence that before computers were available, students were doing crossword puzzles, playing bingo based on what the professor said, exchanging notes, reading newspapers, playing poker, and conducting themselves in a variety of ways suggesting they were bored and not interested in participating in the learning exercise the instructor was attempting to conduct.[50]  “Hi-tech” computer pioneer Professor Peter Martin provided additional support for computer use, finding that in his experience with computer-equipped classrooms, he observed “nothing that would lead me to believe that computer games and web surfing (or e-mail and online research) are a more serious threat to classroom concentration and engagement than crossword puzzles, newspapers, and private correspondence or doodles.”[51] 

{31}         After weighing the competing views, the faculty team discussed the distraction issue with the students in the “hi-tech” section. Ground rules were established and explained. For example, one professor established two basic rules:  first, if a student downloaded pornography during class, the student would be recommended for expulsion from law school; second, should the professor receive a complaint that a student was using the computer for unrelated classroom activity, and the use distracted others, the student would be recommended for removal from the class.

{32}         A hand-held portable electronic switch that could turn off the classroom wireless transmitters was obtained and made available to team members. With this device, one could instantly disable the wireless transformers in the classroom and block student access to the Internet.[52]  With the exception of when administering final exams, no on the team ever used this device.

{33}         As the experiment progressed, the team perceived that a handful of students were sometimes using their computers during class for entertainment, e-mail, and chat room discussions.  An occasional stern reminder from a member of the team about the rules tended to reduce, if not eliminate, the behavior.[53]  When one instructor discovered that “ten or twelve students” were conducting synchronous conversations unrelated to the class discussion in Blackboard,[54] the feature was disabled for that course.[55]  

{34}         No students were dismissed from a course because of complaints that computer use distracted other members of the class.  However, it is clear that continuous accessibility to a laptop computer provided an ongoing, almost irresistible temptation for some students to play games, send e-mail, or indulge in other activities unrelated to classroom discussion. Significant distraction is clearly possible because most students’ computer screens are viewable by others in the classroom. The key ingredients to reducing this behavior include: (1) providing clear ground rules at the outset of the course regarding computer use; (2) making a determined effort throughout the course to meaningfully integrate computer use into classroom pedagogy; (3) dealing immediately and openly with the class when a distraction issue arises; and (4) meeting the constant educational challenge of generating overall interest, intensity and involvement by the students in the topic under discussion.

A. Keyboard Noise

{35}         Previous experiments with laptops in the classroom have suggested that only on rare occasions have complaints surfaced regarding noise generated because of student computer keyboard use.[56]  Professor Peter Martin has reported that in his experience “[a]ll I spoke with, students and faculty, found that the sound of so many keyboards in action swiftly slipped into the background.  Almost no one found it a significant distraction.”[57]  The team’s experience was consistent with Professor Martin’s observations: there were no complaints regarding keyboard noise.  However, in one course, six students preferred to write their final essay examination using the traditional blue book pen and pencil method,[58] and two of them asked for a room without computers.

VII. NOTE-TAKING

{36}         It makes my notes more organized than a paper version. I was resistant to using the computer so much, but now I love it.  I should star in a commercial.[59]

{37}         Supporters of computers in the classroom contend that they are an excellent note-taking device and provide at least three advantages over the traditional method of taking notes by hand.  First, students with reasonably good typing skills can record the key principles of law under discussion more quickly and with greater clarity because of the increased speed offered by the computer keyboard.[60] Second, computer-generated notes are usually more legible than one’s handwriting. Third, once the notes are recorded, students may easily edit and reorganize them. Students with typing skills for whom efficiency and law school time management are priorities appear to find the computerized note-taking especially appealing. 

{38}         Those who are apprehensive about computers in the classroom argue that students “may attempt to transcribe the class” using the computer.[61]   They contend that students with computers are less likely to participate in class discussion if they are focused on capturing an instructor’s remarks verbatim.

{39}         In response to these concerns, it has been suggested that an instructor who perceives that students have become essentially classroom court reporters should immediately address the issue with them and emphasize the value of analysis of hypotheticals and participating in in-depth discussion of legal principles over merely recording a lecture verbatim.[62]  During the experiment, the team did not perceive that students had become classroom court reporters. While note-taking may have modestly interfered with the ability of some students to participate in classroom discussion, the team did not perceive that this was a significant problem.

A. Providing Students Pre-Lecture Outlines

{40}         [C]lass notes/outlines that are posted on [B]lackboard are very helpful both for pre-class preparation and post-class review. Also, I have been using the property outlines in class and modifying them as we go along.[63]

{41}         While a variety of teaching techniques were used during the two-semester experiment, one of the more demanding involved providing students prior to class a reasonably-detailed class outline of the areas to be covered.  When used, the pre-lecture outline was sent to students as an attachment to an e-mail message.  The outline provided students with goals for the coming class and details of the areas to be covered.  It was routinely adjusted to reflect the progress the class was making in mastering the course.  Proponents of pre-lecture outlines believe they provide students with a focused template for class discussion and tend to signal areas of study that the professor considers most significant.  They act, it is argued, as a detailed guide, while still leaving much opportunity for student input.

{42}         Those opposing pre-lecture outlines make several points: first, pre-lecture outlines remove the mystery from the class lecture and discussion — leaving little drama to the session; second, they “spoon feed” law students who should be “doing their own thinking” and their own outlining.  Especially in law school, goes the argument, students will not learn to “think like lawyers” if a professor continually provides a detailed outline in advance of a lecture.  Furthermore, argue opponents, “real learning” occurs when students grasp the important points of a professor’s lecture and the thought process travels from the brain, to the hand, and onto paper via a pen or pencil.  Finally, preparing a pre-lecture outline for every class period places an unwarranted time burden on a professor, whose scholarly duties are already time-consuming.  Moreover, to expect an instructor to create a pre-lecture outline in detail for each class is unrealistic.

{43}         The team members were unable to arrive at a consensus regarding the use of pre-lecture outlines, and only two members of the team experimented with them.  Based upon the student response, they found the pre-lecture outlines very helpful.  

B. Post-Lecture Outlines

{44}         One member of the team, Professor Eileen Roberts, created a detailed post-lecture outline for the students in her property course.  Each outline also contained links to numerous websites of interest to the topic that had been discussed in the previous class.  She provided the notes with the links inserted at relevant places within them after each class.  Based upon responses from students, her efforts were warmly received.

VIII. PROJECTING STATUTES, RULES, REGULATION AND CASES

{45}         [T]he use of computers and [the] [I]nternet in our classroom help us to save time, and learn how to investigate cases and statutes easily.[64]

{46}         As previous scholars have noted, a projection screen in a “hi-tech” classroom provides faculty with teaching opportunities unavailable until the last few years.  Only three of the many possible uses of projection in the classroom are discussed here.

{47}         One common use of a projection screen is to focus classroom discussion on the precise language of a rule or statute.[65]  To do this, the instructor combines the projection screen and the zoom features found in programs such as Microsoft Word to enlarge a word, phrase, or sentence that is being analyzed. [66]  This technique may also be used to focus on a key passage in a decision or a paragraph of any writing.  It is simple but effective.

{48}         Another use of a projection screen technique involves asking students to draft the holding of a case and obtaining it from them before or during class via e-mail or other electronic means.  Once selected and placed on the projection screen, the entire class can critically discuss a student’s analysis.[67]

{49}         A third use of a projection screen involves the instructor preparing a PowerPoint presentation containing relevant language from rules, decisions, or statutes.  Rather than distribute a paper copy of the presentation during class on which students can make notations, most commercial interfaces[68] contain e-mail modules that permit one to send the entire presentation as an attachment via e-mail to all the students in the class with one or two clicks on the computer mouse.  Once received, students can make notations during class in the notes section of PowerPoint.[69]

{50}         Critics of the use of PowerPoint presentation software suggest “it [is] somewhat awkward to accommodate students’ active participation if students wish to discuss topics out of the order the professor had planned.”[70] 

{51}         The team experimented with the above techniques throughout the duration of the project.  They agreed with the observation of Professor Peter Martin who concluded that students in “hi-tech” classes found the use of this technique particularly effective.[71]  

IX.THE CHALLENGE OF FINDING PEDAGOGICALLY USEFUL INTERNET SITES

{52}         I think it is very helpful to have access to [use] [I]nternet resources in class.  If there is a rule that we need to get, or a case being discussed, it is very helpful to be able to access it.[72]

{53}         The Internet, with its vast collection of digital material, presents both a challenge and an opportunity for an instructor in a “hi-tech” setting.[73]  Meaningfully and creatively harnessing this vast database so the web-based material enhances classroom discussion and understanding of a legal topic is a significant challenge.  Once having found the appropriate Internet material, the opportunity for a richer and more interesting learning environment is apparent.

{54}         While the team used the Internet in a variety of ways, the most common applications involved creating links on Blackboard to recent state and federal court decisions, new federal and state legislation, and rules and codes.  For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, found at the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute site,<