Volume IX, Issue 2,
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.
III. CLASSROOM "HI-TECH" EQUIPMENT
IV. SELECTING A LEARNING THEORY
VIII. PROJECTING STATUTES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND CASES<
IX.THE CHALLENGE OF FINDING PEDAGOGICALY USEFUL INTERNET SITES
{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
{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]
{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.
{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]
{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.
{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.
{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.
{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]
{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]
{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]
{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,<