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,[74]
were used extensively during the civil procedure course.
One team member, Professor Eileen Roberts, successfully used the Internet
to uncover dozens of historical documents, art objects and agreements that
were relevant to her property course and linked those sites to Blackboard.
{55}
There are, of course, many web sites that may enhance learning in a law school
course. For example, in a litigation class, students can be shown how the
Internet aids in the early investigation of a case by discovering past testimony
given by an opponent’s expert.[75]
The Internet can also be used to locate physicians and hospitals, find
the legal standard of care in a particular state, and possibly discover licenses
held by and disciplinary actions taken against specific physicians.[76]
{56}
When environmental issues are raised, Internet access can provide a spectrum
of information about asbestos, lead‑based paint, radon, environmental
tobacco smoke, indoor air quality and electromagnetic fields with links to
federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, offering a
wealth of information.[77]
The Internet can also be used to obtain sample agreements that corporate
lawyers have used for clients[78]
and extensive material about treaties.[79]
{57}
By the end of the two-semester experiment, the teaching team had only begun
to scratch the surface of the potential that Internet web sites offer.
With each passing week, new and more useful Internet sites were discovered.
{58}
I think the computer works wonderfully
for taking quizzes. I love being instantaneously able to see the grade I received
and the correct answers. I liked taking our at home quiz via the [I]nternet
— it gives you much more freedom."[81]
{59}
I really like that we can be regularly
measured by computer-administered quizzes (never thought I’d say that!). The
instant response time is wonderful. I can identify immediately which subjects
I should spend more time studying.[82]
{60}
Probably the most powerful technological tool with the potential to enhance
a student’s education is the student assessment module found in Blackboard,
TWEN and WebCt. The module provides a variety of methods
for assessing student understanding of a particular legal subject. It also permits feedback that can be used
by a professor to clarify points made during class should students remain
confused. Furthermore, the assessment
module provides students with an opportunity to gauge their mastery of a subject.[83]
{61}
Two members of the team conducted extensive experiments with the Blackboard
assessment module, and their efforts were uniformly greeted with student enthusiasm.
One member administered a major in-class examination[84]
using Blackboard while the other used the assessment module in a variety of
ways. There were occasional in-class
drill and practice quizzes,[85]
and out-of-class quizzes that students could take within a reasonable time.
{62}
A major advantage of an interface such as Blackboard is its ability to score
automatically certain types of exercises, provide immediate feedback, and
post the results to a student’s online gradebook.[86] All
of the interface assessment modules provide a variety of faculty options in
terms of viewing quiz results including a gradebook,
which contains a summary list of the student names and their scores.
{63}
While all of the quiz formats appear helpful, the short essay format is particularly
useful in the law school setting. This format can be used in a number of
ways: for example, a professor
may develop a long problem, break it into a series of short quizzes, and over
a period of weeks take student on a step-by-step voyage from the problem’s
beginning to its end. Or,
a professor may use it to give bi-monthly essay quizzes on topics that have
been covered. With practice,
the team found that one can quickly read and grade short student essays directly
from his computer screen.
{64}
Once an instructor is committed to using an assessment module, the challenge
is to prepare quality questions and answers.[87]
From our experience, this is more difficult than it might appear at
first glance, and it can be very time-consuming.
However, once having completed a set of questions and answers, the
second revision goes much faster.
{65}
The team was occasionally asked how the approach it took to developing quizzes
differed from
{66}
E-mail communication played little role in legal education until the early
1990's when personal computers became more available and were networked together
within the academic community. Today, e-mail is widely used and is viewed
as a secure and effective means of communication. Most e-mail uses are well known.
For example, e-mail permits information to be distributed rapidly and
without incurring the costs associated with photocopying and distributing
information via student or faculty mailboxes.
It can also used to schedule committee meetings, distribute minutes,
contact alumni, and initiate scholarly discussion of substantive topics.
{67}
Other uses include communicating with students on a variety of administrative
matters, such as sudden emergencies forcing class cancellation, changed reading
assignments or other unanticipated classroom changes.
It enhances communication with instructors because students can send
an instructor an e-mail question about a particular issue or problem at any
time and from any place they have access to a computer and the Internet.
With little effort, the instructor can respond by sending an answer
to the student question to everyone in the class.[90]
Such a response usually prevents others from sending identical e-mail
questions or unnecessarily visiting the instructor’s office.
{68}
The faculty team found e-mail particularly useful during the annual visit
of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to the college.
For several years, a panel of the Circuit had visited the college and
heard oral arguments with three hundred or more students in attendance.
In past years, paper summaries of the issues raised in the lawyers’
briefs were distributed to a select number of the student body shortly before
the oral arguments. In 2001,
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk’s
office required that all lawyers file a digital and a printed copy of their
brief.[91] Because of this change, it was possible
for the college to obtain a digital copy of each brief filed with the Clerk’s
office prior to the oral arguments.
The digitized briefs were instantly distributed throughout the college
as attachments to an e-mail reminder of the court visit. Consequently, students and faculty
were now able to spend class time prior to the arguments more effectively
by discussing oral advocacy strategies, substantive law, and persuasive writing
techniques.
{69}
E-mail is also a useful tool to support collaborative activities such as student
groups assigned to draft agreements, appellate briefs, complaints, answers,
motions, or other legal documents. Student groups can use e-mail to transmit
their drafts among themselves and receive return e-mail comments from other
members of the group. During this experiment, the author assigned drafting
problems to student groups and encouraged them to use e-mail to continually
discuss their drafts. The effort
was perceived as a success.
{70}
There are, of course, other collaborative activities where e-mail is an important
educational tool.[92]
For example, an instructor can design a discussion problem and send
it to a limited number of students with directions to analyze and e-mail the
analysis back to the instructor within a designated period of time. When the student analysis is received,
the instructor can then send that analysis to a new group of students and
ask them to comment on the original student effort within a designated period
of time. Once all of the
comments have been gathered and compiled by the instructor, they can be distributed
for in-class discussion.[93]
{71}
Another use of e-mail involves an instructor in a seminar setting sending
a problem via e-mail to students with instructions that they assume the legal
personality of a particular member of the Supreme Court.
When adopting that legal personality, students are asked to resolve
the problem by drafting a short opinion that they believe the justice, whose
identity they have assumed, would write.
Before class, students circulate drafts of their opinions for comment
among other members of the pretend-bench using e-mail.
Ultimately, each student sends the instructor and classmates the finished
opinion that the student believes the “pretend” judge would issue.
{72}
E-mail can also be used to obtain outlines and rough drafts of student research
papers. However, because there
is often no e-mail anonymity, final exams are usually not accepted by the
instructor via e-mail.[94]
Anonymity can be protected if the final exams are sent to the Registrar,
Student Services unit, or faculty administrative assistant who strips the
student’s name and prints them out to be graded.[95]
A. Surveys
{73} Blackboard and similar interfaces permit surveys on a variety of matters. For example, one may desire to assess student attitudes toward computer use, course content, or course pace. Surveys may, of course, be administered anonymously.
{74} Threaded discussions provided one of the earliest opportunities for faculty to experiment with enhancing student learning via the computer. While the idea of threaded discussions probably originated with e-mail and the creation of listservs, threaded discussions are commonly held today in modules that programmers have specifically designed and placed into an interface for this activity.[96]
{75}
Threaded discussion modules have many uses. In its simplest form, an instructor can
post a question to the threaded discussion site. When students arrive at the site, they
read the question, and respond by clicking on a link and typing their analysis.
The threads develop as more and more student comments and questions are added
to the discussion, sometimes interspersed with faculty direction and reflection.
{76}
Threaded discussions may be used outside a classroom to continue discussion
of questions raised during a class period or to prepare students in advance
of class for an in-depth discussion of a particular topic.
An instructor can, for example, ask students to submit questions for
possible posting in advance of class and select the more useful of them for
a threaded discussion.
{77}
Threaded discussion modules can be effective learning tools in seminar settings
where a student, who is preparing to present a paper, is asked to submit an
early draft so it can be placed into the threaded discussion module before
the presentation. Once posted,
a question or two about the seminar paper can be put up by the instructor
and a response from a limited number of students requested. When these replies are received, a new
group of students can be assigned to analyze them. This approach should significantly raise
the level of discussion and understanding of a legal problem among the group
when the student paper is finally presented.
{78}
Another use of threaded discussions involves the professor placing new cases
into a threaded discussion module and assigning students the task of analyzing
them and posting their holdings to the module.
This technique may help keep the class up-to-date on the latest developments
in a field and encourage deeper, more reflective classroom thought.
{79}
The faculty team discussed the use of threaded discussions throughout the
two semesters of the experiment; however, they conducted only minimal experiments
with them. Because of their involvement with other
techniques, the team had little time to fully explore the many uses of a threaded
discussion module.
C. Communication With the Instructor
{80} It has been suggested that computerization in the law school environment may discourage office visits and reduce the human contact between students and professor. It has also been suggested that computer use may increase the likelihood that the student, as an attorney will be alienated “from the human client, from the community, and even from himself.”[97] The team did not find evidence to support these views. Usual office visits continued, and in some cases, appear to have increased. In addition, there was a fairly constant stream of questions, problems and contacts via e-mail. The e-mail, which was sometimes viewed by some members of the team as a nuisance on a “really busy day,” allowed team members to gain a significant amount of insight into the section and individual student ability that could not have been obtained without this tool.
{81}
One of the most powerful “hi-tech” learning tools is the synchronous chat
room. This tool, which makes
group discussion possible under almost any condition, has a number of uses.
For example, student study groups can meet from their homes or dormitory
rooms on a blustery winter’s evening to review for exams.
Faculty and administrators can use them for brainstorming, collaboration
projects and general consultation. They
are available around the clock for individual and group tutorials and office
hours. In addition, experts from around the world can be brought into a classroom
via a synchronous chat.[98]
Finally, they can be used for social purposes, such as the student
and teacher greeting each other at the beginning of a class and sharing personal
information such as engagements, births, awards and deaths.
{82}
Given these advantages, why are faculty apparently
so reluctant to use chat rooms? One reason may be a general unfamiliarity
with this mode of communication. Faculty may also lack interest in the
tool as a teaching-learning device, fail to have access to a chat room training
program, or believe that there is insufficient time to plan synchronous discussion
sessions. Faculty may be self-conscious
and fearful of making a typing mistake such as forgetting to put a question
mark after posing a question, or of using the word “course” for “coarse.”
They may also lack typing skills, possess a general fear of failing,
or believe that chat room discussions add little of significance to the learning
process.
{83}
The all-Internet law school,
{84}
{85}
{86}
Students generally like chat rooms. They see them as democratic and gender
neutral, and as a welcome change from the traditional classroom. Typically, traditional classroom settings
are formal, with a professor at the front of the room in total control of
when and upon whom someone will be called. Students sit in assigned seats. Chat rooms, in contrast, are perceived
by students as being quite different from the traditional classroom setting.
In a chat room, they are working as a team with the professor to resolve
a problem. Students also like the freedom to circulate
freely and speak more openly and spontaneously than they can in a traditional
classroom. Finally, most chat
room software allows students to talk to a professor without raising a hand
or having other students necessarily "hear" the question, or even knowing
it is this particular student who is asking it.
{87}
The synchronous chat room, if effectively harnessed, is a powerful pedagogic
tool. It is probably the most
underutilized of all electronic educational tools available to law faculty.
{88}
I am thankful to be part of the "cyberspace
classroom." It has been helpful to learn how to look
up statutes, case law, and Federal law (etc.) during class. Also, I think that our classroom is more
unified and supportive of each other with the heightened level of communication
-- more e-mail, chatrooms, etc. Blackboard is working well as a cyberspace
classroom.[103]
{89}
An unexpected pleasant surprise for the team was to observe the close knit
socialization that occurred among the students in the experimental section.
Team members and others who have observed dozens of first-year law
student sections concluded that in their experience they have never observed
a group “as close” as the experimental “hi-tech” section.[104]
{90}
One explanation may be, as some suggest, that the social impact of e-mail
“serves as the new office water cooler, allowing people to socialize informally
and efficiently.”[105]
E-mail is also claimed to be by nature, "an egalitarian form of communication,"
that reduces the hierarchical distinction between professor and student and
encourages cooperation and the sharing of ideas.[106]
{91}
Another reason for the socialization may have been the regular use of the
assessment tools and fairly constant communication between instructor and
student. These factors may have
removed some of the impersonal atmosphere and the passivity that some claim
a traditional classroom encourages.[107]
Regardless of the reasons, the team was unanimous
in concluding that socialization among the students was the strongest they
had ever witnessed in their more than seventy-five years of collective teaching
experience.
{92}
There is some evidence from this experiment that students using computers
on a regular basis in law school may become more efficient in handling the
chores associated with some law school courses, simply because of their in-class
experience with the machines. Support for this proposition is found
in a Spring 2002 survey conducted by the faculty
teaching William Mitchell’s Writing and Representation course (“WRAP”).[108]
WRAP emphasizes the development of legal writing and research skills.
{93}
The survey asked all students in the five first-year sections to estimate
on average how many hours per week they spent preparing for WRAP, including
class time. The students in the “hi-tech” section
reported that they spent six hours or less per week than did those in sections
one and four. This is a remarkable
figure in view of the fact that all sections had identical work assignments
for the WRAP course throughout the semester.
HOURS STUDENTS SPEND
ON WRAP WORK PER WEEK,
ON AVERAGE, INCLUDING
CLASS TIME[109]
Mean
Standard Deviation
Section 1
14.58
8.5
Section 2
10.97
6.2
Section 3 (“Hi-tech”)
8.11
3.17
Section 4
14.49
6.98
Section 5
12.66
5.89
{94}
The significant difference reported by the survey between the “hi-tech” section
and the other four sections may be explained in part by the fact that as the
spring semester approached, students in the “hi-tech” section had already
spent countless hours both in class and out-of-class with their personal computers,
writing essays, taking exams, and conducting research. Few, if any, students
had similar experiences in the other four sections.
The intimacy of students in the “hi-tech” section with how to conduct
research from a computer keyboard, edit and produce essays made their work
with WRAP much easier. Of some note is the fact that WRAP faculty,
who on occasion receive complaints from students regarding the heavy course
workload, were perceived as having few, if any, complaints.
{95}
I hope that we go further in attempts to use the computer to communicate and
share information in the class. It makes the classroom more dynamic and more
conducive to learning. Do not give up on the technology, continue
to pursue it.[110]
{96}
The experiment was a learning experience for everyone: students, faculty and
the college administration. Many students expressed the belief that
the use of technology was helpful in mastering legal concepts. Presumably, the law school administration
was convinced by the apparent success of the endeavor, having cautiously expanded
its “hi-tech” offering to two sections for the fall 2002 entering class.
[111]
It also announced that two upper division classes, real estate and
family law, would also go “hi-tech.”
{97}
A note of caution, however, about the experiment.
One should approach the issue of requiring computers in the classroom
with care. Our experience suggests that merely requiring
computers in the classroom – without linking the requirement pedagogically
to the classroom experience -- may be somewhat counterproductive.
For students who see the computer as providing a major note taking
advantage, the requirement is meaningless because those students will still
bring their computers to class. For
those who prefer to take notes by hand, the requirement may make little sense. In other words, if computers are required,
one has to provide rational, pedagogical reasons for the mandate.
{98}
The team experience reaffirmed many of the reasons given by others to explain
why “hi-tech” tools are not widely used within the academy.
One finds well-intentioned but relatively modest administrative support
for their classroom use. “Hi-tech”
classrooms are expensive to build and maintain.
In addition, there is fierce competition for faculty time to produce
traditional publications and to experiment and develop “hi-tech” teaching
and learning techniques. There
may also be only modest colleague encouragement and recognition for “hi-tech”
experimentation. Furthermore,
the potential for off-campus, lucrative faculty consulting is an ever present
threat to these time consuming projects.
{99}
Another obstacle is the limited faculty training in the use of “hi-tech” software
and hardware, which generally carries a relatively low university or college
funding priority. For example, faculty involved in this
endeavor mastered the use of the “hi-tech” hardware and software with little
inside or outside training; however, a formal pre-training effort would have
reduced the time spent learning simple procedures-time that could have been
better spent developing “hi-tech” techniques, problems, and illustrations.[112]
Unfortunately, and in light of the U.S. News and World Report
law school rankings race, it is questionable whether a major change in teaching
methods will occur in the 186 or so accredited American Bar Association law
schools.
{100}
There are also more subtle obstacles that may discourage classroom computer
use. For example, our law school
provides students with lockers; however, they are not large enough to permit
computer storage. This tends to discourage some students
from using computers because they do not want to carry them back and forth
from their living facilities to the law school. Another example is the absence of
student classroom access to power to run their computers. Without power in all classrooms and seminar
rooms, the nuisance of dead batteries on student computers will quickly put
a damper on a computer project.
{101}
On a positive note, we found that a short pre-first-day orientation and computer
registration program, where the IS staff installs wireless cards and checks
over each student’s computer was extremely helpful to the success of the project.
However, students could have used an in-house computer loan/repair
program that allowed them to temporarily check out a computer while their
machine was being repaired.[113]
{102}
Faculty who develop a “hi-tech” learning environment should be equipped with
the fastest computers the institution’s budget can tolerate.
The reason for this is that computer speed makes handling the increased
volume of e-mail, postings, and Internet research much faster and less frustrating. Frustration is another barrier to wide-spread
educational use of computers.
{103}
The role of a college or university IS unit is critical to the success of
a “hi-tech” project. An IS unit that enthusiastically supports
a project and is committed to 24/7 support can make a significant difference
in the outcome of a “hi-tech” experiment. To encourage cooperation and develop a
positive spirit between faculty, students and the IS personnel, the team invited
the IS unit to student parties and special events and provided several opportunities
where the IS staff could discuss computer problems with the students.
One result was the observable pride the IS unit took in the project
and the special attention to student concerns that flowed from their pride. The esprit de corps permeated their
work and helped give struggling students confidence
in operating their computers and access Blackboard.
{104}
The College Registrar can play a helpful role in encouraging the use of computers
in the classroom by reducing the need to move first-year students and computers
from room to room between classes. Computer usage is discouraged when students
are forced to move between classes with an armload of books, coats, and computer
bags.
{105}
There appears little reason why law school courses are not administered by
faculty using an interface such as Blackboard, TWEN or WebCT.
The administrative functions these interfaces offer are simple to learn,
require minimal maintenance, and are reasonably reliable.[114]
For faculty who abhor the thought of any use of technology, support
staff can be trained to post syllabi, send e-mail, and create links to statutes,
cases and other material.
{106}
The experiment was a pleasant teaching experience for the team, who reveled
in the growth of student confidence in their ability to master the operation
of a computer and to conduct research, take notes, and stay engaged in classroom
discussion. At the end of the
experiment, the team felt that students with few or modest skills had become
very proficient at using a computer and accessing and using the Internet –
skills that will aid them as they enter their legal careers.
Furthermore, the indication garnered from the WRAP survey that students
in some courses are saving a large amount of time with computers is significant.
{107}
These are clearly early days in the use of technology to enhance learning
in a law school classroom. However, the team is satisfied that technology
can be integrated into a traditional law school classroom and that its use
carries the potential of significantly enhancing student learning. Much more needs to be done, and progress
in this area will require solid administrative support and faculty courage. It is hoped that both commodities will
increase in availability and usage as the digital age continues to unfold.
[1] Survey
of the William Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students
(anonymous quotation) (2001) (on file with the University of Richmond
Journal of Law and Technology).
[2] In one sense, this may not
be that unusual. After all,
most law faculties are the product of an educational system that was driven
by traditional teaching approaches. Their educational experiences were textbook-driven,
and their primary goal was to master information found in books.
This may explain, at least in part, their reluctance to experiment
with “hi-tech” teaching tools to enhance classroom learning.
[3] Law professors increasingly
are using [technology and] the Internet to supplement their course materials
and enhance their teaching skills. They are using it to create interactive,
educational computer software, to provide a forum for peer review of student
work products, to encourage collaborative learning, to provide a structured
out-of-classroom learning environment, to foster a tighter community of
educators, to extend office hours, to supplement and update class materials,
and to promote faculty collegiality.
But does Web based instruction work in the
classroom?
Jayne Elizabeth Zanglein & Katherine Austin Stalcup, Te(a)chnology: Web Based Instruction in Legal Skills Courses,
49 J. LEGAL
EDUC. 480, 480 (1999) (footnotes
omitted).
[4]
[5] There were also some electronic
experiments conducted in the section’s Writing & Representation: Advise
& Persuasion (WRAP) course. One
of them involved transmission of writing projects, which were graded anonymously.
[6] In American Legal Education,
the primary pedagogical mode still is a Socratic, case-based, classroom
discussion of cases assigned from a (usually non-electronic) casebook.
In practice, American law professors often interleave Socratic discussion
with a lecture mode of teaching. In
addition, at least four other general teaching modes have become increasingly
popular: (1) legal practicum courses, (2) legal clinical courses, (3) role
playing exercises, and (4) problem-based teaching.
Kevin D. Ashley, What I
Told the Law and Computers Association of
[7] The faculty team consisted
of Professors Christina Kunz (contracts), Robert Oliphant (civil procedure),
Eileen Roberts (property) and Michael Steenson (torts).
[8] The team sought to avoid
technology from becoming the focal point in the classrooms and thereby
overshadowing the development of fundamental skills such as legal analysis and
reasoning.
[9] The college offers five first-year
sections with approximately sixty students in each section.
[10] The courses offered were
civil procedure, contracts, property and torts.
[11] Twenty-nine female and
twenty-six male students completed the two-semester course in at least one of
the four courses offered. The ratio
in at least one course was thirty females to twenty-six male students (the
disparity results because all students were not required to enroll in all four
courses).
[12] There was some initial
thought that only computer proficient “geeks” would be attracted to the
section. The team was delighted
with the section’s diversity in terms of the wide-range of computer ability
demonstrated by the students.
[13] Laptops were not required
for the first-year students in the other four
sections.
[14] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students, supra
note 1.
[15] For a variety of reasons,
the college purchased the Blackboard interface and located it on its own
server.
[16] It is extremely important
to equip faculty in a program such as this with very fast computers. The difference between using an IBM 486
and a Dell 8200 is night and day.
Without a computer properly equipped with a significant amount of RAM,
handling the chores related to effectively operating a modern interface can
become frustrating.
[17] The author does not
recommend the use of rear projection system in a hi-tech classroom because of
the cost, quality of projected image, and the recent development of powerful,
reasonably priced, quiet projectors that can be easily attached to the ceiling
of a classroom.
[18] The classroom was equipped
with a stereophonic sound system with small speakers placed throughout the
facility. This eliminated any dead
spots, which interfere with sound transmission, and insured that whatever a
professor said was easily heard by a student. To be effective, of course, the teacher
had to use a portable or standalone microphone.
[19] Lighting is probably one of
the more overlooked considerations in hi-tech rooms. Students should sit in a brightly
lighted classroom and the area where the video screens are located should be
darkened. Occasionally, a faculty
member may want a portion or virtually all of the room quite dim in order to
show a video tape, or for some other reason. When putting a lighting system into a
“hi-tech” classroom, there should be a minimum of five separate lighting
settings available to the faculty from the Crestron
controller.
[20] The team would have
preferred installation of additional software that allows easy two-way
communication between the instructor and students in the
classroom.
[21] When enhancing a classroom
through the use of Blackboard, TWEN,
[22] Ronald H. Silverman, Weak
Law Teaching, Adam Smith and a New Model of Merit Pay,
9 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 267, 273-74 (2000) (quoting Robert M. Hutchins, The
Current of Legal Education, 1929 KY.
B. Ass’n J. 258, 271).
[23] See Paul T. Wangerin, Learning Strategies for Law Students, 52
ALB. L. REV.
471 (1988). A “learning strategy” is a technique for maximizing learning
from instruction including teacher study, time management, efficient reading,
note taking, review, and problem solving.
[24] See Zanglein & Stalcup,
supra note 3 at 481.
[25] Zanglein & Stalcup,
supra note 3 at 481.
[26] "Law school instruction
typically uses the Socratic method, or some variation
of it . . . . The Socratic
instructor does not present an analysis of a legal issue to students who
passively record that analysis in their notes; rather, the students themselves
construct the analysis in response to questions the instructor poses." Richard
Warner et al., Teaching Law with Computers, 24 RUTGERS COMPUTER
& TECH. L.J. 107, 112 (1998), available
at http://www.kentlaw.edu/distancelearning/papers/eteach.html;
see also Steven I. Friedland, How We Teach: A Survey of Teaching Techniques
in American Law Schools, 20 SEATTLE
L. REV. 1, 31 (1996) (noting that twenty-one
and forty-eight percent of law school faculty surveyed stated that they
did not rely entirely on the Socratic method of teaching but used a variety
of teaching techniques and methodologies, including drafting and “writing
projects, student presentations, watching videos, guest lectures, simulations,
and demonstrations”).
[27] Zanglein & Stalcup,
supra note 3 at 481.
[28] Zanglein & Stalcup,
supra note 3 at 481.
[29] Zanglein & Stalcup,
supra note 3 at 481.
[30] "Many teachers are especially
reluctant to try innovative methods in large classes." Gerald F. Hess,
Seven Principles for Good Practice Legal Education: Principle 3: Good
Practice Encourages Active Learning, 49 J. LEGAL EDUC. 401, 405 (1999).
[31] See generally
Zanglein & Stalcup,
supra note 3. A number of
learning theories are discussed in this article. In part, the authors argue
that a law school classroom may consist of analytic
and global learners, left-brained and right-brained learners. Zanglein &
Stalcup, supra note 3 at
484-85.
[32] Zanglein & Stalcup, supra
note 3 at 485. The Zanglein article discusses
the Myers‑Briggs Type Indicator test, which is an inventory that categorizes
personalities according to Jung's theory of personality preferences.
See generally Vernellia R. Randall,
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, First Year Law Students
and Performance, 26 CUMB. L. REV. 63 (1995)
(comparing performance in law school with Myers-Briggs test output).
[33] Zanglein &
Stalcup, supra note 3, at 488 n. 45. See generally HOWARD GARDNER,
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES:
THE THEORY
IN PRACTICE (Basic Books
1993); HOWARD
GARDNER, FRAMES OF
MIND: THE THEORY
OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES
(Basic Books 1983).
[34] See David M. Becker, Some Concerns About
the Future of Legal Education, 51 J.
LEGAL EDUC.
469, 484 (2001) (evincing concern that technology may promote distance,
and not closeness between people, depersonalization, and a decline of civility).
[35] "[T]he only interaction
many law students get in large lecture classes is to ‘lay eyes’ on the professor.
Students may get the interaction when called upon, but in large classes
that might only happen twice a term. Otherwise, the experience is often
as distant as could be." Josh Ard, Serving Over the Net: Legal Education Over the Internet, 79 MICH. B.J. 1050
(2000) (quoting Posting of William Boletta, student
at
[36] “The claim that computers
can be effective tools for achieving important pedagogical goals naturally
raises the question: What goals? We
will focus on three widely accepted aims:
(1) Imparting a basic knowledge of black letter rules. An adequate knowledge of an area of law
requires knowledge of the relevant legal rules. Of course, knowing the black
letter rules is a far cry from understanding the law. Part of understanding the law is knowing the underlying rationales the various purposes
behind the black letter rules. Hence, the second goal: (2) Developing an
understanding of the rationales underlying the rules. The purpose of a rule guides its
application to fact patterns and is the key to identifying and justifying
exceptions and to resolving conflicts with other rules. Of course, you can, in three years of
law school, teach only a small fraction of black letter rules and associated
rationales, no matter how intensively you try to educate students. This is one reason it is essential for
students to learn how to master new areas of the law on their own. This implicates the third goal: (3)
Developing the ability to analyze legal issues independently.”
Richard Warner, et al., supra note 26 at 110-111.
[37]
See Ellen Freedman & Donald J. Martin, New Tricks, Learning to
Use Courtroom Presentation Tools, 23 PA.
LAW.
28 (2001).
[38] Id. at 29; see
also Roger Crampton, The Current State of the Law Curriculum,
32 J. LEGAL EDUC. 321, 322 (1982) (arguing
that the “central aspect of learning is that the initiative and energy must
come from the learner; our task as teachers is to organize, inspire, and
facilitate the learner in acquiring new knowledge, skills, and potentialities.”)
[39] See Michael A. Geist, Where Can You Go Today?: The Computerization of Legal Education From Workbooks to
the Web, 11 HARV. J.L. & TECH.
141, 143 (1997) (noting that “many faculty members remain somewhat wary
of these technological changes”); see generally Robert H. Thomas,
“Hey, Did You Get My E-Mail?” Reflections of a Retro Grouch in the Computer
Age of Legal Education, 44 J.
LEGAL EDUC. 233, 233 (1994) (asking
whether the “relatively recent introduction of computers to law schools
affect[s] the perceived or real decline in the profession”).
[40] Publication is heavily
weighted in tenure decisions. This
emphasis on scholarship derives from law schools' aspirations for upward
mobility within the law school hierarchy.
Law schools enhance their prestige based, in significant part, on faculty
publications; teaching skill or effectiveness is not considered in the rankings.
Thus, law professors, like most academics, have an incentive to be minimally
competent teachers and excellent scholars.
Michael Hunter Schwartz, Teaching
Law by Design: How Learning Theory and Instructional Design Can Inform and
Reform Law Teaching, 38
[41] Shelley
Ross Saxer, One Professor’s Approach to Increasing
Technology Use in Legal Education, 6 RICH. J.L. & TECH.
21, 2 (2000) (finding that the legal profession is becoming less resistant
to change in the technology area by noting examples of increased use of
technology in law firms and the televised O.J. Simpson trial).
[42] See Schwartz, supra note 40, at
360-62.
[43] See Geist,
supra note 39, at 162.
[44] See Hess, supra note 30, at 405. “One reason for faculty resistance to
innovation in teaching is the time and energy required to learn new techniques.
It is certainly true that significant change in instructional methods requires
an initial investment of time. Teachers, like their students, cannot learn new
skills without commitment and effort.”
[45] “One can anticipate that
the biggest source of faculty opposition to distance learning techniques will
derive from the professors' sense of independence and tradition. Most of us
honor Justice Holmes' maxim that we should do legal education not only in a
competent matter but also in the ‘Grand manner.’ The paradigm of a successful
law school class involves considerable theater. There is great ego satisfaction
in teaching one of these classes. To the extent that distance learning
technology pulls professors off center stage in the classroom and turns then
[sic] into video producers and casting directors, the thrill of teaching law
will diminish.”
Henry H. Perritt, Jr., The Internet is Changing the Face of American
Law Schools, 33 IND.
L. REV. 253, 273 (1999); see, e.g., Hess,
supra note 30, at 405.
[46] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students, supra
note 1.
[47] Ian Ayres, Lectures vs. Laptops, N.Y. TIMES,
[48] During listserv discussions
about classroom control, triggered by this opinion piece, some faculty suggested
that laptops be banned. One
professor asked, “Is there no effective control?” Anonymous
posting to listserv (copy on file with
author).
[49]
[50]
[51] Warner et al., supra note 26, at 141; see also Geist
supra note 39, at 143 (observing that "many faculty members remain
somewhat wary of these technological changes"); William R. Slomanson, Electronic Lawyering
and the Academy, 48 J. LEGAL
EDUC. 216, 216 (1998) (suggesting
that the use of technology in legal education may be the responsibility
of all legal educators); see generally Ronald W. Staudt,
Computers at the Core of Legal Education: Experiments at IIT Chicago-Kent
College of Law, 35 J. LEGAL EDUC. 514 (1985) (describing
the IIT Center for Law and Computers as an institution that works towards
improving the productivity for lawyers and law students through technology);
David J. Maume, Jr. & Ronald W. Staudt,
Computer Use and Success in the First Year of Law School, 37 J. LEGAL EDUC. 388 (1987) (explaining
the goals of the IIT Center for Law and Computers as using technology in
order to “increase the learning capacity and motivation of the student”). Contra Thomas, supra note
39, at 233 (expressing concern that the “recent introduction of computers
to law schools affect[s] the perceived or real decline in the profession").
[52] The switch was not
an effective tool because students could still reach the Internet via wireless
cards transmitting from outside the classroom.
[53] Instructors who used the
portable microphone and “roamed” the classroom presented a formidable deterrent
to using the computer for fun and games.
Calling on students at random, and especially (but only occasionally) on
those suspected of game playing, is an additional technique that reduces
distracting student behavior.
Preparing in advance of class to use techniques that rely on student
computers is the best deterrent and probably the most challenging for most
faculty.
[54] The Virtual Classroom
develops an archive of the discussion and while conducting a routine check of
that tool the professor discovered the
conversations.
[55] Blackboard allows
instructor to activate or disable various features at any
time.
[56]
See Warner et al., supra note 26, at 140-41.
[57] Warner et al., supra
note 26, at 140-41.
[58] Students were given the
option of taking their exams on the computer or in the traditional
manner.
[59] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students, supra
note 1.
[60] To the extent that a
student possesses typing skills, the ability to take notes is enhanced. But see Saxer, supra note 41,
at 10 (reporting that some students found technology to be a hindrance to
classroom discussion).
[61] Warner et al., supra
note 26, at 139-40.
[62] Saxer, supra note 41, at
10.
[63] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students, supra
note 1.
[64] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students, supra
note 1.
[65] See Ashley, supra note 6, at
558.
[66] Note that while in
Microsoft Word, type faces may be increased or decreased in size by simply
holding down the control key with the left hand and using the roller ball on the
mouse in the right hand as a zoom key.
[67] Depending on the
circumstances, a professor may prefer to discuss the submission
anonymously.
[68] Blackboard, WebCt,
TWEN.
[69] This assumes that each
student has the full version of PowerPoint, which permits editing and note
taking. Microsoft provides a free viewer-only software program for PowerPoint,
which can be downloaded from its web site.
[70] See Ashley, supra note 6, at
558.
[71] See Warner et al., supra note 26, at
115.
[72] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students, supra
note 1.
[73] The effort to discover and
effectively use Internet sites in the classroom rests primarily upon the
persistence and teaching talent of the instructor.
[74] See Welcome to the
Legal Information Institute, at http://www.law.cornell.edu/ (last
modified
[75]
See Clifford Britt,
Focus Finding and Investigating Medical Experts on the Internet, NCATL TRIALBRIEFS
MAGAZINE, Sept. 2000, available at 2000 WL 33768186.
[76]
[77] Environmental Protection Agency, at http://www.epa.gov/ (last modified
[78] See generally Paul
E. Washington & Michael Stefanoudakis, The
Internet: A Great Resource for Corporate Lawyers,
28 COLO.
LAW. 65 (Apr. 1999).
[79] See, e.g., Fletcher-Ginn-Multilateral Project, at http://www.tufts.edu/fletcher/multilaterals.htm
(last modified
[80] "[P]robably the key piece of missing content that needs ramping
up for both [law school] distributive and distance learning models alike
are interactive quizzes and similar self-evaluating products that provide
quantitative and qualitative indications of progress through a course."
Nicolas P. Terry, Bricks Plus Bytes: How ‘Click-and-Brick’ will Define
Legal Education Space, 46 VILL. L. REV. 95, 121 (2001).
[81] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students, supra
note 1.
[82] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students, supra
note 1.
[83] One possible use of the
quiz module is to give an in-class pop quiz and produce the student answers on
the video screen for discussion.
[84]Additional computers were
placed in the classroom by the college IS department on the examination date as
backups should a laptop computer malfunction.
[85] These were given during the
last twenty minutes of a class.
Should a student laptop malfunction, students were asked to go to the
computer lab to complete the exercises.
[86] An instructor has a variety
of avenues regarding the use of the module. The quizzes may be taken anonymously or
by name. The gradebook can deliver grades automatically via the computer
or may choose to keep them unavailable.
[87] Only after students had
taken an assessment exam were the answers provided.
[88] The Center for
Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI) is a consortium of law schools that
researches and develops computer-mediated legal instruction and supports
institutions and individuals using technology in legal education. There are over
150 lessons in 27 different areas of law. Center for Computer-Assisted Legal
Information: About CALI, at http://www.cali.org/about/ (last modified
[89]
[90] It should be noted that the
team did not establish ground rules regarding civility of anonymous posting of
e-mail messages. While it
encountered no problem with these issues, it is probably a good idea to
establish such ground rules.
[91] 8th Cir. R. 28A(d), available at, http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/newcoa/coaFrame.html
(click on “Rules and Publications,” then click on “Local Rules of the Eighth
Circuit NEW-Effective December 2002”).
Additional current instructions for filing with the Eighth Circuit are
available online. See Court
of Appeals Information Search, at http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/index.html
(last modified
[92] Some also use e-mail or
online discussion groups to facilitate out-of-classroom discussion of the
material. A kind of electronic
bulletin board, an online discussion group helps participants keep track of
messages. “Typically, messages are
listed, or ‘threaded,’ by topic and, within topics, by date and time.” Ashley, supra note 6, at 558
(quoting Warner, et al., supra note 26, at 148). “E-mail and discussion groups might be
especially useful for supporting the collaborative activities of students
participating in legal practicum courses and legal clinics, preparing for moot
court arguments, and discussing cases in a problem-based course.” Ashley, supra note 6, at 558
(citing Warner et al., supra note 26, at 146-
47).
[93] A similar exercise can be
developed through the use of threaded discussions on Blackboard.
[94] At the time this article
was written, it appeared that TWEN had a special program that allowed anonymous
submissions and that Blackboard was developing one for release of version 6 of
its software.
[95] The student exam
identification number is retained.
[96] Blackboard, WebCT and TWEN all contain these
modules.
[97]
See Thomas, supra note 39,
at 233 (citing Maria L. Ciampi, The
I and Thou: A New Dialogue for the Law, 58
U. CIN.
L. REV. 881,
881-82 (1990)).
[98] Experts from around the
world can be brought into the classroom for class-wide discussion via a chat
room. Furthermore, the experts can
communicate and share information with the students without imposing on the
educational institution the normal costs associated with the expert's travel and
related matters.
[99] See Concord
University School of Law, http://www.concordlawschool.com/
(last visited
[100] See Robert E. Oliphant,
Will Internet Driven
[101] See Real.com – Real
Player is now RealOne Player, at http://www.real.com/?pv=11 (last modified
[102] Faculty members using
traditional software are sometimes challenged for control by students, who view
a chat room as an opportunity for “serious fun” rather than a place for “dreary
pedagogy.”
[103] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students, supra
note 1.
[104] Associate Dean of Skills at
William Mitchell, Debra Schmedemann, has observed:
“There are other additional
explanations for the cohesion among the section 3 students. One is self-selection: people who chose
to be in the experiment probably share certain personality traits, e.g.,
flexibility. Another is the
experimental effect: people knew
they were doing something unique, experienced additional faculty and
administrative investment, etc. I
think social science would support both of these theories. Neither is necessarily better than
yours, of course.”
[105] Saxer, supra note 41, at 24 (citing Thomas, supra
note 26, at 240).
[106] Saxer, supra note 41, at 24 (citing Thomas, supra
note 26, at 240-41).
[107] See generally Cheryl
M. Herden, Note, Women in Legal Education:
A Feminist Analysis of Law School, 63 REV. JUR.
U.P.R. 551 (1994) (asserting that the impersonal atmosphere and traditional
manner of instruction in many law classes cause female law students to learn
passively and to fail to question their professors and their education).
[108] Survey of
the William Mitchell College of Law Writing and Representation Course (copy on
file with author). Faculty
conducting the WRAP survey include:
Associate Dean of Skills Deborah Schmedemann
and Professor Kenneth Kirwin.
[109] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law WRAP, supra note 108.
[110] Survey of the William
Mitchell College of Law experimental “hi-tech” section students, supra
note 1.
[111] The three remaining
sections were taught in the traditional fashion.
[112] When training does occur,
the most successful efforts are those administered in a non-threatening,
positive training environment such as private, individual in a faculty member’s
office. Group faculty training is very difficult.
[113] There are other ways in
which a college can encourage computer usage. For example, making an Information
Services person readily available to handle minor repairs or other questions is
very useful. Creating a computer
help e-mail program that is staffed by experienced computer users is another
helpful measure.
[114] If funding is an issue, TWEN
and Blackboard can also be created by law faculty without the need to purchase
an interface by going to the LEXIS or WESTLAW law school web site and registering.