|
What's It For ?
A few
months ago, I purchased a toy tool set for my one-year-old son. I expected that he would find some interest
in the colorful plastic hammer, wrench, and screwdriver; but he simply ignored
my offerings. One day my husband used a
hammer to open a stuck heating vent on the floor. Immediately, my son toddled to his toy box
and began rummaging. After a minute or
two, he appeared triumphant with the plastic hammer in hand and began pounding
the heating vent. "So that's what
it's for!"
Sometimes I think I have less sense than my toddler when it comes
to new toys. Presented with new
technology (like video capabilities in the classroom; or computers that can
allow me to instruct or communicate electronically with my students) I do not
consider why I might use the technology, I simply run to play.
Videos of attorneys committing
malpractice? How dramatic, I'll show
it. Computer-assisted
instruction? Sounds fun, I'll
assign it.
Virtual computer multi-media simulations
of client counseling?
You bet!
I'm not alone, I'm sure. In
a talk he gave to the Association of American Publishers Higher Education
Division, Bill Geoghegan of IBM asked, “Why do
exciting new applications of information technology with apparently great
potential to improve learning and teaching seem to begin with a roar
and....then stall and fade?". The
answer simply must be that educators are focussing on
the technology instead of on the learning. [1]
To effectively use technology to teach professional
responsibility, we must first ask: "What do I want my students to
learn?" Only then can we consider
whether technology offers a superior strategy for helping students to
learn. I would presume, based on the structure and content of most textbooks in
the field, that most professional responsibility teachers share some common
learning goals for their students. We
want our students to be able to identify fundamental ethical and regulatory
issues that will arise in law practice.
We want our students to know and understand the legal rules that address
those issues and the trends and tensions implicit in those rules. We want students to be able to critically
analyze these issues, from a legal perspective but also from other perspectives
as well (practical, political, economic, ethical, historical, etc.). In addition to applying the skills of
"legal analysis" to professional responsibility, students should
learn how to exercise sound practical judgment guided by personal moral or
ethical standards and to articulate this decision-making process.
How can technology help us lead our students toward achieving
these learning goals? Learning occurs
where teachers are enthusiastic and knowledgeable about their subject and when
they structure their classes to provide an appropriate motivational context, a
high degree of learning activity, interaction with others, and a
well-structured knowledge base. [2] All of those goals can be accomplished well
without technology. However, technology
does provide some tools that can assist in creating this active learning
environment. Two "problem
areas" in teaching professional responsibility are creating an appropriate
motivational context and providing a setting for high-quality interaction. I will suggest ways in which computer
technology might be used to improve learning in these two aspects.
Using Technology To
Address the Motivational Dilemma
One problem in teaching professional responsibility is creating an
appropriate motivational context for students to achieve this broad range of
learning goals. A recent thread on the
Internet Lawprof discussion list addressed the
attitude of students toward professional responsibility courses. The 25 responses to the informal survey were
split roughly even between those who indicated that students were less prepared
or interested in professional responsibility than other courses and those who
noticed no difference in student interest.
This is not a scientific survey to be sure, but an interesting
indication that, for at least some law schools, the student response to
professional responsibility is less enthusiastic than for other courses. Other anecdotal evidence seconds this
observation. [3] I believe that an
important aspect of that motivational problem, and a problem that technology
can be used to solve, is the tension between the learning goals of the students
and the teaching goals of the faculty.
Law students are predominantly practical and positivist: they want
to know what the law is and how they will use it. Law professors are philosophical and realist:
they want students to learn what the law might be and why. That tension between rote learning of
"black letter" and critical, theoretical analysis of doctrines is
exacerbated in professional responsibility because of the looming presence of
the Multi-state Professional Responsibility Examination. Since the MPRE can test only those areas of
regulation that have relatively clear and consistent answers, students want to
direct their energies toward mastery of those topics. Faculty members find these topics the least
interesting and important aspects of the course. Of course that tension is present in any
course subject to bar examination.
However, unlike the bar exam to which students direct their energies
primarily after graduation, students often take the MPRE during law school. Forty-seven of the 55
Here is a problem that technology is nicely suited to solve. To the extent that students can satisfy
independently their need to prepare for the MPRE and to identify and master
those relatively stable areas of the law of lawyering,
class time can be used to explore the more challenging (and interesting)
questions. Computer assisted
instruction (CAI) is an excellent tool for enabling students to independently
master black letter rules and practice multiple-choice examination technique. Instructors could make use of CAI in one of
several ways. First, faculty could
simply provide the instructional programs for students to use in their own time
and their own way. CALI provides a library of professional
responsibility lessons. Most of the
library consists of drills on the Model Rules and Code, though a series of
topic specific lessons are under development. BAR/BRI has recently released an
MPRE-style computerized legal instruction program "StudySmart." Students can use these comprehensive review
lessons to prepare for the MPRE.
CAI instructional "sets" can also be prepared for each
of the topics to be covered in class.
Students can be required to complete these sets as part of their class
preparation. (The Problems in Legal
Ethics text by Professors Schwartz, Wydick & Perchbacher uses this technique in paper form, with a few multiple choice
questions at the end of each chapter).
Of course, this method requires faculty time to prepare these
instructional sets. One efficient
method of generating these problems would be sharing among faculty. The professional responsibility exam bank organized
by Professor Ellen Suni of
the University of Missouri - Kansas City provides a rich source of multiple
choice questions to be used as final examinations; the contributing faculty may
consent to having their questions used in computerized form as well. A second method of generating questions, one
which provides additional learning exercise, is for the students to generate
their own multiple choice questions.
Faculty would need to review and edit the submissions, but students can
be a surprisingly rich source of well-constructed objective questions. I understand that the commercial bar review
companies often ask students who have just completed an exam to
"reconstruct" bar examination questions from memory, which is another
possibility (though copyright issues make me a bit nervous about this). From whatever source one draws the questions, they must then be put in computerized form. There are a number of "shareware" computer
assisted instruction programs, as well as the CALI-AUTHOR authoring software
available from
In the future, this tension between the learning goals of teachers
and students could also be mediated through the use of electronic textbooks, in
which students have more control over their learning. Students could, in reading an assignment,
"jump" to additional resources or connect to an on-line research
service to read more about a subject.
Computer assisted drills could be integrated into the text itself, again
available to the student at the place and time in their study that is most
productive. However, many faculty
members still become a bit woozy when faced with the notion of electronic
textbooks delivered over the Internet.
My proposition here is that even the most technologically faint of heart
can use CAI in supplementing their professional responsibility teaching.
Of course, more than technology is required to create a
motivational context for students to focus on the "grey" areas of
professional responsibility. However,
by using CAI to meet the immediate learning goals of students for mastery of
"black letter" we have, at a minimum, removed a motivational distraction" from the core of our class,
as well as showing the respect for student needs that creates an atmosphere
of trust.
Using Technology to Enhance Collaborative Learning
A second aspect of professional responsibility that makes teaching
difficult is the very personal nature of the decisions to be made. The ethical or regulatory dilemmas students
face are their own, not those of clients.
Learning to articulate your own perspectives on these dilemmas and
understanding the perspectives of others is critical to sound lawyering judgment.
However, students sometimes are reluctant to publicly exercise personal
judgment, especially when asked to do so in response to a question posed in a
large classroom setting. This leaves
the discussion in the hands of those students who are glib, doctrinare,
or fearless enough to speak. How can we
facilitate enriching discussion of these issues without shutting out a
significant portion of the class? There
are, of course, a number of low-tech solutions: small classes and regular use
of personal reflection papers are two.
These are high-cost solutions, however.
Technology may provide a more cost-efficient (perhaps even more
effective) method of creating a safe environment for student to develop and
share the products of their practical, ethical reasoning. Discussion lists over the Internet allow
students to post their own responses to problems or questions posed by the
faculty member or by fellow students.
There are several advantages here.
First, students can respond in as glib or carefully considered a fashion
as their personality prefers. This opens
up the discussion to students who would not otherwise respond in class because
they need time to ponder before they feel comfortable talking. Second, students can respond whenever they
wish -- opening the discussion to those students whose brains don't function in the hour after lunch at which your class
is scheduled. Third, students respond in
writing. This opens up discussion to
those students who are more comfortable articulating their ideas in writing and
also adds the tone of precision that written discussion often encourages. Fourth, students respond to each other. We are all familiar with the classroom
phenomenon of a "discussion" in which all communication flows through
the faculty member. In computerized
discussions, given some time and freedom, students will teach each other as
well as the faculty might. Thus, computerized
discussions can create a truly collaborative learning environment, if the
faculty member sets the tone and facilitates without undue control. Finally, there is more personal distance in
discussions over a computer than in face-to-face discussions in class. In that setting students may take more risks
in posing questions and responses. The
readers, as well, will respond differently to the messages conveyed in this
medium than in oral discussions.
While the "impersonal" aspect of computer discussion has
distinct advantages in making more voices heard more easily, it also poses an
independent problem. Students may more
readily risk engaging in unfair discussion tactics as well. Two technological aspects of these
discussion lists can be used to address this potential problem. One aspect is the degree of faculty control over
postings. A list can be constructed so
that all messages go first to the faculty member (the "list manager"
in this context) who can then exercise editorial judgment before posting them
to the list (for all students to then read).
Alternately, the list can be set up so any messages posted are
transmitted automatically to all list members.
A second factor is the identification of list members. Faculty will need to decide (unless their
university computer system has foreclosed the decision) whether anonymous
postings will be permissible. Obviously,
varying control or anonymity can significantly affect the tone and range of the
resulting discussions.
Again, for faculty who are uncomfortable with technologies, this is
a relatively user-friendly method of generating discussion. The university or law school computer experts
will set up the list for you.
Westlaw’s TWEN
fora can provide a similar service. There
is some "housekeeping" work in reading and (if you retain control)
editing and relaying messages. However,
the costs in overall faculty time are less than in teaching more, smaller
classes or in responding to individual student essays.
Conclusion
Technology can be a powerful tool for teaching. But its power lies in the ability of teachers
to decide what they want students to learn and how to create the environment
that will allow that learning to occur.
We can use technology to improve the quality and efficiency of our
teaching. If we use technology to
simply "repackage" our standard teaching, we should not expect
improvements in quality of learning (though there may be significant efficiency
gains). New technologies will impact our
teaching the most if they challenge us to re-think not only methods but also
our learning environments and goals.
[1] Shirley Alexander, Teaching and Learning on the World Wide Web, Institute for Interactive Multimedia, University of Technology, Sydney, http://www.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb95/papers/education2/alexander/
[2] James Rhem, Going Deep, 5:1 National Teaching & Learning Forum (Dec. 1995), http://www.ntlf.com/html/pi/9512/article2.htm
.