Garon, P L; Gely, R --- "Taking Back the Law School Classroom: Using Technology to Foster Active Student Learning" [2006] LegEdDig 17; (2006) 14(3) Legal Education Digest 22

Taking Back the Law School Classroom: Using Technology to Foster Active Student Learning

P L Caron & R Gely

[2006] LegEdDig 17; (2006) 14(3) Legal Education Digest 22

54 J Leg Educ 4, 2004, pp 551–569

Law schools have witnessed an explosive growth in the use of technology in the classroom. Many law teachers now deploy a wide array of technological bells and whistles, including PowerPoint slides, Web-based course platforms, in-class Internet access, and the like. Students, in turn, increasingly come to class armed with laptop computers to harvest the fruits of the classroom experience. Yet in recent years there has been something of a backlash, with various law teachers arguing that this technology is interfering with, rather than improving, pedagogy in the classroom. According to the critics, the technology increases student passivity and thus interferes with the active learning that should be the hallmark of a law school classroom. In addition, the critics complain that laptops provide too much competition for the students’ attention.

Active learning is based on two premises: learning by its nature is an active process, and different people learn in different ways. Active learning recognises that, during classroom time, students should be engaged in behaviour and activities other than listening. Active learning requires students to undertake higher-order thinking, forcing them to engage in analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Because less emphasis is placed on the passive receipt of information transmitted by an instructor, students must engage in other learning activities during class time — talking, writing, reading, reflecting, and evaluating information received. Similarly, writing forces students to clarify their thoughts. As part of the classroom experience, writing can be particularly useful in giving the teacher feedback on how students are internalising the class discussion.

Somewhat counter intuitively, both reading and reflecting are critical elements of active learning. Reading forces a student to clarify not only his own thinking, but what others are thinking, or at least the ideas that others are trying to convey. Active learning can be facilitated through a number of learning strategies. Compared to the traditional undergraduate classroom, the learning that takes place in law school at first glance appears to be significantly more active. Because of the prevalence of the Socratic method, law students frequently participate in class by orally responding to questions fired at them by their teacher. However, under this method, the typical classroom interaction is a one-on-one dialogue between the teacher and one student. Except for the student who happens to be sitting on the hot seat, no one else actively participates in the dialogue. The Socratic method is based on the assumption, or perhaps the hope, that the students not selected to engage in the one-on-one dialogue nevertheless will play along by mentally following the dialogue, answering the questions to themselves concurrently with the student doing the talking.

Legal education involves a large dosage of self-teaching. But law teachers seldom pause to identify which of these skills are being developed at any given moment. Students left adrift on a Socratic sea must figure out for themselves not only what the substantive discussion is all about but also the teacher’s instructional goals for that particular class. The best example of self-teaching relates to the manner in which most law teachers evaluate student performance: the dreaded final exam.

Law school teaching thus fares poorly when evaluated against the active learning principle of effective teaching. There has been much commentary on the role of technology in law school teaching. Just as the triumph of technology appeared complete, a few voices emerged to urge caution while others noted a wholesale backlash. We began our law teaching careers as inveterate chalkboard scribblers and soon graduated to transparencies and overhead projectors. We handed out in class hard copies of charts and tables, and we and the students filled in the answers together. PowerPoint took in law schools. We initially struggled with converting charts, tables, and other material we had created in word-processing formats into PowerPoint slides that we could project from a laptop onto a classroom screen. The effort often was time-consuming and gained no advantage except a nice colour background.

In our early years using this approach, we succumbed to students’ entreaties and made the completed word-processing presentations available to them after class on the course Web site. Just as the principles for good practice first were applied in the undergraduate context before making inroads in law schools, a new teaching technology using handheld wireless transmitters in college and university classrooms is just now appearing in law school classrooms.

After first describing this new technology and how the authors have used it in our classes during the past year, they explain how it contributes to active learning and also furthers several of the other principles for good practice in law school teaching. First, they prepare in advance of each class a series of multiple-choice questions which are projected onto the screen. They intersperse these questions throughout the class hour, typically after having first gone over a particular case, statute, ruling, or regulation, and then illustrate the applicable rule with a question or problem.

Students are required to respond via their handheld wireless transmitters and the correct answer and the percentage of students who answered the question correctly are then displayed. This feature is particularly helpful in responding to two concerns that some teachers have about multiple-choice questions. (1) multiple-choice questions are too constraining to allow for a meaningful description of the relevant facts and alternative courses of action in a particular legal situation; and (2) multiple-choice questions may be suitable for certain technical courses but not for other courses. The handheld encourages active learning by the entire class. Unlike the traditional Socratic method, which engages one student at a time, the handheld extends the dialogue to the entire class by requiring each student to answer each question. However, it is no panacea, and other teaching techniques may be equally or even more effective in pursuing these principles in different contexts.

Closely connected to the active-learning principle is the requirement to give students prompt feedback, which allows students to evaluate their existing knowledge and competence and, as new information is introduced, to update their evaluations to assimilate that new knowledge. There are several ways to provide feedback to students: midterm examinations; writing exercises; peer critiques; and introspective journals. Another positive aspect of feedback is the information it provides to faculty about their students’ understanding of the material. The handheld not only allows a teacher to provide summative feedback, it also allows formative feedback.

All law teachers struggle with students having to unearth the answer to a particular legal problem. The handheld transmitters can be used to help students better appreciate the nuances of the law. The opportunities for active learning are enormous. First, students can visualise the diverse set of views and arguments that can be made for any particular response. Second, by forcing students to commit to an answer by recording their choices through the handheld devices, all students are given the opportunity to register their choices. Third, the range of possible answers serves as a springboard to a dynamic classroom discussion.

The handheld transmitter system provides an alternative way both to convey information and to evaluate student performance. The handheld is an effective tool to reach the mix of talents and learning styles in any classroom because it allows the teacher to draft different types of questions to target different types of thinking and thus different types of learners.

Although there are many reasons why students may assume a passive role, a principal explanation is that they often are uncomfortable participating in large-group discussions. In addition, it is impossible in many situations for students to participate in class on a daily or even regular basis. Handheld devices solve both problems by providing reticent students with the cover they seem to need, while allowing their voice to be heard every day as loudly as the more vocal students in the class. They force students to recognise the many possibilities in answering a particular problem and to compare their answers with those of other students. The ensuing dialogue furthers the principle of increasing student-to-student interaction.

Infusing classrooms with active learning vigour, this new technology, combined with the old-school approach of making a stripped-down version of world-processing presentations available to students before class, addresses the serious charges levelled by critics against the in-class use of PowerPoint slides and laptops and furthers several of the principles for good practice in law school teaching. Ultimately, the purpose in introducing these alternative technologies and methods is to minimise inappropriate use of laptops in class and to force even the most reluctant student in the classroom to embark on an active-learning journey.