How We Teach: a Survey of Teaching Techniques in American Law Schools
| Publication year | 1996 |
| Citation | Vol. 20 No. 01 |
"The more I know about my students, the more I know about myself, the more wisely I will teach."
Professor Louis Schmier(fn1)
I. Introduction
While much has been written about the Socratic method,(fn2) and how it has been universally accepted in American law schools, there remains the fundamental and generally unasked question: How do we really teach in law school?(fn3) Because it is generally assumed that education is occurring in the law school classroom and that the methodology used is effective, conscious scrutiny about methods of teaching law is rare.(fn4) This Article attempts to open the door to a more conscious evaluation of the law school teaching process and the assumptions upon which that pedagogy is based. It is premised on the belief that such a conscious evaluation of teaching objectives and methods might lead to change and improvement.
With the support of a grant from the Institute for Law School Teaching,(fn5) a nationwide survey was distributed to law professors essentially asking: how do we teach and why? The survey requested information about teaching goals, methods, rationales, new techniques, and any techniques professors wished they had used.(fn6) To help paint a clearer picture of the respondents, the survey also sought background information.
The attempt to gather information about law school teaching was grounded on several salient premises. It was believed that teaching style and technique can make a difference as to the quality and quantity of learning by the students in the classroom.(fn7) A corollary to this belief is that teaching and learning are not necessarily causally related,(fn8) and that some professors do not connect their chosen style of teaching to the learning process. Further, it is posited that students do not necessarily learn in the same manner, rendering a lack of focus on the connection between teaching and learning all the more meaningful.
The questionnaires were designed to produce useful information about law professors' goals and methods, particularly whether and how instructors connected their teaching methods to the learning process. While no claims are made for the survey's scientific validity, the study offers some data and insight regarding what law professors do in the classroom, and why they do it that way. Several conclusions were drawn from the survey. While law professors predominantly use the Socratic or lecture methods, there is significant use of and interest in a wide variety of alternative methods, such as active participation by students, requiring "such higher order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation."(fn9) The numerous variety of alternative methods indicates that law professors have widely disparate views about the learning process.
A person's law school teaching is predicated on or supported by one or more learning theories, therefore, Part II of this Article discusses cognitive and developmental learning theories and how they relate to law school teaching methods. Part III explains the teaching survey that was sent to the law schools, including the questionnaire used and the type of respondents who answered. Part IV of the Article reproduces the questionnaire results. Part V analyzes those results. This Article concludes that teaching methods should be consciously related to the learning process. Only by focusing on how students learn can a teacher truly be effective. The survey results show that although many law professors continue to use only the Socratic method, others are exploring alternative methods that may better ensure the effectiveness of the learning process.
II. BACKGROUND: LEARNING THEORY
"The great aim of education is not knowledge but action."
Herbert Spencer.(fn10)
Why explore learning theories in a paper on legal education pedagogy? While a Socratic orthodoxy may still exist in the law school teaching arena, a myriad of basic and underlying theories also exist, much like the invisible subatomic particles that comprise all matter. Learning theory is essential to pedagogy. If teaching is seen as what people learn, then effective delivery is paramount. If students do not retain the information and cannot easily retrieve it for use later, then the best lecture is of little value.
One premise of this Article is that whether conscious or not, a law professor's teaching methods are predicated on or supported by one or more learning theories. This section offers a brief introduction to some of these learning theories, and provides a context for the results of the teaching survey. The teaching survey becomes illuminating, consequently, by what methodologies are or are not used by legal education professors.
Learning theories focus on students and how they receive and integrate the knowledge, information, and material being communicated. A tacit assumption of most professors is that the teaching style or technique used will "connect up" to all of the students and influence their learning. Yet, more and more educators are characterizing students as "three dimensional" learners who have disparate propensities for learning.(fn11) This three-dimensional learning theory suggests that teaching methods and techniques must adjust to context, and that the success of teaching techniques or methods may depend on the particular students being taught. In this sense, the learning process is more individual than collective.
Learning theories may overlap or conflict. There appears to be no empirically "correct" theory or approach (although theoreticians certainly have their favorites). The mere recognition, however, that differences in students create differences in learning indicates that learning theories may be very helpful in determining which teaching methods to use. The following subsections discuss two principle learning theories-cognitive and developmental. Cognitive learning theory focuses on how an average person responds to the classroom and the learning process. Developmental learning theory, in contrast, focuses on how people's learning skills and abilities change as they get older. The principles of these theories are set forth briefly below.
Cognitive learning describes the way people obtain, process, store, and recall information. In essence, it describes how human mental functioning occurs.(fn12) This information either has been perceived in the outside world or is reconceptualized from "internal knowledge" already possessed.(fn13)
Most learning theories view the learning process as an active one, involving the construction of concepts and not merely the receipt of prepackaged knowledge and skills.(fn14) It is widely believed that an individual uses cognitive structures or schemata to help organize the intake of information into a workable concept or idea. The general learning components of perception, memory, and recall effectively provide only the basic engine for the car of learning, not the entire structure. To understand the design and mechanics of the entire car requires an inquiry into cognitive learning styles, and the numerous studies about those styles.(fn15) Several approaches to cognitive learning theory exist. These include: (1) schemata, (2) domain specific versus generic thinking, (3) orders of thinking, and (4) cognitive boundaries and context.
1. Schemata
One cognitive approach contends that knowledge exists in categories or schema. Under this approach, "knowledge is not [simply] a 'basket of facts.'"(fn16) Instead, "the essence of knowledge is structure."(fn17) This structure is created by a person's expectations(fn18) and provides a way to organize information as it is being received. The schema or structure has two parts: "(1) declarative knowledge, the factual information describing the instances and attributes of some particular aspect of the world and (2) associational knowledge, the semantic connections which form a network of interrelationships linking examples and characteristics to schema concepts."(fn19) Once a structure is in place, information is encoded to fit cleanly into the structure in accordance with one's expectations, much like clothes stored in dresser drawers. Once stored, the information can be readily retrieved and reconstructed in light of the same expectations.
The stronger the schema a person has, the more likely it is that he or she can comprehend principles and think predictively and generally.(fn20) For example, a person who teaches a course for the first time generally has weaker schema than a person teaching that same course the second time. However, the strength of a person's schema is not the only determinant of how that person thinks. A person's current knowledge and capacity for learning is also conditioned by culture(fn21) and other environmental influences. The schematic approach to cognitive learning therefore overlaps with domain specific versus generic thinking theories discussed in the next subsection.
2. Domain Specific Thinking vs. Generic Thinking
The recognition that culture and other environmental factors influence learning coalesces with the contention that the quality of a person's thinking depends...
To continue reading
Request your trial