Using Student Development Theory to Inform Our Curriculum and Pedagogy: A Response to the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education

• Published date: 01 February 2008
• Date: 01 February 2008
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1722.2008.00046.x
• Author: Eric D. Yordy

Using Student Development Theory

to Inform Our Curriculum and

Pedagogy: A Response to the

Secretary of Education’s Commission

on the Future of Higher Education

Eric D. Yordy

n

I. INTRODUCTION

In September 2006, the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Fu-

ture of Higher Education released its final report entitled A Test of Lead-

ership: Charting the Futureof U.S. Higher Education pos tulating that graduates

today are lacking important skills such as reading, writing, problem solv-

ing, and critical thinking.

1

In the field of undergraduate legal education,

faculty members are in the perfect position to aid students in stretching

their abilities and developing these basic skills if there is an understanding

of student cognitive development theory and if the curriculum and ped-

agogical techniques have bases in those theories.

Many articles have been written regarding the need to move from

prelegal education where students are focused on litigation (or judicial

opinions that result from litigation) to a management approach where

students analyze business cases and learn law to guide their decisions in

those cases.

2

With a true understanding of cognitive development theory,

r2008, Copyright the Author

Journal compilation rAcademy of Legal Studies in Business 2008

51

Journal of Legal Studies Education

Volume 25, Issue 1, 51–73, Winter/Spring 2008

n

Assistant Professor of Practice in Business Law, The W. A. Franke College of Business,

Northern Arizona University. Professor Yordy has a J.D. from Cornell Law School and an

M.Ed. in Counseling and Student Affairs from Northern Arizona University.

1

SEC.OF EDUC.’SCOMM’NONTHEFUTURE OF HIGHER EDUC., A TEST OF LEADERSHIP:CHARTING THE

FUTURE OF U.S. HIGHER EDUCATION (2006) [hereinafter CHARTING THE FUTURE].

2

See, e.g., Anne Lawton, Using a Management Driven Model to Teach Business Law,15J.LEGAL

STUD.EDUC. 211 (1997).

either approach, or a blend of both, can be effective. Rather than repli-

cating law school courses, with professors struggling with the Socratic

Method and asking students to make high-level judgments without any

basic information about the law, or simplifying a course so that mere

memorization of black-letter legal principles is rewarded,

3

a curriculum

based in cognitive development theory will encourage development and

allow students to succeed. An understanding of cognitive development

demands that materials be presented at appropriate levels of difficulty,

in appropriate manners, and in appropriate orders to encourage the

students’ development without overwhelming or underwhelming the

students.

4

Research shows that the cognitive and ethical development of

undergraduate students occurs in a step-like fashion and that students

generally transition through a number of stages during their college

years.

5

An understanding of college student development for use in cur-

riculum design and pedagogical planning is important for legal scholars to

maximize our impact on the development of the skills required or desired

in our graduates.

6

This article briefly reviews the Commission on the Future of Higher

Education’s report as it relates to the teaching of legal topics in business,

reviews literature and research on some college student development the-

ories, and sets forth some recommendations for curriculum development

3

See, e.g., Marc Lampe, A New Paradigm for the Teachingof Business L aw and Legal Environment

Classes,23J.LEGAL STUD.EDUC. 1, 2–4 (2006); Lucille M. Ponte, The Case of the Unhappy Sports

Fan: Embracing Student-Centered Learning and Promoting Upper-Level Cognitive Skills Through an

Online Dispute Resolution Simulation,23J.L

EGAL STUD.EDUC. 169, 175 (2006) (discussing the

teaching tools used by faculty in Business Law courses). I am not implying that all faculty

members take either of these approaches or that there are not some highly qualified law

professors who are aware of, and sensitive to, the cognitive development of college students.

In fact, it is the hope that past articles in the Journal of Legal Studies Education have had an

impact in this area. However, full-time and perhaps more often adjunct faculty members still

exist who do use these approaches.

4

See, e.g., Nancy J. Evans, Theories of Student Development,in STUDENT SERVICES:AHANDBOOK FOR

THE PROFESSION 167 (Susan R. Komives & Dudley B. Woodard, Jr. eds., 3d ed. 1996) (dis-

cussing Nevitt Sanford’s theory that students need a balance of challenge and support in order

to develop).

5

See STUDENT SERVICES:AHANDBOOK FOR THE PROFESSION,supra note 4 at 145–243.

6

KAREN ARNOLD &ILDA CARREIRO KING,COLLEGE STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND ACADEMIC LIFE,X

(1997) (discussing that Student Affairs professionals base their profession on the student de-

velopment theories, but that these theories have not been widely explored by faculty).

52 Vol. 25 / The Journal of Legal Studies Education