UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND LAW REVIEWVolume 20, No. 2WINTER 1997
Teaching Electronically: The Chicago-Kent Experiment
Richard Warner(fn*)
Over the next few years, it will become routine for publishers to provide casebooks in an electronic format.(fn1) As a consequence, faculty members will, with increasing frequency, walk into classrooms where many, if not most, of the students have a notebook computer in front of them. The computer will contain an electronic version of the casebook; the students' pre-class preparation; in-class notes, and, toward the end of the semester, the course review outlines. Some instructors embrace this prospect enthusiastically and with a welcome sense of revolution; others are more or less indifferent; and, others, hostile. But no matter where on the continuum from love to hate our attitudes toward computers may happen to fall, one question confronts us all: can we use the technology that will inevitably arrive to improve the teaching of law?
I. Pedagogical Goals
If computers improve law teaching, they will do so by improving the ability of teachers and students to achieve important pedagogical goals.(fn2) Some may object at the outset that computers clearly hinder the realization of important pedagogical goals. Most, for example, would agree that one essential goal of legal education is imparting appropriate norms of professional behavior. But will we achieve this goal if we (inadvertently) give the impression that mastering the law is largely a matter of information storage and retrieval? There are dangers here, but they are surmountable.(fn3) The computer is merely a tool, and we should not let our use of the tool dictate the values we endorse; rather, we should ensure that the values we endorse dictate the use we make of the tool. The point is, if we cannot agree on goals, we surely cannot expect to resolve the issue of whether computer technology can help us achieve important pedagogical goals. There is no question that goals vary. One reason is that a teacher is not merely a conveyor of information; a teacher-a good one, at least-is also a model of intellectual and professional virtues: responsibility, thoroughness, tolerance, and so on. The list and the interpretation of the items on it vary from instructor to instructor, and this is one important reason pedagogical goals vary. However, disagreement on some goals does not mean disagreement on all. Certain basic goals are widely shared, relatively uncontroversial, and sufficiently important that it makes sense to ask whether computer technology can improve our ability to achieve those goals. Consider the following four goals.
(1)Imparting a basic knowledge of black letter rules. An adequate knowledge of an area of the law requires a knowledge of the relevant legal rules. One's knowledge of contract law, for example, would be deficient if one did not know the common law "mirror image" rule: an acceptance of an offer fails to create a contract if the acceptance contains terms that differ from the terms of the offer. Of course, knowing the black letter rules is a far cry from knowing and understanding the law. Part of understanding the law is knowing the underlying rationales-the various points and purposes-behind the black letter rules. This brings us to the second goal.
(2)Developing an understanding of the underlying rationales behind the rules. For example, one point of the "mirror image" rule is to ensure that the legally binding agreements the law recognizes consist of terms on which both parties agree. Understanding the rationales behind certain rules can explain in part why common law courts often find that offer and acceptance created a contract even where the acceptance was not a mirror-image of the offer.(fn4) The courts are convinced (in many of the cases, at least) that both parties intended to create a legally binding agreement and did agree on contractual terms.(fn5) In general, knowing the underlying point or purpose of the rule guides one in applying the rule to particular fact patterns, enables one to identify and justify exceptions, and helps one resolve conflicts between rules. Of course, no matter how intensive the legal education, one can, in the three years of law school, teach only a small fraction of the black letter rules and their associated rationales. This is one reason that a major goal of law teaching is to give students the ability to approach and learn new areas of the law on their own-which brings us to the third goal.
(3) Developing the ability independently to analyze legal issues. Because, as lawyers, students will need to learn, understand, and apply legal rules on their own, an essential goal of law teaching is to develop this ability. One central area in which lawyers engage in legal analysis is legal research and writing. Consequently, this goal ties in with the fourth goal.
(4) Developing the ability to research and write.
I suggest that these goals are sufficiently widely shared and important that it is worth asking whether computer technology can improve our ability to achieve these goals.
I will focus primarily on the second goal (understanding the rationales behind the rules). Of course, to improve students' abilities to achieve this goal may also improve their abilities to achieve the first goal (knowledge of black letter rules) as a knowledge of a rule is obviously a precondition of understanding its purpose. Improving students' abilities to understand the rationale behind a rule may also improve their abilities to achieve the third goal (analyzing independently), for independent analysis builds on a prior understanding of the law. I will not discuss the fourth goal (research and writing). Computers have proven helpful here, but our focus is on the use of computers to teach the traditional substantive law courses.
II. How Computers Differ
If computers improve our ability to achieve the four goals mentioned above, they do so because they differ in crucial ways from printed materials. What, then, are the relevant differences? And, do these differences make computerized materials better? Let us take the first question first. I will list eight differences. The list is hardly exhaustive. The only thing special about the eight identified features is that they all may (arguably) make computerized materials superior, for some purposes, to print materials.
(1) Search capabilities: Computers excel at storing information and at searching for the stored information quickly and accurately. Law students need to manage a very large amount of information, and the obvious thought is that the search capabilities of computers could help them do so.
(2) Hypertext links: A hypertext link is essentially a cross-reference. In a print book, for example, one might see the following cross-reference: For a fuller discussion, see Section II. Texts displayed on computer screens may, of course, contain similar cross-references. There is one crucial way, however, in which hypertext improves on print cross-references. One can program the computer so that a click of the mouse button on the words "Section II" brings Section II immediately up on the computer screen; another click returns one to the original location.
(3) Projection: If one links a computer to a projector, one can project on a large screen whatever the computer is currently displaying. If an instructor does this in class (from a notebook computer on the podium), the result is an electronic chalkboard. One can quickly display large amounts of information without having to turn one's back to the class to write on the chalkboard (laboriously and, for many of us, not all that legibly).
(4)Interaction: Computer programs can be interactive. They can pose questions or provide answers and other forms of feedback. Print books do not, of course, have to be wholly noninteractive. One can, for example, pose a question on one page and put the answer on another with instructions to answer the question before going on. The computer, however, offers far greater possibilities (such as automatic score-keeping).
(5) Multimedia: Computers can incorporate animated graphics, sound, and video. This provides avenues for learning that extend well beyond what is possible with print.
(6) User modification: Computer programs can be highly user modifiable. Modification can tailor-make the program to suit individual needs. Where computers are used for learning, modification could accommodate different learning styles.
(7) Network connectivity: Students and faculty can connect computers to the law school's computer network. This facilitates communication, delivery of teaching materials, and allows on-line research.
Can one exploit these differences to improve the effectiveness with which one achieves the pedagogical goals identified earlier?
III. Is Different Better?
There is one relatively obvious-and relatively uninteresting-way...
