|
| |
Vernellia R. Randall
When evaluated against [principles of adult learning],
legal education is sorely lacking. Among other shortcomings:
 | we teach, using one dominant method without regard
to its educational effectiveness; |
| we do not clearly communicate student-centered
learning objectives; that is, we do not tell students what it is they need
to know or what they need to be able to do to perform adequately; |
| we teach basic legal analytical skills in extremely
large classrooms (an oxymoron at best); |
| we teach one set of skills (oral analytical skills)
and we test another (written analytical skills); |
| we provide little opportunity for students to
practice the skills we do teach (oral analytical skills); |
| we provide no opportunity for students to practice
the skills we test (written analytical skills); |
| we evaluate students based on only one or two
exams a semester; |
| we evaluate students using a method (essay exams)
which has been documented to lack reliability and validity; |
| we assign grades not based on actual criterion-referenced
performance (learning objectives), but on norm-referenced performance (performance
compared to other students); |
| we know little about pedagogy, learning theory
or evaluation and seem singularly reluctant to learn; |
| we do little to help our students to understand
how they learn and how to maximize their learning in law school. |
If we were talking about educators in any other
field or at any other level we would have no choice but to call them incompetent.
Whatever the result of a " broader scholarly discourse," we are not only
scholars, but educators, and we have a responsibility to research, discuss,
understand, and apply appropriate pedagogy.
The fact is that we admit a student population
that is diverse in its learning styles. As educators we have an ethical,
if not a legal, responsibility to those students right now -- today provide
them with a pedagogically-sound legal education. . . .
If law schools are serious about [educating
a diverse groups of students], law schools must do more than to take a
"sink or swim" attitude toward student success. Law schools must understand
which factors contribute to student learning and which do not. While understanding
learning styles is not a cure-all for the ills of legal education, it is
a start toward helping the student become a better self-learner. . . .
In the end a "broader scholarly discourse"
about law practice is, at best, only indirectly responsive to a " pedagogical
discourse" about how we can become better educators. Regardless of who
is admitted to law school and the result of law practice reform, we have
a professional responsibility, as educators, to help our students to understand
how they learn and how they can maximize their learning. As a result, we
must improve our skills as educators even as we engage in other relevant
discourses Vernellia R. Randall, A Reply to Professor Ward, 26 Cumb. L.
Rev. 121 (1995-1996). |
|
