Who are we teaching, anyway?
posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger
This is a sensitive subject, and I’ll try to be sufficiently sensitive. It’s an important question, though, and one that I find myself pondering on a regular basis. What level of student should I teach towards?
In any class, there will be a range of student ability, and student ability will correspond broadly to ideal teaching method; this creates a tension. That is, there will be students who catch the material easily on the first reading, there will be students who need extended exercises and discussion to understand the material, and there will be students at various in-between points on the spectrum. Students of different aptitude will respond best to different types of teaching. In particular, struggling students are likely to benefit most from repetition and extended discussion of basic core concepts, while other students may become bored and tune out if the class is moving too slowly.
This tension was highlighted by a question a student asked me last semester after class. His question boiled down to, “why do we spend so long on some of these cases?” He understood some of the concepts and the key facts from the get-go, and wanted to move on, to talk about further implications, and so on. But inevitably, some not-insignificant portion of the class time was spent rehashing and pointing out the key facts, going over the standard of law, and generally making sure that most of the class had gotten the basic key concepts.
This is not to say that every class is drudgery and repetition. There’s always some time to go over impllications, to look at interesting examples, to discuss policy questions, and so on. But I’ve found through painful experience that if I move too fast, I’m liable to spend the next 20 minutes backtracking and explaining basic concepts — either that, or I lose half the class.
On the one hand, it would be awfully fun to spend a short time on the black-letter and then kick around interesting ideas and variants and concepts for the rest of the class. The star students would probably enjoy that a lot more, too. But I would lose most of the rest of the class. Some of my students need to go over the basic facts and holding, relatively slowly.
And on the other hand, it would be most helpful for struggling students if we spent all the time on black-letter concepts, drilling them home. But then, I’d put the rest of the class to sleep. My class is not just bar prep.
My own approach at present lies not-quite-midway between the two poles. I try to teach to about the 50-60% level, while consistently adding in extras (side discussions here and there) that should appeal to and challenge the 80% level. I think that this provides a class environment where most students can learn relatively well. Some students may not keep up well some of the time, but I think that at least 3/4 of the class should be able to keep up regularly with the pace, though it will be a stretch for some. At the same time, I think (hope) that I include enough interesting extras to keep the star students from either losing interest, or slacking. I really don’t know if my approach is optimal, though. I worry that it doesn’t push the good students enough — that it lets them coast, far too easily. But I’m not sure that there’s a better approach. What have others found?
(Side note: A part of me sometimes wonders about the benefits of being more of a hard-ass about this. When I went to law school, there was a professor who had a reputation for kicking students out of class if they didn’t know the facts of a case, cold, when called on (and he practiced cold-calling). To go even further, I’ve heard of college professors who simply walk out of class if they get one or more answers from unprepared students. I don’t think I could pull anything like that off, though, given my own personality. I do really want to help my students learn and understand the concepts. And even if I didn’t, my institution’s values and culture would weigh strongly against too harsh of an approach.)
February 13, 2007 at 1:19 am
Posted in: Law School (Teaching)
Print This Post
Responses (5)
NJLS - February 13, 2007 at 9:49 am
A critical pedagogical tool in any setting is the ability to differentiate lessons. You are clearly concerned with reaching and challenging as many students as possible — which, unfortunately, is not a characteristic of every professor — by making an effort to “appeal to and challenge the 80% level” by adding in “side discussions.” There are, however, more formalized ways to consistently, effectively, and efficiently differentiate your lectures. While most of the studies I am aware of focus on elementary/secondary education, the principles of instruction remain the same (with obvious accomodations for the Socratic method). I have not taught at the college level, but my experience as a public school teacher and a law student leads me to believe that a professor that takes time to critically reflect on his/her teaching methods and differentiate lectures would be invaluable to the law school’s student body.
Sarah S - February 13, 2007 at 10:05 am
Do any law schools offer tracking, a la middle or high school? (Ie, advanced and regular sections.) Upper level classes could be tagged as “advanced” because they in fact move more quickly, or tackle more difficult material (and not simply because they are part 2 of a sequence).
Or, maybe after first semester, or quarter, students are re-assigned according to their abilities, or according to how they learn. I strongly believe there are students who are naturally “good at law school” (can read cases and take exams well on the first try) and those who “get it” after a few semesters. Furthermore, there are those who simply thrive in small discussion and don’t do as well with issue-spotting exams.
While I’m guessing it would take a lot of time and effort, I think schools should take chances on alternative approaches to the traditional law school methods.
MMM - February 13, 2007 at 10:32 am
Sarah S -
Let me point out that while law school does not “track” students, students do that themselves.
Certain classes tend to draw certain types of law students. An example, at least for me, is a course like Antitrust. That class is tough, and the mediocre students simply don’t take it. I found the same things happen with courses like international tax (or actually any advanced tax course) and administrative law.
On the other hand, there are certainly classes that attract the other spectrum of students which everyone who cares can probably identify.
Belle Lettre - February 13, 2007 at 1:36 pm
A tough issue, and very sensitively written about.
When I taught at the college level, I tried not to “hide the ball”–I quickly outlined the main points I wanted everyone to get in lecture, and then allowed interlocutory methods (questions, class discussion) to flesh out the “extras.” This way, everyone got off on the same footing, and the 80% students stayed interested and the 50-60% students were prepped enough to join in when ready. I didn’t drill the lecture in more than once usually though–that’s the benefit of posting powerpoint slides online, which I would do right after class. If the lesson called for it, I would rehash the previous lesson for a bit. But I find that most students appreciate that no matter what their teaching level.
Also, some cases are so central to a course that it’s just a matter of teaching the material effectively to reinforce the lesson, just to show the continuity and cumulative nature of the material. So the 80% kids should just accept that.
An interesting question is not just at what level you teach, but at what level you provoke discussion. Some students love to talk, some are more shy at first, some never get comfortable. Having a sensitive pedagogy, like yours, especially w/r/t female students (here I think of Guinier’s Becoming Gentlement) and minority students would help restructure the classroom space so that everyone can learn effectively and participate meaningfully.
Sarah S - February 14, 2007 at 2:10 pm
MMM – I agree with your sentiments. For us, it’s Fed Courts; most students scream and run at its mention. What my secondary school did, and which I think most schools do for AP level courses, is to bump the grade a third of a step come report card time. (Ie, if you get an A- in AP Physics, it’s calculated as a 4.0.) While this might seem to “cheapen” (or inflate) the system, such an incentive may motivate some students to take more challenging courses. Indeed, one of the most nauseating coversations I overhear in the lunchroom includes: “Dude, according to last year’s grade distributions, my average this semester is a 3.9.”
Leave a Reply