National Jurist -September 2008 - (Page 38) DISTURBINGTHEPEACE Formative assessment nyone would agree that law schools need ways to assess student learning. And most would agree that law schools historically have construed “assessment” to mean high-stakes and sudden-death-style exams at semester’s end. Based on those shots in the dark — about as pleasant and reliable as a two-week colonoscopy performed by a diesel mechanic — class rankings take shape, determining the trajectory of job searches, among other things. As one of my professors characterized the process, it is the most “ridiculous intellectual free-throw shooting contest in the professional world.” Which brings me to The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. I finally had a chance this summer to review its yearlong report on legal education, By Jon Peters Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law. While calling law schools “impressive institutions,” the report calls for some serious changes, observing in pertinent part: “assessment of student learning remains underdeveloped.” That’s putting it mildly. I write a regular column for my school’s alumni magazine, and my most recent contribution, an account of 1L exam stress, provoked a blizzard of comments from alumni and other members of the legal community. Many lawyers, whose experience spans decades, lamented the exhaustion, stress and unrelenting demands of exam after exam, typically worth 100 percent of the course grade and often covering upwards of 1,000 pages of material. Fellow law students wrote to share their experiences and ultimately to express their frustration, some of them painting portraits of extreme unhappiness and depression during the exam period. Yet no one complained about expectations to work hard, to gain command of the law, or the demands to “think like a lawyer.” Indeed, they were ready and willing to sweat and to work far harder than ever before in their lives. They were simply frustrated by the lack of feedback throughout the semester, creating so many unanswered questions a la, “Do I understand the big picture?” Those students questioned the logic and fairness of an entrenched system that equates one catch-all exam with assessment. Agreed — so narrowly defining assessment is indefensible. In that regard, it seems wise to heed the Carnegie report by expanding the operational definition of “assessment” to include “formative assessment.” Doing so would incorporate frequent and 38 THE NATIONAL JURIST The missing link in many law schools meaningful feedback. And doing so would be consistent with the mature body of educational research developed by psychologists and academicians. Much of that literature explains how people learn, and it is widely accepted that frequent, specific feedback enhances learning. Other professional schools (medical, dental and business, just to name a few) follow that model. They assess early and often, allowing students to determine before it’s too late whether they understand sections of material. Law schools should do the same. If the purpose of legal education is to prepare students for the practice of law, certainly the assessment methods should maximize learning, assuming the curriculum is worth learning and correlates to the practice of law (another column for another day). I heard so many times during my first year that the key to thinking like a lawyer is to think critically and logically. (Naturally challenging for me). And yet those people, mainly professors and administrators, are cogs in the same wheel that validates traditional law school assessment, which defies critical thinking and perpetuates the illogical. Now, I understand that law school is not intended to be as awesome as a day at the Magic Kingdom (a reference that makes more sense if you know that I had [have?] a major crush on Cinderella), and I understand that law school is not intended to be as liberal as a no-pants party (a reference that makes more sense if you attended college at a top-10 party school, as I did). That said, the experience could be improved, and less stressful, if students received more frequent feedback. At the very least, that would enable students to focus their studying and to maximize their learning outcomes. And just as important, it would also be fair, a marked improvement from the status quo. Jon Peters, an award-winning columnist and student editor of The National Jurist, is a Leadership Scholar at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. E-mail him at peters.401@osu.edu September 2008
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.