CELL Blog | Center for Engaged Learning in the Law

Having just read Gerry Hess’ “Collaborative Course Design: Not My Course, Not Their Course, But Our Course” __ Washburn L.J. __ (forthcoming Spring 2008), an article I wholeheartedly recommend, I decided to try the idea in my Contracts II and Remedies classes. The basic idea is to engage students in deciding: their expectations of each other, their expectations of the professor, the teaching methods to be used in the class, the sub-topics to be covered (i.e., if you cannot cover all of remedies law, which topics are most important to the students), and the method(s) by which students will be assessed. This approach demonstrates respect for law students’ status as adults and provides “autonomy support,” which helps limit the law student distress Larry Krieger’s research suggests is so prevalent among law students.

I must admit some trepidation on each day. What if they said they wanted their grades to rest on a series of coin flips? What if their only expectations of each other were to stay awake?
Fortunately, for the most part, things went well. First, as I have noticed whenever I have worked with focus groups of students at the various law schools with which I have consulted on teaching, students want feedback and multiple assessments. My Contracts II students chose to have two graded mid-semester assignments in addition to their final exam. Around half also wanted to be graded on their presentations of doctrine (at the beginning of each class session in Contracts I and II, I have two students come to the front of the room and review and summarize the knowledge and skills we addressed in the previous class session—students use review hypos, PowerPoint slides, graphic organizers, etc. to make their points). My remedies students, those supposedly jaded folks only interested in getting out of law school, chose six short assignments in addition to the final; the first three will be only for practice and feedback, and the last three will each be for a grade. Second, the students in both classes wanted one opportunity to engage in an activity a practitioner in the field would do. My Contracts II students will be writing a client letter explaining the implications and problems in a proposed contract; my remedies students will be creating a remedies-focused discovery plan.

But it wasn’t all good. All my Contracts II students and most of my remedies students had me for a prior class so their only teaching methods request was to say—“do what you did in our other class.” The students’ only expectation for each other was a vague “be prepared for class.” Both groups completely deferred to me about coverage—“you decide, Professor Schwartz.” I guess, however, I am happy with the coverage choices I made . . .

The most interesting reaction to the whole process came from two remedies students who have done well in law school but had never had me for a class; both felt they wanted all my methods to be exactly the same as those they previously had experienced in law school. They vehemently opposed anything different and wanted to finish our discussion of class policies as quickly as possible. I suspect they felt that, having done well under the old system, a wide variety of teaching methods and multiple assessments would be of no benefit to them.

I think I will do it again, although I know I will again be nervous.