Andrea A. Curcio (Georgia State) has a new article, Assessing Differently and Using Empirical Studies to see if it Makes a Difference: Can Law Schools do it Better?, 27 QUINNIPIAC L. REV. 899 (2009) (SSRN). Curcio argues that law schools–and law professors–need to start thinking not only about how we assess students, but also about how we assess our assessments:
This Article explores alternative law school assessment methods and suggests ways to engage in empirical study of alternative and existing assessments. In Part II, the Article provides some concrete suggestions for both incremental and larger changes to doctrinal class assessment practices with an eye toward developing assessments that begin to desegregate legal analysis, practical skills, and professional identity. What is not explored explicitly, but what is implicit throughout, is that, because professors should not assess what they do not teach, examining and changing assessment methods necessarily involves reflection about teaching methodology and coverage.
The Article then moves from a discussion of changing teaching and assessment practices to a discussion of studying the impact of those changes. Because empirical studies can be a persuasive tool in laying the groundwork necessary to develop institutional support for a change in assessment practices, Part III seeks to de-mystify the empirical study process. Written for those without a social science background, it briefly discusses basic issues in study design, methodology, implementation, and interpretation, providing an overview of how to develop and design an empirical research study. Part IV suggests some potential empirical research assessment studies that can be performed on both alternative and existing law school assessment methods. Finally, the Article concludes by arguing that if law professors give their teaching and assessment work the same scholarly scrutiny given to other research interests, they may discover ways to help students become more effective lawyers, lessen student disengagement and create the potential for a more diverse bench and bar.
Id. at 903.
To borrow from Curtis Mayfield, “[p]eople get ready, there’s a train a comin’”. As Curcio suggests, we’re going to need more than faith.
posted by Gary Rosin
Part 5 the Legal Education at the Crossroads conference
Thursday, September 24th, 2009The Big News from the Conference on Assessment: Steve Bahls, Chair of the Student Learning Outcomes Subcommittee of the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar’s Standards Review Committee, presented the draft of the new Standards on assessment. From his presentation, it sounds as if some form of these Standards will be recommended by the ABA.
Where do the new Standards take us? First, the ABA, fortunately in my view, is not taking an extreme position. The proposed Standards would require that all schools do some assessment of certain required competencies, such as “legal analysis and reasoning, legal research, problem solving, written and oral communication in a legal context.” Beyond that, each school is required to identify additional learning outcomes based upon its own mission. So, the ABA appears to be seeking to preserve a good degree of law school autonomy.
The real sea change comes, however, from the requirement that each school must “employ a variety of valid and reliable measures systematically and sequentially throughout the course of the students’ studies.” Thus, a school simply will not be able to use a single summative final examination in the future, at least not in all its courses. This is no doubt a good thing, but it will involve a huge change in how we teach.
Jeff Rensberger
Posted in ABA, Assessment, Commentary, Conferences, Law Professors, Law Schools, Rankings, Student Learning, Teaching | 3 Comments »