Resources
Implementing Adult Education Theory in Law School ¹
by John H. Reese² and Tania H. Reese³

I. Introduction
This paper consists of two parts. The first part addresses my course goals, my course book, and my thoughts on teaching methods. The second part consists of a brief report on a three year research project into law student preferred learning styles that my wife and I conducted at the University of Denver College of Law; and a law faculty teaching methods workshop document developed from the research project, which also refers to a law student intervention workshop.

II. Part One: History and background from the teacher’s perspective

A. Teaching-Learning Goals
My primary Administrative Law teaching-learning goals are quite straightforward. I attempt to teach my students flexible process models for analyzing administrative law problems that legally-related professionals may expect to encounter. Thus, in general terms my goals are academic and professional, and in specific terms they are to instill clarity and efficiency. These goals have evolved out of my thirty-three years of teaching this basic course, which is required of all students who graduate from the law school.

The focus on "process models" emerged from my earlier career disappointments with the professional skills students were learning (or not learning) in my course. I am confident I taught a more useful course than I experienced as a student. Even so, many of my students did not really understand how to apply their theoretical and content knowledge of administrative law in professional problem contexts.

That led me to rethink my approach, and the MacCrate Report ⁴ on lawyering skills convinced me that I should make changes. Thus, my goal also could be expressed as an effort to apply relevant MacCrate Report recommendations in the Administrative Law context.

Aside from its general recommendations for legal education, the MacCrate Report also had a significant impact on my law school because of the nature of the market for our graduates. Most of them seek legally-related professional positions in the Denver metropolitan area, for it seems that Denver is a desirable place to live. Graduates of other law schools and professionals from other states seek these positions also. Thus, the local market is highly competitive.

We have found that our graduates fare better in the competition if they have more professional skills than many of their competitors. As a private, tuition-driven institution, the placement success of our graduates also plays a role in influencing our teaching goals. My experience is that there is yet a niche in our market for graduates with professional skills in administrative law, for our bar is quite weak in this area. Persons being interviewed for a legally-related position commonly are asked what they can do, and I am attempting to supply part of the answer for my students.

I would probably pursue the same primary teaching and learning goals if I were in another market area. It seems to me that law schools are obligated to produce qualified graduates for the legally-related professional market. I understand that the reality of other markets also is that most employers are no longer willing to employ graduates to become apprentices.⁵ It seems that law graduates are expected to "hit the ground running." If that is the reality, it seems useless to debate the MacCrate Report's recommendations in an attempt to allocate responsibilities.

B. The Course Book
I authored an administrative law course book (casebook) that was published by West in 1995 ⁶. It reflects my primary teaching and learning goals, as described above. The Preface elaborates on what I have included here, and I will not repeat it. The book is designed to be learner-friendly, for it is based on validated research into adult learning theory conducted by Professors Stephen Brookfield,⁷ K. Patricia Cross,⁸ James Davis,⁹ and David Kolb.¹⁰

I used the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) ¹¹ as an organizing principle for the
casebook ¹². The topics were presented sequentially as they appear in the APA sections, along with a quotation of the relevant statutory language. The purpose, however, is not simply to teach or learn the APA, but to teach and have the students learn how to deal competently with administrative law. Therefore, I added important topics that are not addressed adequately in the APA. They include, for example, state APA summaries, separation of powers, agency authority, agency choice of means, court-imposed choice of means, equal protection, procedural due process, standing, exhaustion of administrative remedies, primary jurisdiction and "legal" facts.

The casebook offers other tools as well. Edited federal cases for student study are, of course, included at appropriate points. At student request, I also included clarifying notes after each major case to further guide ("coach" is the term used by the learning theory scholars) student understanding of the basis of the court's action and its reasoning. I did so because the learning theory scholars say we should not withhold from students any information that is relevant to the teaching and learning experience.

In order to provide an alternative to constant intake of information by the reading of text, I included, where appropriate, graphics, Venn diagrams, flow charts, checklists, and process sequencing statements. Again, this is based on the findings of the learning theory scholars that a variety of methods of presenting information should be employed. As our study of one of his topics concludes, I remind students they should make use of Bill Andersen's CALI materials to verify their understanding of the topic by experiencing it from another perspective and another method of presentation. ¹³

C. Teaching-Learning Methods
The research scholars have found that we should use a variety of methods in our classes.¹⁴ Accordingly, I attempt to do so by including case discussion, lectures, problems, group work, and interactive exchanges in my course.

1. Inquiry and Discovery
The term inquiry and discovery is used by the research scholars to describe methods of teaching critical thinking, reasoning, problem solving, and decision making.¹⁵ It includes, of course, the so-called "Socratic method" of teaching. Along with most law professors, I engage in class discussion of the major cases in the course book. I discuss some cases with a single student, and at other times I include groups or the entire class in the discussion of a case.

Although we discuss the cases carefully, I do not use much "Socratic method." Speaking candidly, I find it frustrating, unduly time-consuming, and I do not believe I am particularly good at it. I also share some of the concerns others have voiced about the case method of teaching law. Further, I find it misleading in Administrative Law, for the material is essentially statutory. I want students to recognize that Administrative Law is unique. Since agencies differ, the course will not necessarily "come together" ultimately in the same fashion as do courses in Torts, Contracts, and Property.

The primary means by which I use this method is through problem solving. Students are assigned eight problems on a variety of topics. They are required to analyze them and write a memorandum on each (no longer than three typed pages). Due dates for these memoranda occur about one week after study of the related material has been completed. On its due date, the problem is discussed in class for fifteen to twenty, and sometimes thirty minutes. Students are encouraged to ask questions, explain their interpretations, and support their conclusions. If the class is not too large (about forty-five maximum), I write comments and feedback on the papers and return them to the students. To be eligible to take the final exam, the student must complete these analytical exercises. Most students complete all of them, and I make a judgment call in situations where that is not accomplished.

In addition to these eight individual problem solving exercises, students also complete four in-class problem solving assignments. They work in groups on these problems and report their results to the other groups in a general discussion (twenty to thirty minutes) held at the end of the class.

2. Lecturing and Explaining
I prefer to lecture and explain when my goal is efficiency and when the material can be well organized, not too complicated, and clearly focused. Through the years I have learned that if a lecture is to succeed, I must first get and hold the students' attention. It is essential to avoid distractions. For example, my colleagues and I have noticed that today's students think nothing of coming to and going from the classroom as they please. Then there is the pager, the dropping of some object, and the chatter of the laptops. It can all be very distracting.

Student attention span being relatively short, I attempt to avoid lecturing and explaining for a full class session. I prefer to include about twenty minutes of lecture and explaining at some point and then switch to some other method. If the subject is new or difficult, I attempt to point out what is important as distinguished from what is not, and avoid giving them so much information that they cannot make the distinction. Finally, I attempt to make the lecture as uncomplicated as possible, focused, and well organized.

Auxiliary to my lecturing and explaining, I attempt to assist student memory, primarily by projecting overhead transparencies as the lecture proceeds. I commonly distribute prints of the transparencies to the class before they are used. Many students annotate the printouts as the lecture occurs.

3. Training and Coaching
To further my professional skills goals, I apply this method of teaching-learning to appropriate topics. Student learning is measured by proficiency or competency in performing the task according to stated criteria. I do this to avoid norm-referenced evaluation, for example, comparing a student with other students by grading on the curve. For some topics there is no "norm." A competent professional simply must master the elements of and the process for APA "notice and comment" rulemaking and "on the record" rulemaking. The same is true of APA "formal" adjudication and "informal" adjudication.

On the other hand, in my judgment, there are administrative law topics that are not well adapted to this teaching-learning method. For example, how could one employ this method to teach "Chevron deference?" We may refer to the "two-step," "the precise question at issue," "silence," "ambiguity," "a permissible construction," and so forth, and we may construct a flow chart of the process. But to express this precisely and attempt to apply these normative terms as criteria for evaluation of proficiency or competency in understanding "Chevron deference" seems to me to be impossible.

How could one use this method to teach separation of powers or procedural due process? I will admit it is a matter of degree, and, perhaps, if one would "soften" the evaluation criteria somewhat on topics that are so highly normative, training and coaching might be a useful method. For a good example of this process method in an electronic, interactive format, see Bill Andersen's CALI materials.¹⁶

4. Groups and Teams
As indicated, I use classroom groups to complete four exercises. The scholars say groups are not effective for teaching-learning situations in which the assignment could be performed just as well, or better, by an individual. They are most useful where the goal is an output that is greater than the total of individual outputs.

For example, upon completing the introductory material, I., the agency concept, separation of powers, the separate powers, legislative design choices, legislative process, and administrative procedure legislation, I assign a classroom problem. The assignment is for each group to design a state administrative agency (state for simplicity purposes) having powers appropriate to regulate some activity on the basis of stated goals. The groups are told not to focus on drafting legislation.

During the semester, other classroom group work problems concern the rights of persons and parties, designing a teaching-learning program for new law firm associates on court jurisdiction to provide review of agency action, and preclusion of review.

Finally, my course exam consists of six equally weighted essay questions. It is a take home exam distributed after the last class meeting, and it is to be completed in two weeks. Students are allowed to network the exam in teams or study groups, if they wish, but they can discuss the exam only with members of the class. After networking, students must write individually composed and typed answers to each exam question. They are reminded that to do otherwise is a violation of the College Honor Code.

The reality is that networking is precisely what new lawyers do when they are exposed to an unfamiliar problem. It seems to me students may enhance their learning by networking the exam and discussing it in their own terms and from different perspectives. Furthermore, having used this approach for ten years, I find the array of scores to differ little from the array of scores under my earlier blue book, monitored exam approach. The only appreciable difference is that the median score seems to be higher.

II. Part Two: From the learner’s perspective

A. The Three Year Student Learning Styles Research Project
I became interested in a learning styles project as I noted the increasing diversity among students in our entering first year classes. Gradually, more women and minorities became law students. Many of them were highly successful professionals. People of different generations became more numerous, and this year women comprise fifty-eight percent of our entering class. I was struck by the fact that a significant number of these people were having difficulty in law school. Further, it was common for them to have lower LSAT scores than I would have expected. Some became so discouraged that they dropped out of school. Of those who graduated, some had difficulty passing the bar exam.

I began to wonder if we were failing to approach women and minorities with appropriate teaching methods. Perhaps women and minorities preferred to learn differently from traditional law students. Discussions with my faculty colleagues, other faculty, and participation in AALS programs led to nothing more than anecdotal information about "good teaching," and lists of good teaching techniques that appeared not to have been evaluated.

I attended an AALS presentation by a panel of so-called "great" law teachers, and wondered, as the program continued, what criteria had been used to identify them. Everything was anecdotal. In short, I found there was little interest in learning more about teaching, although most of us have had no training to be teachers. When I began, I was simply handed a book and told to teach well! I suspect that is true of the vast majority of law teachers.

It was obvious that any teaching methods research project would have to be credible, by which I mean based on validated research methodology, if it were to avoid being rejected by faculty as just more anecdotal information. Thus, with the aid of my wife, who holds a Ph.D. in adult learning, I began the search for an appropriate methodology.

Based on the research literature, we selected the Learning Styles Inventory (LSI-IIa) developed by Professor David Kolb of Case Western Reserve University.¹⁷ It differs from similar instruments in that it focuses on student learning preferences at cognitive level. You may have heard of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,¹⁸ for it has been used in several law schools. Myers-Briggs approaches student preferred learning styles at the psychological-personality level, as is depicted by the "onion" in the faculty workshop document.¹⁹

With no disrespect intended for the Myers-Briggs instrument, I chose not to use it, for there is very little that can be done in the classroom in one semester to adapt specific teaching methods to a class on the basis of personality traits. Hence, my goal of attempting to develop specific intervention methods for classroom use by teachers could be best addressed at the cognitive level through use of the Kolb LSI-IIa. The National Center for Adult Learning provided partial funding for the project.

The "Experiential Learning Cycle," developed by Professor Kolb, and his related model of learning style preferences, theorizes that students whose preference for learning is lineal and abstract are those who traditionally have been thought to be the strongest learners of legal material.²⁰ Thus, such skills as reading, abstract analysis, and synthesis have been thought to be the hallmarks of great, good, or acceptable legal minds.

This bias was established long ago when few women, minorities and adult learners became law students. Research during the past two decades confirms that there now exists a greater diversity of learning style preferences in any given classroom and that the most effective approach is to use multiple strategies for teaching-learning.

I have come to believe that success in legal education should be achievable by a large percentage of adult learners with all types of learning preferences. If law students were permitted to experience legal education in a multi-dimensional fashion, it seems to me that more of them would be successful in their academic and professional pursuits. If that were to happen we would have established that LSAT scores and GPAs do not necessarily predict success or failure as well as we currently assume.

In January 1999, my wife and I presented an abbreviated workshop to about 250 law faculty and staff in the Teaching Methods Section at the annual AALS meeting. About 350 copies of the prepared material were distributed by the end of the annual meeting.

The Appendix is a law faculty teaching methods workshop document which we used at a Vermont Law School Conference in March 1999. The research project data and findings are summarized on the last two pages. In Part VI, you will find a brief explanation of a law student intervention workshop that we developed and presented at the University of Denver. Without exception, the student participants urged that we repeat it.²¹

At this point I would like to add something we learned fortuitously about the research methodology. On the last page of the appended materials, you will find a plotted scattergram of sixty-six students in one of my classes. Plotting their scores brings out more precisely the intensity of the two dimensions of their learning preferences. If merely categorized by quadrants, twenty-six percent of the students are in the top quadrants, about equally divided horizontally. Seventy-four percent of the students are in the bottom quadrants, again, about equally divided horizontally.

Recognizing that there was a one to three split in student preferences, heavily biased toward traditional abstract intake, I had no doubt that the traditional approach should predominate. I found, however, that I was having difficulty with this class and its responses to the manner in which I was presenting the material (Constitutional Law).

Upon examining the plotted scores, I realized that the bias toward abstract intake was actually quite weak, for there was clustering toward the top of the traditional intake quadrants. The point to be made is that it is not sufficient simply to count percentages and assume you really know enough to design teaching-learning methods for that class. In many situations it may be necessary to "tweak" the data by examining plotted scores.

In mid-September 1999 we made a summary presentation of the Kolb learning styles concept and our research results to law faculty and staff at the University of Barcelona, Spain. Attendees also included representatives from other law school faculties in the Barcelona area.

It was exciting, for my friend on the Barcelona faculty had translated into Spanish our presentation materials. To make it really meaningful, we also distributed several explanatory pages from the Kolb workbook materials printed in Spanish. One group of faculty later administered the Kolb instrument to themselves and discussed how they differed in learning styles preferences. I hope to continue this work with my contact professor, who is interested in making a study of his students, as we did at the University of Denver.

In summary, I believe change in our teaching-learning methods is essential. Students also believe it, and support for it continues to accumulate in educational research. We must give it serious attention.

Notes

1. This article originally appeared in the Brandeis Law Journal under the title of Teaching Methods and Casebooks, Winter 2000 (38 Brandeis L.J. 169). It is printed with permission from the authors.
2. Professor of Law, University of Denver College of Law; B.B.A., LL.B. 1954, Southern Methodist University; LL.M. 1965, George Washington University; S.J.D. 1969, George Washington University.
3. Learning Consultant; Ph.D., Adult Learning and Development, 1993, University of Denver; M.A. 1989, University of Denver; B.S. 1986, Metropolitan State College of Denver.
4. Legal Education and Professional Development - An Educational Continuum, 1992 A.B.A. Sec. of Legal Educ. and Admissions to the Bar Rep. 3. Robert MacCrate was the chairperson for this A.B.A. section at the time of this report, hence it is referred to as the MacCrate Report. See, e.g., Peter A. Joy, Political Interference With Clinical Legal Education: Denying Access to Justice, 74 Tul. L. Rev. 235, 265-66 & nn. 149-55 (1999).
5. See, e.g., Rodney J. Uphoff et al., Preparing the New Law Graduate to Practice Law: A View From the Trenches, 65 U. Cin. L. Rev. 381, 412 (1997).
6. See John H. Reese, Administrative Law: Principles and Practice (1995).
7. See Stephen Brookfield, The Skillful Teacher (1991).
8. See K. Patricia Cross, Classroom Research (1996); K. Patricia Cross, Adults as Learners (1981).
9. See James Davis, Better Teaching, More Learning (1993).
10. See David Kolb, Experimental Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development (1984).
11. See 5 U.S.C. § § 551-559 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998).
12. See Reese, supra note 3, at 92.
13. These materials can be ordered from the Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction, University of Minnesota, 1313 Fifth Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55414. They are also available on the internet. See Center for Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction Homepage (visited Feb. 19, 2000) <http:// lessons.cali.org/cat-dDM.html>.
14. See supra notes 4-7.
15. See, e.g., Ardra L. Cole & Gary J. Knowles, Researching Teaching: Exploring Teacher Development Through Reflexive Inquiry (2000); Gerald W. Foster, Elementary Mathematics and Science Methods: Inquiry Teaching and Learning (1999); Mildred Z. Solomon, The Diagnostic Teacher: Constructing New Approaches to Professional Development (1999).
16. See supra note 10.
17. See discussion of Kolb's learning style model infra App. Part III.
18. Isabel Briggs-Myers & Mary H. McCaulley, Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Consulting Psychologists Press 1985). See, e.g., Thomas G. Carskadon et al., Compendium of Research Involving the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (1987).
19. See discussion of learning styles infra App. Part II.D.
20. See discussion of Kolb's learning style model infra App. Part III.
21. Appendices are omitted from this reprint.

Return to Top

Copyright 1999-2010, National Association of State Judicial Educators
Contact Web Developer

This Website is updated quarterly by NASJE.
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Association of State Judicial Educators.