Skip to main content

Rethinking Formative Assessment

We've seen an increased significance placed on formative assessment in the legal academy. Standard 314 of the ABA Standards requires that law schools use both formative and summative assessment methods in their curriculum. Its rational for doing so is "to measure and improve student learning and provide meaningful feedback to students." The ABA defines formative assessment methods as "measurements at different points during a particular course or at different points over the span of a student's education that provide meaningful feedback to improve student learning."

Those of us in the legal research instruction business are no strangers to formative assessment. We are leaders in this in the law school curriculum, with rarely a class going by in which students do not practice their skills. Lately, though, I've been wondering whether I'm going about formative assessment in the way that will best provide meaningful feedback to students. In the mandatory workshops we put on for our first year students, we focus intensely on Rombauer's method--research as a process, not a mere gathering skill. More often than not, however, our ungraded formative assessments, while disguised as an open problem because we start them off with a client-based fact pattern, are really designed to lead them from source to source--effectively a treasure hunt that takes them through the process. Now, I'm not entirely opposed to treasure hunts as a tool to teach the mechanical side of research. But, if we purport to be teaching our students process and analysis, we need to let them engage in that process with ungraded assessments where we are not directly telling them which sources to use and in which order. Otherwise, their first opportunities to truly engage in the research process openly is on their graded open memos--which, at least in my students' case, are being graded by their legal writing professors, not the legal information experts who taught them the four-step process in the first place. As such, the focus of the feedback is spread across any number of topics--technical writing, style, and more, in addition to which sources they found. Students are not getting meaningful feedback centering primarily on the research process they used.

Students need practice conducting open research problems without the pressure of a looming grade. Otherwise, students fixate on finding the "right" answer or sources, rather than engaging in and absorbing the process. Without being worried about producing a graded written product, students are able to take in the research process fully because their cognitive loads are lessened. This will also help students view research as more than a rote, mechanical task to gather authorities, as they're able to isolate the skills necessary for successful research from those needed for successful writing.

In my instance, this means creating assignments that students may not be able to complete in the allotted 50-minute time period we have--or at least that we don't have time to review in that short time. This may require buy-in from the legal writing professors to allow us to give students homework, perhaps in the form of participation points, because if an assignment isn't sanctioned by the professors who are responsible for their grades, the students may not take it seriously. We must be willing to have conversations with our legal writing colleagues about creative ways to incorporate ungraded, formative assessments into the curriculum (in those situations where we are not their "grading" professor). We need to be upfront with them about what exactly we are trying to teach our students--process and analysis, and why this particular type of assignment is a necessity.

This also requires us being willing to review assessments from our entire first year class, which may be a challenge depending on the number of instructional librarians you have and how much other for-credit and non-credit teaching they might be doing. One way to get around having to collectively grade ~140 1L assessments might be to create a video walking through the research process you'd use for a given problem. But this isn't a perfect solution, as there are often multiple ways to move through a research problem successfully. I always lean toward wanting to give individualized feedback based on students' attempts--even better if that feedback is in a conference so I know students are absorbing it. Still, the most important point is that students are 1) getting a chance to practice open problems and 2) they are receiving some kind of meaningful feedback. After all, meaningful feedback is our best way to ensure that our students will be able to conduct research successfully in practice. It's also our best way to demonstrate to our students that research is a process that requires critical thinking.

Popular posts from this blog

Recognizing and Supporting Unlearning In the Classroom

Students in legal research classes or workshops often struggle with unlearning.  Since most students have done some type of research during their undergraduate education, we are asking them to do something (at least somewhat) familiar in a new way.  When students are try to unlearn something, they will understandably stumble over old habits.  After all, if they've always done research a certain way, like tossing search terms into a Google-like search box, it's become automatic for them, a task they do without any conscious thinking. When we ask them to use an index or Table of Contents or another tool instead, it takes conscious effort for them not to resort to their ingrained research habits.

In fact, it's actually more challenging to make a conscious effort to change an existing habit than it is to make a conscious effort to do something new.[1]  Their previous processes have already become streamlined in their brain and building new structures based on new learning is h…

Embracing Learner-Centered Pedagogy

Most educators pride themselves on putting our students first and try to make teaching decisions with our students' best interests in mind. But, what does learner-centered teaching really mean?

In their 2017 book, Learner-Centered Pedagogy: Principles and Practice, Kevin Michael Klipfel and Dani Brecher Cook set out to answer this question--and how it can be applied to teaching in a librarianship context. When asked to articulate what having a learner-centered approach means, most point to individual exercises or classroom techniques they employ or try to avoid, but are unable to describe the philosophy as a larger concept.

Ultimately, Klipfel and Cook's definition of learner-centered pedagogy is "who we are as people matters."[1] They explain it in further detail as: "Our conception of learner-centered pedagogy encourages library educators to encounter the learner as an individual with personal interests, preferences, and motivations, and uniquely human set of …

Revamping the Lecture

Lecturing has a bad name in today's world of experiential learning, but it's an often necessary component to legal research classes as students have to have some bibliographic information before we jump into the databases. As I conclude one semester and begin prepping for the next, I've been doing a lot of reading on how I can make my lectures more effective and engaging learning experiences for my students.

As Todd Zakrajsek notes in his 2017 Teaching in Higher Ed podcast on Dynamic Lecturing, "You can't just take bad examples of something and claim that the whole concept is bad." Instead, we should focus on what makes a lecture compelling for our students in our course planning and evaluate our lectures after our classes for their efficacy, reflecting on what worked well and what didn't.

So how can we make the most of our lectures?  Here's a few ideas I've come across:
Make your objectives clear to your students. Don't hide the ball--let you…

Research Instruction and Resilience

Law students can quickly become frustrated when they struggle with legal research--perhaps due to the fact that one of the narratives they tell about research is that it's easy. This may be especially true for students suffering from a fixed mindset

Students need help building resilience to overcome this frustration and to be able to accept critical feedback.  Legal research instructors can help students overcome these struggles and stay engaged in their intellectual growth by taking concrete steps to build their resilience.  In fact, most research courses are well-positioned to help students grapple with failure because most already include multiple assessments that will give students room to practice and develop their skills throughout the semester. These multiple opportunities for performance allow us to observe and point out our students' growth.

In her recent article, Framing Failure in the Legal Classroom: Techniques for Encouraging Growth and Resilience, Professor Kac…

Changing the Narrative About Legal Research

I attended an interesting talk by a colleague and friend recently that has me thinking about re-writing narratives. Specifically, I've been considering how to re-write the narrative about the importance of legal research in legal education.

Legal research instruction has long taken a back seat in the legal academy.  It's even been described as the "stepchild in legal education."[1] As a skills course, it's traditionally been considered of less import than doctrinal courses, though thankfully this seems to be improving. Even within the first years skill course, the dedicated time for students to learn legal research, research often takes a backseat in time and emphasis to legal writing and oral arguments, despite being the foundation needed to be successful at both. This happens despite those hiring new attorneys commenting regularly about their discontent with students' research skills.

It's unlikely in most cases that more time is going to be formally al…