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

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…

Battling Law Students' Fixed Mindset

Many students show up to law school with fixed mindsets--the belief that each person is born with a particular intellectual ability and that they there is little to nothing one can do to surpass that innate intellectual level.  A large proportion of law students were classified as smart early on in their learning experiences and have been academically successful their entire educational careers.  Many faculty members had a similar experience as they advanced from primary school to secondary school to undergrad and finally to law school--where most continued to succeed academically.

For some law students, however, law school is the first time in their lives that they have struggled to succeed immediately.  This can have a disastrous result, because those with fixed mindsets have a tendency to equate mistakes with failure.  These students then have a tendency to avoid challenging themselves, to ignore constructive criticism, and to give up or not try.[1]  In their minds, they are just n…

Reflection in the Legal Research Classroom

Reflection is a critical component of experiential learning.  We see in ABA Standard 303 that experiential courses must include multiple opportunities for self-evaluation.  Self-evaluation is critically important to legal research.  Students must reflect on and assess their research methodology each time they research to continue becoming more efficient legal researchers and to determine what research strategies work best in which situations. [1]

Reflection relates to several ideas found in cognitive theory that have been shown to result in stronger learning and retention:

Retrieval: recalling recently-learned information; Elaboration: finding a nexis between what you know and what you are learning; and Generation: putting concepts into your own words and/or contemplating what you might do differently next time. I've been contemplating how to better incorporate reflection into legal research classes. At the beginning of this semester, at the recommendation of a workshop I attended …

Desirable Difficulties in Legal Research Instruction

Challenges that result in stronger long-term learning are known as "desirable difficulties." Studies in how the brain works provide solid evidence that struggles in learning can actually be beneficial to the learner.

So how does the brain work? Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning by Peter C. Brown et al., gives a concise version, explaining that first the brain undergoes encoding to create memory traces, "converting sensory perceptions into meaningful representations in the brain."[1] Next comes consolidation, during which the brain has to solidify these not fully-formed memory traces; this involves "deep processing of the new materials, during which scientists believe the brain replays or rehearses the learning, giving it meaning, filling in blank spots, and making connections to past experiences," which helps learners to organize and strengthen their learning.[2] 

When you allow space out your learning, as opposed to practicing something y…