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

Spaced Repetition & Interleaved Practice in Legal Research Instruction

Researchers refer to single-minded practice as "massed practice." This concentrated practice is thought to embed skills into memory. Unfortunately, while many students and teachers believe this to be the best way to learn, research doesn't support that idea. The problem with massed practice is that it is often accompanied by quick forgetting. Practice is important, but it is considerably more effective when it's spaced out--there's better retention and mastery.

It can be tough to convince our students of the benefits of spaced repetition. As Brown et al. point out in Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning:

 "[T]hese benefits come at a price: when practice is spaced, interleaved, and varied, it requires more effort. You feel the increased effort, but not the benefits the effort produces. Learning feels slower from this kind of practice, and you don't get the rapid improvements and affirmations you're accustomed to seeing from massed practi…

Rethinking Learning Outcomes in Legal Research Courses

Learning outcomes have obvious value to our institutions.  ABA Standard 301 requires that law schools "establish and publish learning outcomes" that are designed to prepare students for "effective, ethical, and responsible participation" in the legal profession.  Usually, individual course outcomes should then align with these school-wide learning outcomes.  We include these learning outcomes in our syllabi to show our compliance with the ABA standards in our accreditation visits.  But learning objectives can, or at least should, also have a pedagogical benefit.  After all, we are including them in our syllabi for a reason--to give our students an idea of the learning experience they are about to have in the course. They should also give students a clear picture of what they should be taking with them from the course into the actual practice of law.

As Edmund J. Hansen writes in Idea-Based Learning: A Course Design Process to Promote Conceptual Understanding, the w…

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…

Using Backward Design in Course Development

There are different methods instructors use to design their courses. In his book Creating Significant Learning Experiences, L. Dee Fink identifies three major approaches:
In the first approach, the instructor picks out some number of major topics within their course subject matter, then preps lectures for each topic. Then he or she adds in a final exam and sometimes a midterm, and the course is ready to go.  Fink notes that this approach is less time-consuming, but "pays little or no attention to the quality and quantity of student learning." [1] He explains that this type of learning "has a relatively short half-life and, more significantly, does not meet the educational needs of students and society today." [2]In the second approach, instructors still designs their course around major topics, but rather than focusing solely on lectures, he or she incorporates a variety of active learning opportunities. This approach is more engaging for students, but it still does…

Four Aspects of Effectual Teaching (& Why Instructional Design Is the One Missing In Many Law Courses)

There are four general components of teaching, which all must come together for a teacher to be successful:
Knowledge of the Subject Matter: Most instructors in higher education have this covered. The largest potential hurdle of this aspect of teaching is perhaps remembering to view the material from the perspective of the beginner learner, as opposed to from the teacher's own advanced learner status. In my first year of teaching, I found this to be an issue, as I jumped over steps that were so obvious to me that I didn't even notice them anymore. It was only by students asking questions that illustrated I was missing an important step in their comprehension and by watching the legal writing professor I co-taught with that I began to break down my material into pieces that were more digestible for my students.

Interaction with Students: Instructor-student interaction can take a myriad of forms. As L. Dee Fink writes in Creating Significant Learning Experiences,

"Teacher-stud…