Skip to main content

The Experiential Simulation Course Checklist, Part 1

When developing courses to meet the requirements for experiential simulation courses, there are three ABA standards that come into play: Standard 303(a)(3), Standard 302, and Standard 304.

When combined, there are eight bullet points that one must meet to comply with the standards for experiential simulation courses**:
  1. "Primarily experiential in nature" (Standard 303(a)(3)):  To meet this bullet point, an ABA Guidance Memo provides additional help. It notes that the "primarily" suggests "more than simply inserting an experiential component into an existing class." Furthermore, the "primarily" "indicates the main purpose of something." It is clear that the experiential nature of the course should be central to the course's design and should be prevalent across the entire length of the course. In fact, the ABA notes that the "experiential nature of the course should . . . be the organizing principle of the course, and the substantive law or doctrinal material that is part of the course should be incidental to it, not the other way around."
  2. Provides "substantial experience not involving an actual client, that is . . . reasonably similar to the experience of a lawyer advising or representing a client or engaging in other lawyering tasks" developed by a faculty member (Standard 304): There are many skills that are "reasonably similar" to lawyering tasks--including research, which new attorneys spend approximately 35% of their time conducting. This standard makes it clear that the class cannot be lecture-forward--students must be engaging in lawyering tasks. The performance of skills must have an emphasis in these courses. The ABA Guidance Memo makes clear that this is likely met if the course meets the "primarily experiential in nature" criteria.
  3. Integrates "doctrine, theory, skills, and legal ethics, and engage students in performance of one or more of the professional skills identified in Standard 302" (Standard 303(a)(3)): Simulation courses must combine doctrine and theory with skills and ethics; this tells us that while lecture must not be the central teaching method in the course, it's likely that there will be a lecture component to teach doctrine and theory. These courses must also engage students in one of the professional skills listed in Standard 302, such as "legal analysis and reasoning, legal research, problem-solving, and written and oral communication."
  4. Develops "concepts underlying the professional skills being taught" (Standard 303(a)(3)): This point tells us that the course cannot focus solely on the practice of skills in a vacuum; some time must be spent tying skills back to the concepts underlying those skills.
  5. Provides "multiple opportunities for performance" (Standard 303(a)(3)): This implies multiple exercises or assignments for the students, but there is no suggested amount of practice outlined in the ABA standards. However, due to the experiential nature of the course being the "main purpose" of the course, one can infer that instructors should err on the side of regular opportunities for students to practice their skills during the course.
  6. Provides "opportunities for self-evaluation" (Standard 303(a)(3) & Standard 304): This implies more than one activity requiring students to engage in reflection about their performance, in an effort to learn to critique their own work.
  7. Includes "direct supervision of the student's performance" by and "feedback from a faculty member": (Standard 304): This suggests that class size for a simulation course shouldn't be too large; in a class of 70, for example, it would be challenging for the faculty member to have direct supervision over all the students. Students in simulation courses should be getting some kind of written or oral comments on their work from their professor over the length of the course designed at helping the student to improve their lawyering skills.
  8. Includes "a classroom instructional component" (Standard 304): The ABA explains that the classroom component must be "fairly rigorous" if it will allow for the "integration of doctrine, theory, skills, and legal ethics," and for the "develop[ment] of the concepts underlying the professional skills" being taught. It further recommends that the classroom instructional component includes assignments, learning outcomes, and assessment. The ABA Guidance Memo clarifies, however, that the classroom requirement doesn't have to meet the "not less than one hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction . .  . per week for fifteen weeks" for each credit of the course; as such, the "classroom instructional component" doesn't have to equal the prescribed number of class hours.
In incorporating these eight criteria into their simulation courses, professors are meeting the baseline requirements of experiential simulation courses. Next time, we'll talk about some of the challenges in actually meeting these requirements--specifically for legal research courses.

See Part 2 on how to balance "experiential in nature" and "the classroom instructional component."

**Adapted from Alyson M. Drake, The Need for Experiential Legal Research Education, 108 Law Library J. 511, 527 (2016), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2753172

Popular posts from this blog

Why Experts Can Struggle to Teach Novices

This week in our Slack group on teaching , there was an interesting discussion about expertise and the amount of time needed to prep for instruction. I mentioned something that I recalled reading: that experts can be less effective in teaching novices because often the expert skips cognitive steps that the novice learner needs to understand.  I thought I'd dig into this a little more today on the blog. The fact is novices and experts learn very differently.  The major reason for this is that experts not only know a lot about their chosen discipline, but they understand how that discipline is organized. As such, what has a clear structure to the expert is a jumbled set of unorganized information to the novice.  The information presented to novices "are more or less random data points."[1]  In contrast, when the expert learns something new in her area of expertise, she just plugs it into the knowledge structure that already exists in her long-term memory. Because the new

Motivation in the Legal Research Classroom

Motivating students in the legal research classroom can be a challenge. As we know, there are many false narratives surrounding students' conceptions of legal research's importance, interest level, and ease, all of which can result in a decrease in students' motivation to engage in this subject matter. There are two types of motivation--intrinsic and extrinsic.  Extrinsic motivation occurs when students are motivated by an outside reward or punishment;[1] in instruction, this is often the grades students will get on research assignments or the participation points they might receive for actively engaging with in-class exercises.  Intrinsic motivation , on the other hand, occurs when students are interested in the topic for its own sake.[2] Due to legal research's false narratives, students entering our classrooms tend to be drive primarily by extrinsic motivation.  The problem is, as Julie Dirksen aptly notes in her excellent book Design for How People Learn , &qu

Helping With Student Focus & Motivation in the Remote Classroom, Part 3: Limiting New Technologies to Reduce Extrinsic Cognitive Load

A librarian colleague used to say to me, "Technology is great until it's not." This couldn't be more true in the classroom.  As many of us prepare for a fall entirely or partially online, there's a rush to familiarize ourselves with lots of new educational technology to teach our classes. There's this sense that if you're not using the best and newest ed tech in your class, you're doing something wrong. Fortunately, the science doesn't back this up.  Using too many different types of technology can be a contributing factor to cognitive overload in students . Cognitive load is a term cognitive psychologists use to describe the mental challenge that the limitations of working memory puts on a student's learning.[1] Basically, working memory is extremely limited in both time and duration. Humans can only hold on to between four and nine "chunks" of information at any given time,[2] and can only hold on to new information in their worki

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 , t

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