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

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 …

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…

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…

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…

The Effect of Personalization on Student Learning

A group of ten separate studies illustrated that conversational cues can have a deep impact on student learning, particularly for deep learning that allows students to transfer their learning to new situations.[1]Students presented with information in a less formal and more personal manner performed significantly better on problem-solving tests than students hearing identical information presented in a more formal manner.[2]
In her article, Legal Education in the Age of Cognitive Science and Advanced Classroom Technology, Deborah Merritt provides three reasons why personalization deepens learning:
“First, encouraging listeners to think of themselves as a reference point may enhance their interest in the subject, which produced more active cognitive processing. Second, personalizing information may help listeners relate new data to existing mental schema; extending mental frameworks in this manner encourages deeper learning. Finally, listeners may respond to the social cues of convers…