tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797548749870864034.post5992424441196853129..comments2024-03-17T02:41:07.351-05:00Comments on Advocacy Teaching Blog: Our Students as Teachers and CriticsChris Behanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09758408764783435612noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8797548749870864034.post-58834024074219328762010-09-12T00:19:18.108-05:002010-09-12T00:19:18.108-05:00Hugh is on to something here. Nearly bereft of th...Hugh is on to something here. Nearly bereft of the resources that many of us have become accustomed to here in the States, he has been teaching advocacy on a shoestring for several years. Necessity being the mother of invention, circumstances have made it imperative for him to develop advocacy teaching paradigms that involve a very high student-instructor ratio, but with high expectations for student outcomes and performances. His solution is to co-opt the students and make them responsible for their learning process.<br /><br />A few years ago, Jim Seckinger introduced me to the concept of the focused student-on-student critique. Jim would create an evaluation sheet with clear criteria, hand it to students, and have them critique each other's performances. These critiques usually focused on simple observations that one might expect would lead to useful student input: body language, posture, form of questions, tone of voice, and so forth. From time to time, I've used modifications of Jim's methods in my own teaching, always with success.<br /><br />But what Hugh suggests is almost revolutionary in an advocacy teaching environment. The advocacy teacher becomes more of a facilitator--a midwife, if you will--in the learning process. The students are required to take greater responsibility not only for their own individual performances, but also for their peers. They teach each other.<br /><br />Since Hugh first shared his experiences with me a couple of years ago, I've been inspired by his example and have started down his path. Lacking his age, wisdom and experience, I haven't advanced down it as far as he has, but I've found it to be a pleasant and rewarding journey. It seems to be a good experience for the students as well.<br /><br />Let me share a quick example of this in action. Last spring, my Mock Trial Board ran an intramural closing argument competition at our law school. I selected a case file, established the rules, and took care of many administrative tasks. The students on the board agreed to serve as competition mentors for any students who wished to avail themselves of their services. <br /><br />Roughly one-third of the competitors took the Mock Trial Board up on their mentoring offer. Without exception, those who accepted the help outperformed their peers by a wide margin. All of the students who accepted help were 1Ls. None of the 2Ls accepted help or coaching. What I found most interesting was that the 1Ls--none of whom had taken evidence or any trial-related courses--outperformed not only their fellow 1Ls, but also the majority of the 2Ls.<br /><br />I enjoyed seeing the individual influence of my student mentors on the competitors. Many aspects of their own personalities and approaches to advocacy were reflected in their mentees. But the most rewarding thing to observe was how well the mentees had mastered the fundamentals. What their peers taught them was valuable.<br /><br />I'm seeing this again as we start our trial team practices for fall competitions. Some of my team members--the 1Ls from last year--have not yet taken a trial advocacy or conducted a case analysis. One of my more experienced students took the time to draft a "how-to" memo on case analysis for them. The memo is brilliant. It speaks to them in their own language, incorporates the best of what I've taught them about case analysis, and includes some innovations that I will now use the next time I formally teach case analysis.<br /><br />I realize this is a lengthy comment to Hugh's post, but I'm excited about what he's doing. It works!Chris Behannoreply@blogger.com