How Do You Spend the Last Five Minutes of Class?

The following guest post was written by Mark Caldwell, Program Development and Resource Director at the National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

Sometimes Face Book leads you further than updates of restaurants your "friends" have visited, Selfies of others bragging about where they have been, and reminders of a friend's birthday. This past week a post from my friend, and teaching colleague, Marianna Hogan directed me to a wonderful article on the Chronicle of Higher Education's page titled, Small Changes in Teaching: The Last 5 Minutes of Class (http://chronicle.com/article/Small-Changes-in-Teaching-The/235583) by James M. Lang. I commend this article to your personal reading, along with the other posts from Prof. Lang.

Lang opines that, "most faculty members eye the final minutes of class as an opportunity to cram in eight more points before students exit, or to say three more things that just occurred to us about the day's material, or to call out as many reminders as possible about upcoming deadlines, next week's exam, or tomorrow's homework." In reading this I had one of those "cosmic whacks on the side of the head" as I recalled all too many sessions where I attempted to cram in one more performance or offer one more "critical" piece of advice that I knew would make every student a vastly improved trial lawyer. Lang reminded me of just how wrong I was. I was shamed into considering his solution and reminded it was a tool I had foolishly abandoned.

An Interview with Christine Kipsang: Attorney, Advocacy Teacher, and Aficionado of Ginger Masala Tea

I met Christine Kipsang at a recent Justice Advocacy Africa trial advocacy training course in Mombasa, Kenya. Christine is in private practice, with chambers in the Social Security Building a few blocks from the court complex in Mombasa. She agreed to contribute to the blog in the form of an email interview.

Christine Kipsang is second from the left in this picture of some of the Kenyan faculty members in the recent JAA Mombasa trial advocacy course. From left to right, Lilian  Oluoch-Wambi, Christine Kipsang, John Chigiti, Benjamin Njoroge.

Trial Advocacy by Distance Learning

Trial Advocacy by Distance Learning, or, Advocacy Adventures in Cyberspace: A Cautionary Tale

Introduction

Last summer, I experimented with teaching a basic trial advocacy class through distance learning. Except for the final trials, all class instruction and interactions between students and the instructor took place using both synchronous and asynchronous distance learning methods. I required the students to return to the law school and try the final trials live and in a courtroom in front of juries; I was not brave enough to try a final trial on Google Hangouts with the participants in four or five different locations.

At the end of the summer, I gave a presentation about my experience at the South Eastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) annual meeting as part of a panel organized by Suparna Malempati of the John Marshall-Atlanta Law School and moderated by Charlie Rose of the Stetson University College of Law. This blog post both summarizes and expands on that presentation.

It is a cautionary tale. It might even be a tale full of sound and fury, likely told by an idiot, and perhaps signifying nothing. The bottom line, however, is this: if you and your students are prepared to work an order of magnitude harder than you would in a live trial advocacy course, you can use free technology resources to create a meaningful and successful trial advocacy teaching and learning experience. But you will have to work very hard indeed to bridge the gaps created by trying to draw people together in cyberspace.

Teaching Trial Advocacy in Africa: The Magic of Mombasa

As I write this, I am sitting in a room at the Royal Court Hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, unwinding from the 2015 Justice Advocacy Africa/Mombasa Law Society Trial Advocacy Training. It was a busy week, but a wonderful one. As always when I come to the end of a short, intensive trial advocacy course, I find myself experiencing a combination of physical exhaustion from the labors and revelry of the week, and mental rejuvenation from the chance to work with a group of gifted colleagues and students.

Students and faculty of the 2015 Trial Advocacy Training Course, jointly sponsored by Justice Advocacy Africa and the Mombasa Law Society. This picture was taken in the moot court room of the University of Nairobi School of Law, Mombasa campus.

Courses Tethering Evidence and Trial Advocacy/Mock Trial

The next course outline (see blog post of May 28, 2014 for further explanation) is for a tethered evidence and advocacy program or course. A tethered evidence and advocacy program is one in which the students simultaneously take a trial advocacy course and an evidence course. The two courses are coordinated and often taught by the same instructor. This version is provided by Wes Porter, Director of the Litigation Center and Associate Professor at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco. We have blogged about Wes’ tethered Summer Trial & Evidence Program for students who recently completed 1L year– called 1st STEP – here and here.

This post applies to both the tethered program/course and an independent bridge course between evidence and trial advocacy/mock trial. In our Center, the bridge course is a 2-credit, skills course called “Evidence in the Courtroom” (EIC). We recommend EIC as a co-requisite with evidence, like the lab element that many schools offer, but many students take after evidence. I (Wes Porter) have created materials for EIC.

Basic Trial Advocacy Course Outline

The second of our course outlines (see blog post of May 28, 2014 for further explanation) is for a basic trial advocacy course. I prepared this handout.

Basic Trial Advocacy Course

1. Type of Course. A learning-by-doing trial skills course.

2. Course Learning Objectives and Primary Course Goals. Students learn the basic skills necessary to try a simple bench or jury trial: case analysis, storytelling, development of theme and theory, direct examination through non-leading questions, cross-examination through leading questions, introduction and use of exhibits, opening statements, closing arguments. The primary goal of the course is to put all this together in a final jury trial, tried with a partner.

Pretrial Advocacy Course Outline

The first of our course outlines (see blog post of May 28, 2014 for further explanation) is for a pretrial advocacy course. This version is provided by Gwen Stern, Director of Trial Advocacy Programs and Associate Teaching Professor at Drexel University School of Law in Philadelphia. Please feel free to contact Gwen directly for more information about her course at gstern@drexel.edu.

Pretrial Advocacy

• Skills course with student participation to teach students to develop pretrial strategic themes, theories and practices to be used through pretrial process
• Use real cases with real examples
• Max 18 students
• Start with HBO film “Hot Coffee”, then classes on:
  

Thematic Foundations for Advocacy Courses

Designing an advocacy course is a challenging task. One of the panels at the recent EATS conference addressed issues of course design and implementation. The panel consisted of advocacy professors from several law schools: Chris Behan (SIU), Megan Canty (Loyola-Chicago), Rafe Foreman (UMKC), Wes Porter (Golden Gate), Adam Shlahet (Fordham), and Gwen Stern (Drexel). Wes and I were supposed to participate from San Francisco via Skype but ran into technical problems. The remaining panel members had to operate under a bit of a time crunch. Prior to the conference, however, we each prepared extensively for our presentations, developed a structure for our panel, and created handouts for distribution at the conference.

What I hope to do in the next few blog posts is to provide for our blog readership the handouts we created for our panel presentations. We built all of our presentations on the idea that there are common thematic foundations for all advocacy courses: certain elements that the course designer must include in order to be successful. There are also some common pitfalls, dangers, and trouble spots to be aware of and avoid if necessary. On that foundation, we then prepared presentations pertaining to different advocacy courses based on trial phases. In other words, we started with pretrial advocacy courses and ended with appellate advocacy courses.

Teaching Trial Advocacy to 1Ls: The 1st STEP Experience

Four years ago, Wes Porter, Director of the Litigation Center at the Golden Gate University School of Law, created an innovative program to teach evidence and trial advocacy to law students in the summer between their first and second years of law school. The program, called 1^st STEP (Summer Trial and Evidence Program), has garnered national attention. In 2013, the program was featured in PreLaw Magazine's 25 Most Innovative Ideas issue and in National Jurist Magazine's article entitled Fifteen Innovative Experimental Ideas. Wes has also written about the 1^st STEP program in this blog. Additionally, a description and student feedback about the program is on the GGU litigation website.

Classroom at Golden Gate University just before the start of the 1st STEP Immersion Week

Trip Report: Advocacy Training in Botswana

I recently returned home from helping to teach an advocacy training course in Gaborone, Botswana. The course was sponsored by Justice Advocacy Africa and the Law Society of Botswana (LSB). JAA is a U.S.-based nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting "confidence in and respect for legal institutions in African countries through providing professional advocacy training for African lawyers." The LSB regulates practicing lawyers in Botswana, promotes pro-bono service, and engages in activities to promote greater access to justice in Botswana.

Faculty Members in the Botswana course at the end of the course. The faculty were presented with traditional bridal blankets, a gift from the Law Society of Botswana. Male faculty were instructed in the proper procedures for placing the blanket on their spouses.

Teaching with NITA: A Report from the Rocky Mountain Basic Trial Program

Suparna Malempati is the Director of Advocacy Programs at Atlanta's John Marshall Law School. From time to time, she guest blogs for us. In this blog, she shares her recent experience teaching in a NITA program. I wholeheartedly endorse all she has to say about teaching with NITA, and I recommend the experience for anyone who loves trial advocacy, teaching, learning, and having fun with a great group of people.

The end of an enriching work trip is often bittersweet. On the one hand, you are glad to be home to familiar surroundings and the routine of daily life. On the other hand, you miss the intellectual challenge of being in the company of highly accomplished professionals. I certainly felt that way after four days of teaching with NITA at the Rocky Mountain Basic Trial Program.

Moving Beyond Powerpoint to Engage Advocacy Students

Suparna Malempati is an associate professor of law at Atlanta's John Marshall Law School, where she teaches trial advocacy. This is her first guest piece for our blog, and we hope there are many more to come.

 When I began teaching Trial Advocacy a few years ago, I structured my class in a manner similar to the NITA programs.  I began class with a fairly short lecture (generally 20 minutes) about the day’s topic.  I then either demonstrated the technique being taught or showed a video clip.  I engaged the students after the lecture and demonstration with an exercise.  I thought that to be the best manner of organizing the class.  I spent hours preparing power point slides for each lecture, and summoned all my talents of effective presentation.  After all, I was a trial attorney.  I was able to engage jurors with brilliant closing arguments that lasted hours.  Of course I could hold the attention of students for a 20-minute lecture.

Summer Fun in Carbondale: "Experimental Design" with Diagnostic Trials, Acclaim Software, and a Music-Based Storytelling Exercise

My father-in-law was infamous within the family for something he called "experimental design." What that meant was any time he felt like he needed to put in some new landscaping, refinish a room, or start any kind of major or minor remodeling project, he'd go ahead and launch the project by, say, tearing out a wall or digging up part of the yard. There would be no advance planning, no blueprints, no cost estimates, and no time limits. Projects could take anywhere from an afternoon to several years. Some of the experiments were successful, others less so, but he was always happiest when he was working on one of his projects.

I have adopted a similar philosophy for my summer trial advocacy class, where I have the luxury of a low enrollment cap and no requirement to coordinate in advance with six adjunct faculty members. In the summer, it's just the students and me. The class usually starts about two weeks after the end of the EATS conference, which means my mind is brimming with new ideas inspired by presentations or conversations during breaks or meals.

This year, I integrated a couple of new "experimental design" elements into my summer class. Following are some preliminary observations about each of them.

Tweeting-For Better Case Analysis

TWEETING - FOR BETTER CASE ANALYSIS

By Professor Wes Porter

Professor Porter teaches evidence and advocacy courses and directs the Litigation Center at Golden Gate University School of Law 

Teaching case analysis is always a challenge.  The skill of case analysis is critical for our courses and mock trial teams - and for a career in litigation.  While jury addresses, witness examinations, and motions in limine involve case analysis, we miss something when this skill is not isolated from other parts of trial presentation.  We sought to better segregate the skill of case analysis and diagnose related issues independently.  We focused more on case analysis in our advocacy curriculum and created a consistent, written requirement (expectation) to segregate the the skill of case analysis.

“I got to get on the good foot…..” or Suggestions for Your Initial Class Session

Judge Bob McGahey guest blogs for us from time to time. He converted his presentation from EATS 2013 to a blog. For those others of you who presented, this is how it's done!

“I got to get on the good foot…..”

OR 

Suggestions for a Your Initial Class Session

By

Hon. Robert L. McGahey, Jr.

At the recent EATS Conference, I was assigned, along with Gillian Moore and Jude Borque, the topic of “Teaching in the Moment: Developing Your Critiquing Methodology.”  We were the last presentation of the second day – and I also ended up going after both Gillian and Jude.  No pressure, right?

Gillian and Jude were their usual brilliant selves, and I ended up using some of what they both said as a jumping off point.  I found myself talking about the kinds of things I do one the first night of class. In this post, I’ll try to summarize some of what I discussed. (And since I’m a child of the ‘60’s, who better to steal a title from than James Brown?)

Here’s the picture: it’s the first night of Basic Trial Practice. You look out at twelve eager faces. Well, some are eager.  Perhaps more are scared or trying hard not to look scared. Just as with a jury at the start of voir dire, you have to connect with them right away.  How? Well, like voir dire, you should think this out beforehand, and prepare.

Reflective Self-Analysis: A Great Way to End a Law School Trial Advocacy Course

Another trial advocacy semester at Southern Illinois University School of Law has ended.  We held our final trials last weekend at the Jackson County Courthouse in Murphysboro, Illinois, and it was gratifying to see the progress the students have made as advocates during the past fourteen weeks.  They've worked hard, and our gifted trial ad faculty of experienced attorneys and teachers played a considerable role in shaping their growth and development.

There is one remaining requirement for the semester: a guided self-analysis memorandum.  I started requiring this memorandum a few years ago so the students would be required to think carefully and critically about their final trial performance.  I identify several subject areas and ask them to answer specific questions about their preparation, performance, professionalism, and even their opponents.

From my perspective, this is a valuable exercise.  First, it helps students begin the habit of careful and critical self-analysis.  Second, the use of guided topics and specific questions largely forestalls such introspective answers as "this was a great experience and I learned a lot that will help me in my future life."  Third, I get a view of what goes on behind the scenes as the students prepare for trials: the witnesses who don't show up, the partners who refuse to meet and plan, the unexpected logistical challenges that occur when they discover the local county courthouses are not as well-equipped as the law school moot courtroom.  In turn, I use this information to help my own-self-evaluation of my performance as an instructor and course manager.  I've made a number of changes to the course as a result of trends identified in these memoranda.

I've included a copy of that memorandum with this blog post.  You can download it from Scribd if you'd like.  Feel free to use it, modify it and suggest improvements.

Good luck as you finish your semester and start planning the next one!

TrialAd Self Evaluation

1st STEP: Integrated Trial Advocacy and Evidence Class at Golden Gate University School of Law

This post is by Wes Porter of the Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco.

We all conceive ways to best train future litigators and trial advocates during their time in law school.  Two summers ago, I listened intently to some of those ideas at Stetson's Educating Advocates Conference.  If we program directors and skills professors ran the law school, we would want to: (1) teach every student the rules of evidence our way; (2) show our students how the rules play out in litigation and at trial while they are learning evidence; (3) afford more of our students the attention, critique, and training that we devote to mock trial competitors; and, (4) maximize our time working with students in skills and advocacy courses.  I have thought about integrated learning models and better teaching practices in law school long before I joined the academy.          

The Idea

I convinced our law school, the Golden Gate University School of Law, to allow me to create an integrated, litigation curriculum for students who recently completed their first year of law school. Our Summer Trial and Evidence Program (1st STEP) is an 8-week, summer program for selected law students - they take Evidence, Trial Advocacy, and a specially-designed course called Evidence in the Courtroom.  Evidence in the Courtroom incorporates motions in limine, notice requirements, expert witnesses, and a more in depth coverage of the modes of impeachment, evidentiary foundations, and objections and responses at trial.  The program also includes presentation and acting techniques from a theatre instructor.

Students began with an intense, full-time week of trial advocacy topics (Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm).  Faculty and practitioners lectured, demonstrated, and led advocacy, persuasion and presentation workshops.  With this strong foundation, students then spent seven weeks immersed in a full, 4-unit Evidence course integrated with our advocacy training and theatre instruction.  We tethered their learning and application of the rules of evidence to our skills training in every way possible.  Trial lawyers inevitably claim that they truly learned evidence by understanding how evidence came to life through litigation and at trial.  In 1st STEP, students continuously apply and exercise the rules and concepts taught in their Evidence course.  Our program compelled our students to perform advocacy exercises incorporating the rules - as they learned the rules.  

For example, the students learned about the business records exception to hearsay in evidence; contemporaneously, they performed exercises laying the proper evidentiary foundations to admit business records at trial and then use the exhibit to further their case theory and theme.  As the students learned character evidence and Rule 404(b), the students drafted notice of intent letter to opposing counsel under Rule 404(b), filed the ensuing motion in limine, responded, argued the motion at a hearing, and drafted the court's order.  While the students learned the impeachment rules in Article VI, they performed cross examinations incorporating the modes of impeachment and presented corresponding credibility arguments in summation.     

The Feedback

So far, the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.  These students (affectionately called my "step kids") better understand the rules of evidence, better appreciate the role of evidence in their advocacy presentations, and demonstrate more significant improvement and development because they are, for the 8-week summer session, immersed in the topics we consider most critical to a successful advocate's foundation.   And remember - the students are rising 2Ls.  We have more time to reiterate our programmatic messages, cover advanced skills courses and topics, and contribute to their development as advocates.  I will track these student through their law school careers and beyond - but I am confident that the integrated learning model in 1st STEP is the way to teach and learn the rules of evidence.

The Questions

We have many lessons learned and ways to improve 1st STEP for next summer.  Many questions arose about how best to structure and execute the program.  Some of the key decisions were as follows: 

1. what advocacy skills would you cover in a full-time week with students who recently finished their first of law school and have yet to take Evidence?
   
2. if students took only Evidence and Trial Advocacy in a semester, how and in what topics would you integrate the instruction?
   
3. If you were permitted to run an "Evidence in trial" lab while students were taking Evidence, what exercises would you require to further their appreciation and retention of the rules?
   

Our Best Answers

We spent many hours planning 1st STEP and made many difficult curriculum decisions.  Here is how we answered the questions:

1. We covered the fundamental trial advocacy topics in our first, full-time week: theme and theory; case analysis; persuasion; jury addresses; direct and cross examination; exhibits; and even objections (they stood up and said "Objection, basis").
   
2. We drew the connections between Evidence and advocacy training with: motions in limine; objections and responses (at sidebar and before the jury); evidentiary foundations for exhibits, demonstratives, and statements; modes of impeachment; notice requirements; expert testimony; and the narrower topics of judicial notice, stipulations, offers of proof, and others.
   
3. Our Evidence lab exercises focused on: laying evidentiary foundations; impeachment by prior inconsistent statement; refreshing recollection; notice; and motions in limine (written motions and oral argument).
   

I am interested in any and all thoughts - and I am happy to talk about our 1st STEP. 

--Wes Porter

LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND REASONS

This post is courtesy of Mark Caldwell, Senior Director of Education: Specialty Programs for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

The Carnegie Report on legal education is generating waves of change throughout the United States as many law schools seek ways to bring practical experience to the doctrinal classes. I am privileged to be working with Professor Roberto Corrada at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law as he brings new ideas to the faculty of law. Over the past year members of the faculty have exchanged ideas through presentations on methods they are employing in their substantive courses.

This spring I attended a presentation by Deborah Zalesne, Professor of Law, & David Nadvorney, Director of the Professional Skills Center, CUNY School of Law. Their presentation, "Rethinking the Syllabus in Core Courses: Dismantling the Hierarchy Between Theory and Skills," related a number of exciting ideas about collaborative teaching. Included in the process they employ for first year students is the use of a highly detailed course syllabus. Many teachers make use of this tool to show direction in their classes. What makes the syllabus employed by Professor Zalense so innovative is how she weaves each day's work with how it relates to the practice of law and what tools the students should be employing as they bring the substantive knowledge learned in class to practice. Professor Zalesne and Director Nadvorney are working on a book that should be released later this year from Carolina Academic Press titled Teaching for Every Student, Integrating Skills and Theory into the Contracts Class . I expect it will be an interesting read for those interested in course design.

I was truly taken by this very creative idea - wishing that my law teachers had done something similar for me all those years ago. As I sat listening to the presentation I had one of those "Cosmic Whacks on the Side of the Head." At NITA we teach through a process that has four parts - Tell the student what our comments will focus upon; Play back the words they used that could be improved upon; Offer a means to "fix" or change their behavior; and give them a reason why changing their behavior would help them be more effective. My epiphany was a connection between providing learning objectives in a syllabus and telling people why we feel it important to include specific skills in a class session. In essence, taking what we do on a focused basis and make it more global.

Recognizing that many of the things we diagnose and fix are universal, why not present them in advance. Students often ask if they may have our notes of their performances. They are seeking a means of memorializing our suggestions for improvement. Some teachers even use a prescription form as a means of sharing their comments. (See the attached form that I sometimes give to my teaching teams at programs). By providing up front, and before student performances, specific learning objectives and reasons we offer added guidance to students, suggest where they focus their performances, help them understand the building block process of teaching skills, and makes the instructor accountable for what is taught. Some might find this a frightening concept while others might welcome the guidance. In either case it makes the process measurable.

Those who miss a class session are now afforded specific information on what they have missed and must now acquire to catch up with the rest of the class. It assists instructors by limiting the universe of what they must diagnose and fix.

The process in no way limits how an instructor must teach. There is still a huge degree of flexibility in terms of working with individual students. It does not suggest how a skill should be taught. It simply lays out a class focus and helps everyone appreciate how the course is designed.

In crafting my Learning Objectives and Reasons for a recent trial skills program - The Rocky Mountain Basic Trial Skills Program - I borrowed liberally from the work of Professor Peter T. Hoffman. His Building Blocks for Advocacy are a great set of learning objectives that any advocacy teacher should read before they offer a trial skills course.

For my current crop of skills courses I am writing detailed learning objectives and goals. I currently have no evidence that anyone reads these documents. I have heard from some members of my teaching teams they find the guidance helpful. I have no comments from program participants.

Before providing my first set of Goals and Reasons to a class I shared the idea and my draft with a number of colleagues. All liked the idea. A number commented to me the document was far too long. My good friend and colleague Terre Rushton suggested I was overly ambitious and that each workshop should only have three or fewer learning objectives. The teacher in me says Terre is right - it is foolish to expect students to take away more than a few points in each class session. My compulsive self says - set the bar high and offer more. Each student may only take away two or three points but those points may be different for each person in class. Give them a broad range and let them take away those points that best fit their needs.

Following is an example, excerpting a portion of a program schedule and then the Learning Objectives and Reasons for the session:

2011 Blog on Learning Objectives and Reasons

Class Notes in “Skills” Courses

 This post is from Wes Porter of Golden Gate University School of Law

Generally, a student's individual notes are near useless in a skills course. Students do "take notes" in our classes.  During lectures, demonstrations, performances by their peers and instructor's critiques, they write down something. But, what do these notes look like? How useful are they after the specific exercise and after the course?  Do students retain the notes? Turns out, these notes are not very useful at all. 

I (informally) surveyed advocacy students and most do not retain any notes following the skills instruction.
Of course, there are some simple explanations. Students retain their notes from doctrinal courses for use later in law school, the bar exam and beyond. Most students hang on to their advocacy textbook (maybe because, unlike in substantive courses, our skills textbooks, like Charlie's, are easy to read and more comprehensive than student notes – and most advocacy courses). Another reason is, the notes themselves are scattered, selective and inconsistent.

Each advocacy course and every skills instructor is unique. I want the students to not only have a great "learning experience" during a semester - but also to maintain the foundational lessons thereafter.  I sought a way to better memorialize the specific advocacy instruction in a course so that students may refer to it in advanced skills offerings, mock trial competition and (maybe even) later on in practice. To that end, I am currently experimenting with forums on TWEN, a very easy to use blog-like function you can set up for any class.

We use regular (weekly) forum posting through TWEN to create "class notes" in certain skills courses.  The process looks like this.  First, like most of you, I assign reading, handouts and other materials on a specific advocacy topic (ie. modes of impeachment) and then I lecture and demonstrate the skill during class.  Second, each student performs within the topic the next class meeting while his or her peers evaluate the performance against specific assessment criteria. Third, I distribute and post on TWEN the peer evaluations immediately following the class meeting. Fourth, and central to this post, each student following their performances, my critiques and their review of the peer evaluations must post a "take away" on the topic on forums.

Following class, I create a TWEN forums topic for the topic of instruction, such as "Modes of impeachment." The students must post a reflective paragraph or two about what they learned about the topic (maybe from their "notes," peer evaluations or further reflection). Under the modes of impeachment topic, for example, one advocacy student wrote: The more comfortable you get with impeachment, the easier the decision gets.  You can develop a "long version" and a "short version" of impeachment - if someone strays on some minor detail, then I still let the witness know they strayed from their "safety net" [the witness' prior statement] and I KNOW it.  I require the forums posting as part of their grade.  This generation of law students read the posts, comment on the posts from their classmates, and sometimes even debate advocacy lessons (this is when I weigh in). 

Lastly, I aggregate the quality posts and comments into a single document organized by the advocacy lessons (ie. Modes of impeachment) and then sub-categories (ie. Modes of impeachment - bias). I then distribute them to the class at the end as our "CLASS NOTES" (and also post the class notes to TWEN). The class notes represent a particularized collection of our skills course, my language from lectures and critique and the students' language in the take aways.  My hope is that students will retain these notes and the big picture lessons will assist them in our program and maybe even in practice. These class notes may also benefit subsequent advocacy students, as well as further unify some of our programmatic messages. 

We are always searching for ways for advocacy students to internalize the lessons that we preach and repeat constantly. With this TWEN forums experiment, students reflect on an advocacy lesson, write a paragraph on the lesson, share their individual notes, read each other's notes, comment and discuss the lesson, and, hopefully, receive something worthwhile at the end of the semester in the form of their "class notes." I am interested if other skills instructors have similar approaches or thoughts. I am happy to share some additional examples of the forums topics, student posts or the "class notes" from past skills courses.

--Wes Porter

Advocacy Across the Curriculum: Integrating Team-Based Learning and Application Exercises in an Evidence Class

In keeping with the blog theme for January-February of Advocacy Across the Curriculum, I've decided to continue the discussion on advocacy teaching across the curriculum and write about an experiment with team-based learning and advocacy application exercises in my evidence class this semester.

Let me first express some disagreement with some of the more cynical views expressed by my good friend Hugh Selby in an earlier post (available here) about the future of skills training in law schools. I think Hugh is right about the resistance of the law school professoriate to experiential learning and skills training. The current focus of many faculty members is scholarship. This confers a benefit on students because their professors are intellectually engaged with the larger legal and academic community. But, as Brent Evan Newton points out in a forthcoming piece in the South Carolina Law review (abstract available here; previously mentioned in this blog here), there may be a problem if law school faculties focus on theoretical scholarship to the exclusion of experiential learning and training. Faculties with little or no practice experience may be too disconnected from the bench and bar to prepare graduates for the practice of law.

It seems to me that we might well see greater demand for experiential learning and skills training in law schools in the very near future. The MacCrate report (now dated, but still valid, link here), Carnegie report (link here), proposed ABA standards on outcome-based learning (discussed here, here and here, NITA's white paper on law schools (here), the shifting business model for law firm that leaves fewer resources for training new associates—all suggest to me that the future may be just a little brighter than Hugh suggests. Of course, five or ten years from now, I could be proven wrong and join Hugh in his cynicism, but for now I am optimistic.

For now, I've decided to integrate advocacy training into my doctrinal classes to the extent that it's appropriate. I have my criminal law students give opening statements, for example. I include courtroom advocacy exercises in my evidence classes. I also teach classes where this sort of thing doesn't work. For instance, in my military law seminar, which is a theoretical "paper class" there's no skills-training, nor have I included any in the international criminal law class I occasionally teach.

Personally, I think the integrated advocacy training is paying off. I've been pleased with the flexibility and adaptability that I've seen from students who have had to actually apply evidence principles in courtroom exercises as part of the basic evidence course.

Before this semester kicked off, I looked at my evidence course to see how I could more effectively integrate my application exercises. The biggest problem I had noticed was that, to save myself the work of making individual assignments, I had asked all the students to be prepared to play all the roles in any given advocacy exercise: counsel for both sides, witnesses, or judge. I found that the students tried hard, but were not quite as focused as I wanted them to be.

Luckily for me, at about the same time I was reassessing my evidence course, our law school hosted a teaching forum on team-based learning, taught by Barbara Glesner Fines of UMKC. This revolutionized my application exercises. My class is now divided into 5-person teams. Each class session, several teams are assigned to prepare for the application exercises. They are responsible to figure out who will play which roles for the day's exercise. They work together to produce a plan for the application exercise. When I call on a team, they have already decided who will do what. They've also frequently coordinated a script that, if not entirely correct, at least gives me something to work on them with during class. Sometimes I mix and match teams (I might use one team for advocates and another for witnesses, for example), but there has been no problem doing this because the overall level of preparation is so much better.

The team-based learning principles have given me a way to help the class elevate its learning. First, as frequently happens in an actual litigation setting, the students are working and preparing in teams. Second, they are able to pool their resources and create a better integrated product than the fragmented individual efforts before. Third, they come into class with an advocacy plan and try to execute it—which is quite similar to what we want them to do in the courtroom. Overall, I feel that the learning experience has improved by integrating team-based learning with advocacy application exercises in a doctrinal class.