Law

Die moeite werd om te lees oor onderrig in die Fakulteit Regsgeleerdheid
Papers worth reading about teaching in the Faculty of Law

Keywords: Law 

Anderson, L. S. (2006). “Incorporating Adult Learning Theory into Law School Classrooms:  Small Steps Leading to Large Results.” Appalachian Journal of Law 5(127): 127-149.

 Abstract: This article explores aspects of adult learning theory that can be easily applied to law school teaching. It briefly addresses the landscape of legal education today: the traits of law students, pressures to change legal education, and the need to make legal education more effective. After describing several specific principles of adult education, the article offers concrete suggestions for incorporating these ideas by making small changes in the law school classroom that specifically address some of the current concerns about legal education.

 Bard, J. S. (2008). “Teaching Health Law.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36(4): 841-850.

 Abstract: The article reports on the author’s views about the benefits of teaching in the U. S. medical and law schools. It focuses on the different approaches in higher education but leading to the same goal of educating young adults in the field profession of legal education and medical education. The author teaches both.

 Bateman, P. (1997-1998). “Toward Diversity in Teaching Methods in Law Schools:  Five Suggestions From The Back Row.” Quinnipiac Law Review 17.

Abstract: No abstract

 Caron, P. L. (2003). “Back to the Future: Teaching Law Through Stories.” University of Cincinnati Law Review 71.

 Abstract: This Essay explains the pedagogical theory behind the new Law Stories series of books to be published by Foundation Press. The Law Stories series is intended to enrich the use of the case method of instruction in the law school classroom. By focusing on fewer cases and pausing for an in-depth review of the seminal cases in the field, the professor can empower students to construct their own schematic understanding of the area of law. Cognitive science teaches that such active learning produces more lasting value to students who are better equipped to process new information and solve new problems within the context of their self-constructed schemata. Professors thus should resist the temptation to do this work for students, conveying our schemata in a top-down fashion, with students playing merely a passive role in receiving this oracular wisdom. As a result, Professors should not sacrifice depth of coverage at the alter of scope of coverage; rather than rush through the signature cases in our subject in order to get to the latest hot topic or fashionable theory, professors should savor the opportunity to unpack with our students what it is that makes these cases central to a deep understanding of the field. The Law Stories series provides the raw material to enhance the study of the foundation cases in different subjects. As the initial book in the series, Tax Stories provides an in-depth examination into ten pivotal United States Supreme Court cases in the development of the federal income tax that provide fresh insights both into particular doctrinal areas of tax law as well as issues of wider application across the tax law.

 Caron, P. L. (2005). Teaching with Technology in the 21st Century Law School Classroom The Future of Law Libraries Symposium, Amelia Island.

 Abstract: These remarks were delivered at The Future of Law Libraries Symposium at Amelia Island, FL on March 10, 2005 and have been expanded and updated to be current through February 1, 2006: I believe we are entering a fourth phase in the deployment of modern technology in the law school classroom, in which faculty embrace technology to actively engage the twenty-first century law student. Instead of fighting losing battles against technology, or living with the problems associated with the current state of law school classroom technology, I want to discuss here three of the new technological tools that I use on a daily basis in my classes: (1) the Classroom Performance System; (2) the Law Stories Series; and (3) the Law Professor Blogs Network. These technological tools represent the next generation of law school teaching technology and answer critics who charge that technology in the form of PowerPoint slides and laptop computers create a stultifyingly passive classroom environment. By requiring students to take a more active role in their learning, these technologies help students to thrive in the fast-paced legal world of the twenty-first century using twenty-first century tools.

 Christensen, L. M. (2009). “Enhancing Law School Success:  A Study of Goal Orientations, academic achievement and the declining self-efficacy of our Law Students.” Law and Psychology Review 33: 57-92.

Abstract: No abstract

 Corrada, R. L. (1996). “A Simulation of Union Organizing in Labor Law Class.” Journal of Legal Education 46(3): 445-455.

Abstract: No abstract

Coysh, J. (2005). “Justice education for social change”.

Abstract: No abstract

 Curcio, A. A. (2009). “Assessing Differently and Using Empirical Studies to see if it makes a Difference:  Can Law Schools do it better?” Quinnipiac Law Review 27(899): 899-933.

 Abstract: No abstract

 Dickinson, J. A. (2008). Understanding the Socratic Method in Law School Teaching After the Carnegie Foundation’s Educating lawyers.

 Abstract: For many committed law school teachers, the traditional Socratic pedagogy they practice is the irreducible core of legal education. For others its continued practice is a scandal and more damning, an impediment to learning the practice of law. The Carnegie Foundation’s Educating Lawyers: chose not to take a position in this debate, while framing it, thus leaving its call for reform ungrounded.

 Henderson, T. L. and J. J. Martin (2002). “Cooperative Learning as One approach to Teaching Family Law.” Family Relations 51(4): 351-360.

 Abstract: We identified appropriate family law content and a pedagogical vehicle to support instructors interested in teaching family law to students of family studies and human development programs. Additionally, we provide instructors with an overview of a family law course, a detailed model syllabus, strategies, and model assignments for using cooperative learning as the core pedagogy. We review the pedagogical value of cooperative learning in general and give specific cooperative assignments for our readers. The course model is designed to improve students’ critical thinking, team building, and problem-solving skills toward understanding the intersection of families and the law.

 Hinnet, K. (2002). “Developing Reflective Practice in Legal Education.” UK Centre for Legal Education.

 Abstract: No abstract

 Ingham, J. and R. A. Boyle (2006). “Generation X in Law School:  How These Law Students are Different From those Who teach them.” Journal of Legal Education 56(2): 281-295.

 Abstract: This article presents the results of a multi-year study that examined the learning styles of law students at three law schools in the age category known as Generation X. Joanne Ingham and Robin Boyle also compared the learning styles of the faculty who teach the Gen X student population in the study. The three law schools included in the study were Albany Law School, New York Law School, and St. John’s University School of Law. All three schools are located in different geographical parts of New York State. The Dunn and Dunn Learning Style Model was used. The study’s findings support and offer explanations for several characteristics of the Gen Xers. When comparing the learning styles of law students and faculty, the authors found that faculty and students’ learning style patterns were very different from each other.

 James, N., C. Hughes, et al. (2008). “Creating critical lawyers – Developing and Assessing Critical Thinking in Law “.

Abstract: No abstract

 Joshi, M. and A. Babacan (2009). “Enhancing deep learning through assessments:  A Framework for Accounting and Law Students.” Review of Business Research 9(1): 124-131.

 Abstract: This paper looks at the impact of assessment on the promotion of deep learning in the teaching of accounting and law. The first part of the paper begins by detailing the requirements of accounting regulation bodies in terms of skill acquisition required from accounting graduates in order to join the accounting profession. Next, there is theoretical discussion of an assessment framework which will help accounting educators to promote student learning so as to promote the skills required by the accounting regulation bodies. In doing so, the relationship and impact of assessment tasks on learning outcomes is undertaken. It is demonstrated that a deep approach to teaching and learning results in higher quality.

 McCrehan Parker, C. (2008). “Writing is Everybody’s Business: Theoretical and Practical Justifications for Teaching Writing Across the Law School Curriculum.” Journal of the Legal Writing Institute 12: 175-190.

Abstract: This Essay discusses theoretical and practical justifications for teaching writing across the law school curriculum in terms of specific curricular goals. Practical justifications for teaching writing across the curriculum include the central importance of written communication in practice; the explosion in availability of legal authority and other information that requires ever more skill and efficiency in selection and synthesis of appropriate authorities; and law firm economics that increasingly require new lawyers to be ready to practice law immediately upon hiring. At the same time that employers’ expectations of new law graduates have increased, evidence indicates that preparation in research and writing in secondary and undergraduate schools has diminished. The Essay concludes by proposals for a writing revolution urged by the National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and Colleges and ways that law schools may implement those suggestions.

 McElroy, L. (2009). “From Grimm to Glory: Simulated Oral Argument as a Component of Legal Education’s Signature Pedagogy.” Indiana Law Journal 84(2).

 Abstract: The past two years have been a period of landmark transformation in legal education. With the issuance of the Carnegie and Best Practices in Legal Education reports, law schools and law professors have re-begun the essential process of analyzing and transforming legal pedagogy. This widespread re-examination of the law school curriculum has yielded two important changes in legal education: first, law schools – including those in the top tier – have begun radically to amend their curricular goals and structures; and, second, legal scholars have begun to turn their attention to the theory and implementation of better legal education. As Carnegie and Best Practices note, this nascent metamorphosis in scholarly thought about legal education has the potential to transform both the law school and the law practice experience, as well-grounded pedagogy will remove the barriers to learning that some law students have historically experienced while better preparing them to practice law.  This article represents one of the first concrete responses to Carnegie and Best Practices. In proposing that law professors regularly use oral argument exercises to supplement traditional Socratic dialogue, it meets head on the concerns expressed by Best Practices and Carnegie that over-reliance on the Langdell method neither mimics law practice nor nurtures student learning. It also responds directly to the  suggestion in both reports that simulation exercises may yield better legal analysis and knowledge. Finally, this article advances a novel theory directly related to the objectives and conclusions of the Reports; namely, that for experienced advocates and law students alike, practice oral argument may be a starting point, rather than a mere end point, for teaching, learning, and executing the fundamentals of legal analysis. In the style of the transcribed classroom conversations of the Carnegie Report, it discusses and demonstrates by example a simulation exercise designed for professors to use in introducing this teaching methodology. The exercise, based on seven fairy tales used as precedent cases, provides a familiar, non-threatening technique for students to learn about rule synthesis, weight of authority, analogy and distinction, and theme through oral argument.

 Merritt, D. J. (2007). Legal Education in the Age of Cognitive Science and Advanced Classroom Technology. Centre for Interdisciplinary Law and Policy Studies Working Paper, Ohio State University College of Law.

 Abstract: Cognitive scientists have made major advances in mapping the process of learning, but legal educators know little about this work. Similarly, law professors have engaged only modestly with new learning technologies like PowerPoint, classroom response systems, podcasts, and web-based instruction. This article addresses these gaps by examining recent research in cognitive science, demonstrating how those insights apply to a sample technology (PowerPoint), and exploring the broader implications of both cognitive science and new classroom technologies for legal education. The article focuses on three fields of cognitive science inquiry: the importance of right brain learning, the limits of working memory, and the role of immediacy in education. Those three areas are fundamental to understanding both the effective use of new classroom technologies and the constraints of more traditional teaching methods.

Quinot, Geo (2011). “Inaugural lecture: Transformative legal education”. University of Stellenbosch.

Abstract: If I were to say, “Theory matters”, most people would not find it particularly surprising. In fact, you would think it obvious that as a university professor, I would make such a statement. But what would your reaction be if I were to say, “Theory matters in teaching”? It is on this question that I want to dwell in this lecture and in particular within the context of teaching law in South Africa today.I shall propose that theory matters very much in teaching law in contemporary South Africa, and I shall put forward a theoretical framework within which law should, in my view, be taught at South African universities. I call this framework ‘transformative legal education’,and in short it is what I consider law teachers can and “must do in order to achieve the aims of transformative constitutionalism”.1 I do not propose a new theory, but I rather propose a theoretical framework, that is, a framework that draws upon a number of insights from different disciplines to guide the teaching of law. In setting up this framework, I shall focus on three basic elements of education, namely 1) the subject matter or discipline being taught (here law), 2) the teacher or the act of teaching and 3) the student or learner. I shall align each of these dimensions of legal education with contemporary theories and insights within that particular field. All of these I consider to hold profound implications for the way that law teachers approach their craft. These insights call for a fundamental shift from formalistic legal reasoning to substantive reasoning under a transformative constitution, for a shift towards a constructivist student-centred teaching model and for the recognition of a paradigm shift in knowledge from linear to nonlinear, relational or complex. In conclusion I shall argue that these different insights force us to critically reassess our approach to legal education and explain how these insights can contribute to a meaningful framework within which law can responsibly be taught in contemporary South Africa.

 Randall, V. R. (2000). “Increasing retention and improving performance:  Practical advice on using Cooperative Learning in Law schools.” 202-273.

Abstract: No abstract

 Smuts, K. B. (2003). “Supplemental instruction in law:  a case study in peer tutoring ” SAJHE 17(1): 166-174.

 Abstract: Supplemental Instruction (SI) was implemented in three second-year courses in the Bachelor of Laws degree at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Of the 898 registered students, 152 (17%) attended SI and this group achieved a significantly higher mean course mark than the non-SI group (59.48% and 53.74% respectively.

UKCLE (2010). “What’s reflection got to do with it?”

Abstract: No abstract

 Webb, J. (2000-2001). “Discussion Forum: Teaching Ethics to the Legal Profession:  Is there a Better Way?” Legal Ethics 3(128): 128-130.

Abstract: No abstract