On SSRN, I have a draft article posted entitled, “Building a Culture of Assessment in Law Schools.” It is available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3216804.
Here’s the abstract:
A new era of legal education is upon us: Law schools are now required to assess learning outcomes across their degrees and programs, not just in individual courses. Programmatic assessment is new to legal education, but it has existed in higher education for decades. To be successful, assessment requires cooperation and buy-in from faculty. Yet establishing a culture of assessment in other disciplines has not been easy, and there is no reason to believe that it will be any different in legal education. A survey of provosts identified faculty buy-in as the single biggest challenge towards implementing assessment efforts. This article surveys the literature on culture of assessment, including conceptual papers and quantitative and qualitative studies. It then draws ten themes from the literature about how to build a culture of assessment: (1) the purpose of assessment, which is a form of scholarship, is improving student learning, not just for satisfying accreditors; (2) assessment must be faculty-driven; (3) messaging and communication around assessment is critical, from the reasons for assessment through celebrating successes; (4) faculty should be provided professional development, including in their own graduate studies; (5) resources are important; (6) successes should be rewarded and recognized; (7) priority should be given to utilizing faculty’s existing assessment devices rather than employing externally developed tests; (8) the unique needs of contingent faculty and other populations should be considered; (9) to accomplish change, stakeholders should draw on theories of leadership, business, motivation, and the social process of innovation; and (10) student affairs should be integrated with faculty and academic assessment activities. These themes, if implemented by law schools, will help programmatic assessment to become an effective addition to legal education and not just something viewed as a regulatory burden.
What is unique about this paper is that it draws almost exclusively from literature outside of legal education. Since assessment is new for a lot of law schools, we can learn a lot from those in other fields who have gone before us. The “scholarship of assessment” articles are particularly fascinating, since they employ rigorous empirical methods to ascertain the best practices for building a culture of assessment.
I welcome thoughts and reactions at Larry.Cunningham@stjohns.edu!
Professor Andrea Curcio (Georgia State) has published A Simple Low-Cost Institutional Learning-Outcomes Assessment Process, 67 J. Legal Educ. 489 (2018). It’s an informative article, arguing that, in light of budgetary pressures, faculty should use AAC&U style rubrics to assess competencies across a range of courses. The results can then be pooled and analyzed. In her abstract on SSRN, Professor Curcio states:
The essay explains a five-step institutional outcomes assessment process: 1. Develop rubrics for institutional learning outcomes that can be assessed in law school courses; 2. Identify courses that will use the rubrics; 3. Ask faculty in designated courses to assess and grade as they usually do, adding only one more step – completion of a short rubric for each student; 4. Enter the rubric data; and 5. Analyze and use the data to improve student learning. The essay appendix provides sample rubrics for a wide range of law school institutional learning outcomes. This outcomes assessment method provides an option for collecting data on institutional learning outcomes assessment in a cost-effective manner, allowing faculties to gather data that provides an overview of student learning across a wide range of learning outcomes. How faculties use that data depends upon the results as well as individual schools’ commitment to using the outcomes assessment process to help ensure their graduates have the knowledge, skills and values necessary to practice law.
This is an ideal way to conduct assessment, because it involves measuring students’ actual performance in their classes, rather than on a simulated exercise that is unconnected to a course and in which, therefore, they may not give full effort. This article is particularly valuable to the field because it includes sample rubrics for a range of learning outcomes that law schools are likely to measure. It’s definitely worth a read!
My only concern is with getting faculty buy-in. Professor Curcio states, “In courses designated for outcomes measurement, professors add one more step to their grading process. After grading, faculty in designated courses complete an institutional faculty-designed rubric that delineates, along a continuum, students’ development of core competencies encompassed by a given learning outcome. The rubric may be applied to every student’s work or to that of a random student sample.” Continue reading
Karen Sloan of the National Law Journal reports on a symposium issue of the University of Detroit Mercy Law Review about formative assessment. She compares two studies that seem to reach different conclusions on the subject.
First up is an article by a group of law professors Ohio State, led by Ruth Colker, who conducted a study offering a voluntary practice test to students in Constitutional Law. Those who opted for the voluntary test and mock grade did better on the final exam. Those students also did better on their other subjects than non-participants.
The second article was by David Siegel of New England. He examined whether individualized outreach to low performing students would benefit their end-of-semester grades. In his study, he sent e-mails to students in his course who scored low on quizzes. He also had follow-up meetings with them. His control group was students who scored slightly higher on the quizzes but didn’t receive any individualized feedback or have one-on-one meetings. He found that there was no statistical difference between the final grades of the groups.
From this, Ms. Sloan concludes:
There’s enough research out there on the benefits of formative assessments to put stock in the conclusion the Ohio State professors reached, that more feedback on tests and performance helps. But I think Siegel’s study tells us that the manner and context of how that feedback is delivered makes a difference. It’s one thing to have a general conversation with low performing students. But issuing a grade on a practice exam—even if it doesn’t count toward their final grade—I suspect is a real wake-up call to students that they may need to step up and make some changes.
I agree 100% with Ms. Sloan’s takeaway. One additional point: the two studies are really measuring two different things. Professor Colker’s was about formative assessment, while Professor Siegel’s was about the efficacy of early alerts. After all, all students in his class took the quiz and got the results. I also note that Professor Siegel’s “control group” wasn’t really one, since they received higher grades on the first quiz, albeit ones that were only slightly higher. It may be that this group benefitted just from taking and scoring the quiz. An interesting way to re-run the study would be to do as Professor Colker and her colleagues did at Ohio State: invite participants from all grade ranges to participate in the extra feedback. Of course, there’s still the problem of cause-and-effect versus correlation. It may be that the students in Professor Colker’s study were simply more motivated, and it is this fact—motivation—that is the true driver of the improvement in grades. Nevertheless, these are two, important studies and additions to the conversation about assessment in legal education. (LC)
Legal research is a competency mandated by the ABA standards. It’s also a natural area where law schools would want to know if their students are performing competently. This outcome is also low hanging fruit for assessment, since there are numerous places in the curriculum where you examine students’ research (1L Legal Writing, clinics, externships, and seminars all come to mind).
Laura Ray, Outreach and Instructional Services Librarian at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, is gathering information on how law schools are planning to assess legal research outcomes. She invites comments at firstname.lastname@example.org.
I have started compiling links to organizations about assessment in higher education. The links are under “Resources.”
Over at TaxProf, Dean Caron reports on a University of Minnesota study that found that students who were randomly assigned to 1L sections that had a class with individualized, formative assessments performed better in their other courses than those who did not. Daniel Schwarcz and Dion Farganis authored the study, which appears in the Journal of Legal Education.
From the overview section of the study:
The natural experiment arises from the assignment of first-year law students to one of several “sections,” each of which is taught by a common slate of professors. A random subset of these professors provides students with individualized feedback other than their final grades. Meanwhile, students in two different sections are occasionally grouped together in a “double- section” first-year class. We find that in these double-section classes, students in sections that have previously or concurrently had a professor who provides individualized feedback consistently outperform students in sections that have not received any such feedback. The effect is both statistically significant and hardly trivial in magnitude, approaching about one-third of a grade increment after controlling for students’ LSAT scores, undergraduate GPA, gender, race, and country of birth. This effect corresponds to a 3.7-point increase in students’ LSAT scores in our model. Additionally, the positive impact of feedback is stronger among students whose combined LSAT score and undergraduate GPA fall below the median at the University of Minnesota Law School.
What’s particularly interesting is how this study came about. Minnesota’s use of “double sections” created a natural control group to compare students who previously had formative assessment with those who did not.
The results should come as no surprise. Intuitively, students who practice and get feedback on a new skills should outperform students who do not. This study advances the literature by providing empirical evidence for this point in a law school context. The study is also significant because it shows that individualized, formative assessment in one class can benefit those students in their other classes.
There are policy implications from this study. Should associate deans assign professors who practice formative assessment evenly across 1L sections so that all students benefit? Should all classes be required to have individualized, formative assessments? What resources are needed to promote greater use of formative assessments—smaller sections and teaching assistants, for example?
I stumbled upon Colorado College‘s Assessment page, and I thought it was very well done. It presents information about assessment in an understandable and straightforward manner. The “how-to” guide on assessment is particularly well done with a lot of practical suggestions. Check out this informative webpage!
I just finished slogging through 85 final exams in my Evidence course, and it got me thinking about how I would teach the course if it was offered in a small format of, say, 20 students. Evidence at our school is a “core” course, one of five classes from which students must take at least four (the others are Administrative Law, Business Organizations, Tax, and Trusts and Estates). Naturally, therefore, it draws a big enrollment. I love teaching big classes because the discussions are much richer, but the format hampers my ability to give formative assessments. This semester, I experimented with giving out-of-class, multiple choice quizzes after each unit. They served several purposes. They gave students practice with the material, and they allowed me to see students’ strengths and weaknesses. I was able to backtrack and go over concepts that students had particular difficulty mastering.
But having read 255 individual essays (85 times three essays each), I’m left convinced that students would benefit from additional feedback on essay writing. In lieu of a final exam, I’d love to give students a series of writing assignments throughout the semester. They could even take the form of practice writing documents, like motions. But to be effective, this change requires a small class. So that got me thinking: how would I change my teaching if my Evidence course had 20 students instead of 85? Continue reading
The bar exam is an important outcome measure of whether our graduates are learning the basic competencies expected of new lawyers. As the ABA Managing Director reminded us in his memo of June 2015, however, it can no longer be the principal measure of student learning. Thus, we’re directed to look for other evidence of learning in our programs of legal education, hence the new focus on programmatic assessment.
Nevertheless, the ABA has wisely retained a minimal bar passage requirement in Standard 316, described in greater detail here. It is an important metric for prospective students. It is also an indicator of the quality of a school’s admission standards and, indirectly, its academic program. Indeed, it has been the subject of much debate recently. A proposal would have simplified the rule by requiring law schools to demonstrate that 75% of their graduates had passed a bar exam within two years of graduation. For a variety of reasons, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar recently decided to postpone moving forward with this change and leave Standard 316 written as-is.
With that background, Friday afternoon the ABA Associate Deans’ listserv received a message from William Adams, Deputy Managing Director of the ABA. In it, he described a new process for collecting data on bar passage. A copy of the memo is on the ABA website. This change was authorized at the June 2017 meeting of the Council. Readers may remember that the June meeting was the one that led to a major dust-up in legal education, when it was later revealed that the Council had voted to make substantial (and some would say, detrimental) changes to the Employment Questionnaire. When this came to light through the work of Jerry Organ and others, the ABA wisely backed off this proposed change and indicated it would further study the issue.
The change that the ABA approved in June and announced in greater detail on Friday is equally problematic. Continue reading