What the Best Law Teachers Do

Michael Hunter Schwartz, Gerald F. Hess, Sophie M. Sparrow

• Publisher: Harvard University Press
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9780674728141
• Topic: Derecho
• Subtopic: Educación jurídica

What makes a great law professor? The first study of its kind, What the Best Law Teachers Do identifies the methods, strategies, and personal traits of professors whose students achieve exceptional learning. This pioneering book will be of interest to any instructor seeking concrete, proven techniques for helping students succeed. What the Best Law Teachers Do introduces readers to twenty-six professors from law schools across the United States. These instructors are renowned for their exacting standards: they set expectations high, while also making course requirements--and their belief that their students can meet them--clear from the outset. They demonstrate professional behavior and tell students to approach class as they would their future professional life: by being as prepared, polished, and gracious as possible. And they prepare themselves for class in depth, even when they have taught the course for years.The best law professors understand that the little things matter. They start class on time and stay afterward to answer questions. They learn their students' names and respond promptly to emails. These instructors are all tough--but they are also committed, creative, and compassionate mentors. With its close-to-the-ground accounts of exceptional educators in action, What the Best Law Teachers Do offers insights into effective pedagogy that transcend the boundaries of legal education.

1

INTRODUCTION

Who was your best teacher, law or otherwise? What made that teacher so effective?

For the past four years, we have posed these questions at conferences, law schools, and to groups of Chilean, Georgian, Iranian, and Turkish law teachers. In response, law teachers have described their best teachers’ attitudes, expectations, teaching methods, mental habits, beliefs about students and learning, personal qualities, teaching emphases, and anything else that made their teachers so noteworthy. The results have been strikingly similar. Across cultures and schools, the best teachers distinguish themselves by their thoughtfulness, caring about their students, high expectations, commitment to student learning, and ability to engage their students.

Those same qualities distinguish the twenty-six law teachers we have written about in this book.

Starting in spring 2008, we sought to study extraordinary law teachers, teachers who have a significant, positive, and long-term effect on their students. Our goal was to create the first systematic, rigorous study of excellent law teaching. We have written and read a number of scholarly efforts at synthesizing the teaching and learning research from other fields; we wanted to contribute something new that would be credible to our colleagues. We also were cognizant that other works have identified many ways legal education and law teachers need to change; we wanted to offer something different.

This book is the product of that four-and-a-half-year study. In the process, we have reviewed hundreds of nominations and visited the law schools where the subjects of this book were teaching. We observed each subject teach, interviewed their students, and scrutinized thousands of pages of interview transcripts, student evaluations, testimonial letters, and teaching materials.

We recognize that the term “best” is hard to define, as we explain below. However, we believe that we have identified twenty-six great US law teachers. We chose the title for this book, What the Best Law Teachers Do, for several reasons. First, it echoes the title of its predecessor book, Ken Bain’s What the Best College Teachers Do. Second, we believe that our results also reflect not only what excellent law teachers do, but also what excellent teachers in other fields do.

Studying and describing the complex phenomena that make up these twenty-six professors’ teaching was challenging and inspiring. To the extent readers find some of our descriptions and explanations unconvincing, we, not the twenty-six teachers, are responsible. And even though trying to capture teachers’ practices was challenging, we each were enormously inspired by the teachers we studied. In speaking with them, watching them teach, reading their materials, and talking to their students, we had an incredible opportunity to learn. We are deeply grateful for the time and energy they put into this project.

The book consists of ten chapters. The rest of this chapter includes a description of our methodology, biographical data about the twenty-six subjects of the book, and an executive summary. Chapter 2 presents the results of a foundational study we conducted in which we asked people who nominated candidates for this book to define “extraordinary learning” in law school.

Chapter 3 focuses on the teachers’ common personal qualities and attitudes. Chapter 4 describes the nature of their relationships with their students, and Chapter 5 focuses on their expectations of their students and themselves. Chapter 6 details how they prepare for class. Chapter 7 describes what happens in their classrooms. Chapter 8 illustrates how they assess students and provide them with feedback. Chapter 9 focuses on the lasting lessons students learn from these teachers.

In Chapters 3 through 9, we chose to extensively rely on teachers’ own words and on the words of their current and former students. Given the volume of material, we only had space to include a very small portion of the quotes. In choosing material, we sought to provide a balance among somewhat competing goals: presenting evidence to justify our conclusions, sharing the teachers’ numerous explanations of their teaching insights, giving representative and instructive samples of teachers’ practices, and producing a book of suitable length to be a useful tool for law teachers.

Some teaching practices and attitudes are true for all the twenty-six law teachers we studied. Many more are overwhelmingly common. A few are shared by the majority of the teachers, and some are idiosyncratic. Where feasible, we tried to note those distinctions. Each interview, however, reflects individual facets of our subjects’ teaching. Because of the variety in interviews, more teachers may engage in particular behaviors than we have noted. In other words, even if a teacher is not described as adopting a particular approach, that teacher may engage in it anyway; we just didn’t learn of it.

Chapter 10 concludes the book and suggests how individuals and law schools might use the book to promote good teaching practices at their law schools.

Methodology

We began this project with three goals: (1) identify outstanding law teachers in the United States, (2) synthesize the principles by which they teach, and (3) document those principles in a way that is useful to others.

Our process involved sifting through hundreds of nominations, carefully studying more than 110 nominee files, conducting twenty-six visits to the law schools of the subjects, interviewing people for dozens of hours, reading thousands of pages of interview transcripts, and spending countless hours analyzing, discussing, and writing about what we had learned.

Description of the Study Process

This project consisted of five phases, each of which is explained in greater depth below. The five phases were: (1) an initial phase, during which we solicited, accepted, and publicized nominations; (2) a paring-down phase, in which we solicited additional evidence that we used to select teachers who would become the subjects of in-depth study; (3) a study phase, in which we visited the law schools where the subjects were teaching; (4) an analysis phase, during which we reviewed the material we had gathered, looking for common themes; and (5) a final phase in which we organized the themes and practices, selected evidence, and wrote the book. While this description suggests that the process was linear, the phases overlapped considerably. We began soliciting nominations in early spring 2008 and conducted the first study of a subject in March 2008. We continued to take nominations through March 2010, made final decisions as to subjects in summer 2010, and conducted the last visit of a subject in fall 2011.

Phase I: Soliciting Nominations

The goal of the first phase was to gather as many nominations from as many sources as possible. We sought nominations from law students, law professors, law school deans, and law school alumni. We solicited the nominations by creating a website for the study, http://washburnlaw.edu/bestlawteachers/, and submitting requests to a number of listservs, including the lawprof listserv, the associate deans’ listserv, the deans’ listserv, the clinic listserv, the legal writing listserv, the teaching methods listserv, and the academic support listserv. In each solicitation, we asked for nominations of outstanding teachers and asked that our request be forwarded to law school colleagues, students, and alumni. Appendix A includes the text of this solicitation. The solicitation included a link to a nomination form, which provided a working definition of “exceptional learning” (see Chapter 2) and asked the nominator to provide information about the nominee and nominator. The form asked for the nominee’s name, title, institutional affiliation, courses, and teaching awards. The form also asked for the nominator’s name and contact information, relation to the nominee, the nominator’s own definition of exceptional learning, and the nominator’s basis for believing the nominee produced exceptional learning.

We received more than 250 nominations. More than 230 came through this nomination form: http://washburnlaw.edu/bestlawteachers/. Approximately thirty nominations came through e-mails or in-person discussions. Many of the people who became subjects of the study received multiple nominations. The project website includes the names of all the nominees and the nominators’ explanation as to why the nominator believed the nominee produces extraordinary learning: http://washburnlaw.edu/bestlawteachers/nominees/index.php. Two examples, drawn from outstanding candidates, illustrate the extraordinary teachers whom we were unable to include as subjects.

ANGELA UPCHURCH, Capital University School of Law,

engages students in active learning during every class session, and commands the attention of every single student in the room. She also constantly explores new and different teaching methods to teach complex legal concepts. Professor Upchurch demonstrates an extensive knowledge of the subjects she teaches, but she uses it to push students in their own exploration of law, instead of coming off as pretentious or lofty. She can read students extremely well, and always adjusts during class to get at what students are struggling with so that everyone is keeping up.… She very clearly is concerned about us outside of the classroom. She realizes what concerns and issues students are having, especially first year students, and she makes a point of being available outside of class. Despite her extremely busy schedule, she makes a point of getting to know her students outside of class and is very supportive in helping everyone with questions or concerns about being a law student in general.

—MARY NIENABER-FOSTER, STUDENT, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL

STEPHEN R. LAZARUS, Cleveland Marshall College of Law:

The students at Cleveland-Marshall quite simply adore Professor Lazarus.… Several common themes emerge from [his] student evaluations. “Professor Lazarus is an amazing professor.” “Best professor at Cleveland State University.” “Excellent instructor! I would take Lazarus for every law school course if at all possible.” “I would recommend Professor Lazarus for all bar courses. You walk away well prepared.” “This professor is excellent—THE BEST. I’ve taken him 5 times now. Explains things clearly and in an interesting manner. Great sense of humor, seems to really enjoy teaching.” “TAKE LAZARUS. YOU WILL LEARN.”…

He is a demanding instructor, insisting that students master the materials.… [A student wrote]: “You probably could get a better grade with a different professor, but Lazarus is a must.” … Professor Lazarus gives multiple quizzes throughout the semester. According to his teaching philosophy … students need to master the material as they progress through the course rather than wait until the end of the semester to begin studying.… He is smart, dedicated, kind, and a man of impeccable reputation.

We asked all nominees for permission to include them on the website. Nearly all agreed. About twenty-five did not respond to the request; a half dozen declined their nominations.

Phase 2: Selecting Subjects

We asked nominees who were interested in being considered for the project to submit (1) evidence that they had an extraordinary, sustained, salutary effect on students, (2) a statement of their teaching philosophy (“Why do you teach the way you teach?”), and (3) two years’ worth of student evaluations. Approximately 110 nominees chose to submit materials by e-mail or regular mail.

In requesting additional materials, we made it clear that the most important part would be the evidence that the nominees produced “extraordinary learning.” We did not prescribe what might constitute...