A huge thank you to Myra Orlen, who wrote this summary of events for the blog.
The 2013 NY Academic Support Workshop was held on Thursday,
April 2013, at Brooklyn Law School. Thanks – once again — to Linda Feldman and
Kris Franklin for organizing and convening a totally successful event. This workshop consistently convenes a dynamic
group of presenters in a supportive setting in which everyone participates and
comes away inspired. This year’s event
was no exception.
Morning Sessions:
David Nadvorney, of CUNY School of Law, began the day with a
presentation entitled “Teaching Students Legal Reading.” David demonstrated methods of working with
students on law school reading that I will use with my students. He stressed that the best method of
delivering ASP is across the curriculum, i.e. in a doctrinal context. David
shared materials from his close case reading workshops. In these workshops, he teaches students to
recognize rhetorical devises that will enhance their comprehension.
Next Shane Dizon, of the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at
Hosfstra University, gave a presentation entitled “Professional Advisory:
Explicit Content! Make Labeling Mandatory.”
Shane’s presentation focused on the importance of students’ ability to
spot issues on exam questions. Shane led
us in an exercise; with scissors and preprinted labels in hand– we marked up a constitutional law essay question. The labels corresponded to the issues that
the professor wanted students to identify on the exam question and will ideally
come from the students’ course outlines.
This exercise teaches close reading and can serve as an intermediate
step between the professor’s memo on the exam and the students’ understanding
of the exam question.
Robin Boyle, of St. Johns University School of Law, addressed
critical reading skills and placed those skills in the exam context. She noted that our legal writing colleagues
are noticing that students are evincing increased difficulty in critical
reading this year. Robin shared her
experience in working with students on exam taking skills – with a focus on critical
reading.
Zelma Rios, of Cardozo School of Law, shared her idea of
having students annotate portions of briefs: the question presented and the
statement of the case. In doing so,
students focus on language structure, word choice, and tone. Students then meet in groups to discuss their
annotations. This exercise affords
students the opportunity to see cases in context. The cases are the continuation of the story
presented in the brief. When asked how
to use this exercise in the ASP context, Zelma had a ready answer; she
distributed the briefs copies of the Palsgraf briefs. As one person noted, this exercise allows
students to see themselves as lawyers from day one.
Afternoon Sessions:
Jeremiah Ho, of the U. Mass. School of Law – Dartmouth and
Rebecca Flanagan, currently of the U. Conn. Law school and soon to be at the U.
Mass. School of Law- Dartmouth,
explained how to use Jerome Bruner’s Spiral Curriculum in 1L Contracts. Using the process that Rebecca described in
her April 12, 2031 entry to this blog, she and Jeremiah demonstrated how the
Spiral Curriculum can be used in Contracts to teach the mirror image rule.
Angela Baker, of Rutgers Law School, presented on the
development of summer pre-law programs for law students. She told us about the development and
implementation of Rutgers’ program which brought diverse, rising sophomores to Rutgers
for a four-week program. The program was an intense mixture of classes,
speakers, and field trips aimed at encouraging participants to consider law
school.
Kris Franklin, of the New York Law School, led us in an
exciting game of TabooTM Law.
The objective of the TabooTM is to get your teammates to
guess a word, without using a set of words that are listed on the card as
“taboo.” After providing a
demonstration, Kris distributed Civil Procedure cards that her students made. In making the cards, students knew which
words to put on the cards to “screw” their classmates. The game illustrated
that law school can be fun and that one need not be afraid of the law. To give good clues, students use legally
descriptive terms. Thus, the students
learn to explain and, thereby understand the terms.
Ann Forlino, of the U. Mass. School of Law – Dartmouth,
spoke about the necessary relationship between ASP and Disability
Services. Through the discussion that
Ann led, we learned of some of the different ways that these two areas are
treated in law schools.
Last – but certainly not least – Elizabeth Corwin of Pace
Law School spoke on her experiences working with at-risk 2Ls. In her presentation Elizabeth described the
course that she teaches to at-risk students: Overview of Legal Analysis. The course is designed to enhance students’
exam taking skills. Elizabeth noticed
that her students had problems with logical thinking and introduced us to a
series of videos that explain concepts in logic:
http://io9.com/5888322/critical-thinking-explained-in-six-kid+friendly-animations
(Myra Orlen, WNE Law via RCF)
