Is legal education really as backward as the title suggests? According to Brian Curial, partner at Miller Thompson LLP, it is. Brian argues that legal students expect legal training to reflect their ICT-savyness. However, legal schools continue in the old fashioned way:
“The Law School class of 2014 was born into a world in which Apple and Microsoft already existed. … instant messaging and the internet are, for this generation, as ordinary as pen and paper were for previous generations. … Today’s students prefer interactive learning, involving multi-tasking, technology and Twitter-size bits of information. They grew up with a vast breadth of information at their fingertips where a quick Google search on a mobile device can immediately verify or debunk any position. “
According to Brian there exists a fundamental mismatch between traditional casebook and lecture-based law schools and the way law students expect to learn. Law schools have failed to embrace today’s digital world. They remain analog institutions seeking to educate digital students. He suggests increasing distance legal learning programs.
I agree and disagree with Brian.
I acknowledge the digital gap. Sure, but delay in implementing technological advancements in teaching generally and in law specifically has been a problem of all times. Socrates objected to the new technology of “writing”; it would weaken the mind. To realize how fast technology is moving just look at how today’s kids see “recent” technology.
However, I feel the problem in legal instruction is much more fundamental. It is not the medium that affects the learning outcome. But it is the underlying design of learning that mainly determines its success.
Even if the law program would be offered through internet, the outcome would not be much different. Most of today’s legal distance programs score low on impact. Most legal e-learning programs add little value. Too often legal e-learning is a boring way for stakeholders to waste time and money.
Recently I evaluated a 90-minute online tax seminar offered by a global tax firm to its international audience. Costs (including opportunity costs participants): around $ 800,000. Benefits: None.
Such waste is often caused by the legal instructor’s misguided conception of instruction. More specifically, the understanding of the teaching and learning processes involved. Today’s legal instructors remain focused on legal content. Necessary but not sufficient. To become successful, they should add cognitive and motivational expertise.
First, learning is not content related. Learning is a cognitive process. For learning to succeed, legal instructors need a thorough understanding of the critical cognitive features of the learning process. This is necessary to ensure that students can learn anything. Imagine cognitive expertise is the car’s engine.
Second, students must be willing to engage in the learning process. Whether students want to learn and are willing to persevere depends on motivational factors. Therefore, legal instructors need to be well versed in motivational design of their instruction. Imagine motivation as the car engine’s fuel.
Only a car that drives can move legal content from the instructor’s mind to the student’s mind. Now we are talking about instruction that works. Best thing would even be if the learner would be in the driver’s seat.
Law schools should stress sound instructional expertise. This is a precondition to effectively and efficiently transfer legal expertise in a motivating manner. Only when this expertise framework is in place, could law schools think about the medium of choice.
Only then could e-learning enter the picture as a solution to IT-savvy students or people who do not live within travelling distance from the legal faculty.