Teaching for Tomorrow: Utilizing Technology to Implement the Reforms of MacCrate, Carnegie , and Best Practices</i

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.


More than a half century ago, famed educator John Dewey predicted that, “[I]f we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow.”1 While Dewey was not referring to legal education, the legal education community has echoed his call for reform for decades.2 Critics routinely assert that the “Socratic Method” and Christopher Columbus Langdell’s “Case Method”3 that are still employed by many law professors4 fail to provide students with a variety of important skills that are necessary to practice law.5 Further, critics argue that those traditional methods fail to adequately focus students on the important issues of professionalism in the practice of law.6 Major studies by the American Bar Association (ABA), the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and the Clinical Legal Education Association concluded law schools need to reform legal education to provide more focus on training students in professionalism and practical skills.7 The studies do not call for the elimination of the Case Method or Socratic Method, but they do stress the need for integration of new methods of instruction and assessment, especially after the first year of law school.8 Curricular change tends to move glacially in academia, and fundamental changes in pedagogy arrive even more slowly, if at all. Nevertheless, many law schools have been reviewing their curricula and discussing and implementing at least some modest reforms in response to the most recent reports.9 Due to the nature of the students who are currently enrolled in or planning to attend law school, the economic realities of the modern practice of law, and the legal job market, technology needs to play a central role in the reform of legal education.10 The reformed law school classroom will likely look significantly different than the traditional 1L Langdellian classroom. Simulations and other instructional methods that focus on developing skills will become more prevalent and technology will significantly enhance them.11 Technology itself is an important skill that lawyers must master to effectively practice law.12 Therefore, there will likely be additional focus in law schools on training students in the technology that is central to practice.13 Educators will likely incorporate more formative assessment into courses, and technology will facilitate that.14 Furthermore, professors will need new course books and materials to facilitate the new instructional models, and technology will be key to the development of successful and effective materials to replace the traditional materials.15 Part II of this article examines the development of the Langdellian method of instruction and the criticisms to the approach that have culminated in the calls for reform by the ABA, Carnegie Foundation, and Clinical Legal Education Association. Part II continues by focusing on the reasons why technology should play a central role in implementing the reforms petitioned by those organizations. The rest of the article provides examples of how technology can facilitate some of those reforms. Part III focuses on reforming assessment, the instructional models, and the instructional materials used in the classroom. Finally, Part IV explores the value of technological capabilities as skills in practice and the manner in which law schools might train students in those skills.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

... La innovación tecnológica en la práctica jurídica y en la educación legal, por tanto, ha generado una línea de investigación académica que busca describir sus características, evaluar sus efectos, criticar sus límites y ofrecer horizontes normativos para su implementación o desarrollo adecuado (JOHNSON, 2000;JOHNSON, 2013;LARSON, 2016;LEVY, 2016;MOPPETT, 2013;MURRAY, 2011;OLUBIYI, OLANIYAN y ODIAKA, 2015;PISTONE, Ver, en general, Johnson (2000, p. 101) ("Las facultades de derecho tienen que incrementar, y lo harán, el uso de la tecnología en la enseñanza por una serie de razones".); Steele (2003, p. 614) ("De hecho, la profesión legal y su principal motor de enseñanza, las facultades de derecho, han respondido tanto al rápido cambio tecnológico como a las nuevas exigencias de la sociedad y del público de preparar abogados para que representen adecuadamente a los clientes".); ...
... Las relaciones entre innovación tecnológica y educación jurídica se han convertido en un objeto de estudio relevante para los académicos del Derecho del mundo entero (BROUS-SARD, 2009;BECKER, n.d.;CARON, 2006;CARON y GELY, 2004;DEGROFF, 2011;COMUNIDAD VIRTUAL, 2018;GALVES, 2004;JOHNSON, 2000;JOHNSON, 2013;KATZ, 2012;LARSON, 2016;LASSO, 2002;LEVY, 2016;MOPPETT, 2013;MURRAY, 2011;OLUBIYI, OLANIYAN y ODIAKA, 2015;PISTONE, 2014;RIQUELME, 2019;RUBIN, 2012;SHERWIN, FEIGESON y SPIESEL, 2006;SITES, 2016;STEELE, 2003;7 : EDUCACIÓN JURÍDICA E INNOVACIÓN TECNOLÓGICA: UN ENSAYO CRÍTICO y expectativas de las firmas de abogados.); Stephanie Kimbro (2010) ("Por lo tanto, [la educación relacionada con la tecnología] debe ser algo que se le ofrezca a los abogados antes de que se sumerjan en la práctica, sea esta privada o dentro de una firma en la que se espera que sigan la política interna sobre el uso de la tecnología."); ...
... La descripción y evaluación (típicamente positiva) de las interacciones entre cambios tecnológicos y facultades de derecho (sus discursos y prácticas) se han venido abriendo espacios en la academia del derecho global durante los últimos diez años. Esta literatura tiene una presencia notable en la academia jurídica estadounidense (BROUSSARD, 2009;BECKER, n.d.;CARON, 2006;DEGROFF, 2011;GALVES, 2004;JOHNSON, 2000;JOHNSON, 2013;KATZ, 2012;LARSON, 2016;LASSO, 2002;LEVY, 2016;MOPPETT, 2013;MURRAY, 2011;PISTONE, 2014;RIQUEL-ME, 2019;RUBIN, 2012;SHERWIN, FEIGESON y SPIESEL, 2006;SITES, 2016;STEELE, 2003;THREEDY y DEWALD, 2015). No obstante, también se han abierto algunos espacios en la academia jurídica de otras partes del mundo, entre otras, América Latina y Europa Occidental (CICERO, 2018;COMUNIDAD VIRTUAL, 2018;LATRUP-PEDERSEN, 2002, p. 165-186;MAHARG y MUNTJEWERFF, 2002, p. 307-322). ...
Full-text available
The article is divided into three parts. In the first part, I describe three of the most frequent answers to the question of why is it necessary, important, or urgent for technological innovation to be incorporated into law schools? The first two answers are directly related to agents of the market that demand legal education: law students and law firms. On the one hand, the legal literature that deals with this issue argues that law schools must innovate in technological matters to meet the expectations and needs of the new generations of law students. On the other hand, the literature argues that this aim should be achieved to satisfy the expectations and needs of law firms, who are the ones that hire new law school graduates. The third response indicates that technological innovation in law schools is necessary because it allows students to achieve learning objectives more effectively. In the second part, I offer a critique of the first two answers, those that react and want to meet the needs both of the legal services market and the educational services market. This critique is based on a Heideggerian interpretation of technology. In the third part, I present my critiques of the third answer, which closely connects the pedagogical aims of legal education and technological innovation. In this section of the essay I argue that the third answer (i) is weakened by the naturalistic fallacy; (ii) it does not support empirically its conclusions, or at least does not support them sufficiently, and it presents some of its empirical arguments as absolute, when there is no consensus in the legal, scientific, or pedagogical communities around them; (iii) it does not offer precise and detailed arguments that show how technological innovation may allow us to fulfill the objectives that legal education usually pursues; and (iv) it obscures the connection between technology and power in legal education.
... The authors who offer this third response describe millennials and centennials as individuals who are characterized by having the ability to perform various tasks simultaneously (multitasking). 61 At the same time, these authors indicate that law students who belong to these generations positively evaluate this skill to advance several undertakings at the same time. 62 These authors argue that, 60 as a result, law schools and law professors should include teaching practices allowing students to use this capacity in their learning processes. ...
El artículo se divide en tres partes. En la primera, describo tres de las respuestas más frecuentes a la pregunta: ¿por qué es necesario, importante o urgente que se incorpore la innovación tecnológica en la educación jurídica? Las primeras dos respuestas están relacionadas directamente con agentes del mercado que demandan educación jurídica: los estudiantes de derecho y las firmas de abogados. Por un lado, la bibliografía jurídica que se ocupa de este tema argumenta que las facultades de derecho deben innovar en materia tecnológica para satisfacer las expectativas y necesidades de las nuevas generaciones de estudiantes de derecho. Por el otro, argumenta que se debe alcanzar este fin para satisfacer las expectativas y necesidades de las firmas de abogados, que son las que contratan a los nuevos graduandos de las facultades de derecho. La tercera respuesta señala que la innovación tecnológica en las facultades de derecho es necesaria porque permite que los estudiantes alcancen los objetivos de aprendizaje más eficazmente. En la segunda parte, ofrezco mis críticas a las dos primeras respuestas, aquellas que reaccionan a las necesidades tanto del mercado de servicios jurídicos como del mercado de servicios educativos, y quieren satisfacerlas. Esta crítica se fundamenta en una lectura heideggeriana de la tecnología. En la tercera parte, presento mis críticas a la tercera respuesta, aquella que conecta estrechamente los fines pedagógicos que persigue la educación jurídica con la innovación tecnológica. En esta sección argumento (i) que la tercera respuesta se ve debilitada por la falacia naturalista; (ii) no fundamenta empíricamente sus conclusiones, o no lo hace suficientemente, y presenta algunos de sus argumentos empíricos como absolutos aunque no exista un consenso en la comunidad jurídica, científica o educativa en torno a ellos; (iii) no ofrece argumentos precisos y detallados que muestren cómo la innovación tecnológica permite alcanzar los objetivos que usualmente persigue de la educación jurídica; y (iv) oscurece la relación que existe entre tecnología y poder en la educación jurídica.
... As Bonilla pointedly remarks: "technology as enframing should not be understood as an entity that exists outside of human beings, which controls human beings, and in the face of which nothing can be done other than accepting it". 43 To understand how technological tools might be used to advance effective teaching and learning informed by the neuroscience of learning, it is helpful to consider four central features of teaching and learning to which neuroscience directs attention, namely "metacognition and self-regulated learning; retrieval practice; spaced repetition; and cognitive schema". 44 As will be shown below, these aspects of the neuroscience of learning, broadly speaking, can be applied to advance and deepen the study of law in three main ways, namely comprehension, integration, and memorization. ...
The purpose of this article is to assess the extent of technology’s benefits for legal education. The ar- gument makes two main claims. First, it argues that an understanding of the neuroscience of learning may focus and ground legal and other educators on the possible benefits and roles of technology in education. Second, it argues that, once this is done, technology can be applied to democratize access to legal education. The article concludes, however, by pointing out areas of risk and concern regarding this project.
In Spring 2009, the author used an audience response system in his Evidence class. Students signalled their answers to questions using "clickers." The system promoted active participation and was popular with students.