The "non-assessment" assessment project

Journal of Legal Education

Volumn 57, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 521-529

  Rees, Charles A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 47849084305     PISSN: 00222208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. See generally Michael S. Josephson, 1 Learning & Evaluation in Law School 57-98 (Washington, D.C., 1984) ("the law school learning pyramid"),
2. based on 1 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals (Benjamin S. Bloom ed., New York, 1956).
3. However, as my business school colleague Ed Kemery pointed out, these "common sense" bases for my hypothesis about student satisfaction may not be consistent with psychological studies. See, e.g., David C. McClelland, Human Motivation 237-38, 247-48 (Cambridge, 1987) (psychological studies show that people with a strong need to achieve want feedback).
4. The statistical comparisons underlying the conclusions from this project are available from the author (e-mail: crees@ubalt.edu).
5. While the law school then had a mandatory range of 2.25 - 2.75 (a little wider than C+ to B-) for class average grades, University of Baltimore School of Law 2004-2005 Faculty Handbook 104, the final grades in the two classes needed no adjustment to fall within the mandatory range.
6. Those questions were given on three unit tests (of twenty-five minutes each) throughout the semester to the extensive assessment class; the questions were given on one portion of the final examination, with a time limit of sixty minutes suggested, for the minimal assessment course.
7. There was a good response rate from each of the two classes - 80 percent or above.
8. Students may rate the professor on each question: A = excellent, worth 5 points; B = good, worth 4 points; C = satisfactory, worth 3 points; D = needs improvement, worth a points; F = unsatisfactory, worth 1 point; and NA = not applicable.
9. Most students in both classes offered a response to one or more of these items.
10. The student response rates to this e-mail follow-up survey were much lower than the response rates to the law school's in-class survey.
11. See generally Paul F. Teich, Research on American Law Teaching: Is There a Case Against the Case System? 36 J. Legal Educ. 167, 168, 178, 185 (1986);
12. Stephen J. Shapiro, Teaching First-Year Civil Procedure and Other Introductory Courses by the Problem Method, 34 Creighton L. Rev. 245, 264-66 (2000). Of course, both of these articles deal with different methods of instruction - problem method, case method, and others - rather than different methods of assessment. However, I believe the articles' conclusions may be relevant in this other context, too.
13. Teich, Research on American Law Teaching, supra note 10, at 168.
14. See Shapiro, Teaching First-Year Civil Procedure, supra note 10, at 267;
15. Teich, Research on American Law Teaching, supra note 10, at 186.
16. For a comprehensive discussion of lawyers' skills, see ABA Section of Legal Educ. & Admission to the Bar, Report of The Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession: Narrowing the Gap, Legal Education and Professional Development - An Educational Continuum (Chicago, 1992) (MacCrate Report).
17. See Richard A. Ippolito, The Sorting Function: Evidence from Law School, 51 J. Legal Educ. 533 (2001),
18. and Jeffrey Evans Stake, Making the Grade: Some Principles of Comparative Grading, 52 J. Legal Educ. 583, 584 (2002),
19. both citing A. Michael Spence, Market Signaling (Cambridge, 1974).
20. Shapiro, Teaching First-Year Civil Procedure, supra note 10, at 266.
21. See Teich, Research on American Law Teaching, supra note 10, at 186.
22. Gregory S. Munro, Outcomes Assessment for Law Schools (Spokane, Wash., 2000).
23. Id. at 12-14, 67, 70.
24. Id. at 13, 16-17, 35-36, 60, 67, 72-73. Contrast McClelland, Human Motivation, supra note 2 (psychological studies show that people with a strong need to achieve want feedback).
25. See Munro, Outcomes Assessment for Law Schools, supra note 16, at 165.