LESSONS FROM THE WEB

During the spring semester of 2002, I taught an online course for paralegals at a local university. I had been a law professor for over 15 years and I welcomed the opportunity to break away from traditional law teaching and try a different pedagogical medium. The course that I was hired to teach had been taught via the traditional classroom method and needed to be converted into a course that would be taught 100% online. This daunting task was eased by the fact that the university partnered with an e-learning company that provided a course delivery system through which I as the professor could design and develop the course. This system was comprehensive in scope and took me step-by-step through the online development process.

In developing the course for online delivery, effective communication and student interaction were paramount concerns for me. Accordingly, I took particular interest in those course tools that facilitated the level of connectivity that I desired and expected. In setting up the course, I also considered the learning styles of the prospective students: random versus sequential and active versus reflective. I developed the content of the course with these learning styles in mind. For example, I provided questions for open-ended discussions in the threaded discussions and public chat rooms. I provided hyperlinks for "outside" or on the web reading. This served to benefit those students who have a random learning style. They prefer an open structure that promotes flexibility and spontaneity. For the sequential learners, I provided an overview of each unit, complete with timelines for projects due. I gave information as to what they should expect. I provided a context for hyperlinks so that these learners could better appreciate and understand why they were asked to do outside web reading. For those students who have an active learning style, I created problems for discussion during the public chat sessions because these learners prefer to think on the spot and express themselves spontaneously. I provided detailed lecture notes so that the reflective learners in the class would have sufficient information and time to consider my thoughts and not feel rushed to come up with their own ideas. To insure that all of the prospective students would remain consistently engaged, I posed questions in each unit that would require them to provide a written response so that I could assess their level of preparation and comprehension for that unit.

Enrollment for the course was limited to 20 students who hailed from different parts of the United States. I used our first "class" as a time to make sure that all of the students were acquainted with and could use the course tools. I also had the students introduce themselves to each other by requiring that they submit a short personal account of who they were, their experience, if any, as a paralegal, their expectations for the class, and anything else they thought would be of interest to their fellow classmates. I encouraged them to continue the "conversation" through e-mail and the public and private chat rooms with the hope that, similar to a traditional class setting, students would seek out those who were perceived to have common or intriguing interests. Over the semester, there was some dialogue among students separate from my input and prodding, but I did not sense any real connectivity. This may be because the students who select online learning environments are self-directed or are non-traditional, or both, and therefore do not have the need or desire to associate with other students or add to their already busy schedules. Then again, perhaps this was too much to ask in an electronic environment. However, this disappointment paled in comparison to my frustration in using this pedagogical medium for developing my own connection with the students-- the connection that for me comes easily in the classroom. In the traditional class setting, much can be learned from the student--how well he or she is learning the material, how motivated, etc., from body language, eye contact, class participation, or the lack thereof. In the online environment, I was not able to see the student in order to gauge whether the material was "sinking in" or assess the student's level of motivation. I took advantage of the various course tools to engage the students but found them to be lacking in their ability to capture the eureka moments of in class discussion and spontaneous, candid conversation.

Upon reflection, I realize that the current state of online education is effective in delivering content but is incapable of delivering the classroom experience. All in all, I see online education as here to stay. It definitely has a place. But is it THE place where education is going? I doubt it. Perhaps in the future more pedagogical tools can be added to better approximate the classroom setting. However, it cannot replace the richness and diversity found in the classroom. From this experience, I have learned to appreciate online education for what it is and to comprehend what it is not. I have a better understanding of why the approach to delivery of content must change even though the content may be the same as in the traditional classroom setting. Traditional law teaching is a square peg and online education is a round hole. The traditional teaching model cannot be forced on the new pedagogical medium. That is not to say that these teaching variants are mutually exclusive; there is some synergistic overlap. However, both have strengths and weaknesses and the teacher should have some clarity as to which pedagogy is best suited for the content that must be presented.

©2003 by Joan R. Bullock

JURIST's Lessons from the Web series is edited by Professor Patrick Wiseman, Georgia State University College of Law.

———————————————————————

JURIST welcomes your comments on this column and the issues it raises...

• Friday January 10, 2003 at 10:43 am
  As a student, I have experienced online learning. It is great for the student that needs flexibility because of outside demands. But, if part of the education is about building a network, like the article said, building that community is a lot more challenging. I found that after the class was over none of the online interaction continued.
  
  A Miller
  Michigan

• Saturday January 11, 2003 at 2:55 pm
  While I admire Professor Bullock's willingness to give online teaching a go, teaching a paralegal course is not quite the same thing as teaching traditional legal courses on line. Having done the latter for over two years now, I cannot share her suggestion that the richness of the physical classroom cannot be approached in the online environment. I teach both at John Marshall Law School in Atlanta, Georgia, and at Concord University School of Law, the world's only fully online law school. I have found that my Concord students learn equally well--if not better--than fixed facility students. For example, we can work on student's written analytic skills development much more intensively and effectively online. For each first year student at Concord, two different graders, including the course professor, closely review and comment on each of nine practice analytis questions that are graduated in difficulty and are tied directly to the doctrinal classroom courses that the student's professor teaches (contracts, criminal law, and torts). Furthermore, the law school chat room at Concord projects the professor's audio to students while the students enter communications ("public" and "private") with the professor and with each other. Think of this: in the virtual classroom, via private message, you can carry on an individual tutoring conversation with a student having difficulty with a point, while you continue in the main discussion area conducting the class on that point! I've done this many times. And I've had students send me private messages during online classes about their numerous "Eureka!" moments. You can't do that in a brick-and-mortar setting! In addition, students are empowered to answer questions with less fear of embarassment, thus increasing about tenfold the participation level, because only the professor sees all of the answers, and selects which of the responses to post to the main discussion area. Furthermore, there is none of what the communications gurus call "static" that afflicts the traditional classroom--distractions, noise, whispering students, dozing students, and students who now (as the NYT and Jurist reported last week) tune as out and surf the net! All of that physical noise is eliminated by the virtual classroom, and the net surfing doesn't happen either because the students are too busy involved and engaged in answering and asking questions. And, contrary to Mr. Miller's experience, I have found that online law students maintain a lasting communication network among themselves--and with their professors--even after the course has concluded. It is ironic for legal education methodology to lord its superiority over any other pedagogical delivery system. Given the insightful criticisms of the legal education model that the teaching-focused among our fixed-facility colleagues such as Vernellia Randall at Dayton, Edith Warkentine at Whittier, and Michael Hunter Schwartz at Western State, have levelled. To paraphrase Mark Twain (with apologies), the marginalization of online education generally and online legal education specifically is greatly exaggerated. Much like the PC revolution,who faced its share of early skeptics (including those at IBM!), the online legal education revolution is here to stay because it serves an acute need among students who can't simply walk away from their lives and obligations to attend school full time in another city or state. That there will be some failed experiments--like the recently abandoned for-profit program at Columbia--is to be expected. But the well run and effective programs will survive--because students want them. And we, as 21st century law teachers, must be readying ourselves to meet student expectations in both the physical and virtual classrooms--and to embrace the synergies that teaching in both provide.
  
  Professor Jeffrey A. Van Detta
  John Marshall Law School--Atlanta
  Atlanta, Georgia USA

• Sunday January 12, 2003 at 9:34 am
  For four years I have taught an on- line class, Social and Legal Issues in Management to graduate students as part of an On Line MBA program at University of St. Francis in Joliet Illinois. My students have come from around the world and as close as across the street from the main campus in Joliet. Having been involved in teaching for 26 years, I have taught in a variety of program formats, as varied traditional undergraduate and graduate law courses on campus, adult off campus executive accelerated programs, overseas programs in Asia and the traditional law school environment. I too was skeptical when first approached to design and implement a law course on line for graduate students. I had a fear that the substance and interaction would be watered down and that the students would be the beneficiaries of something less than a quality learning experience. I have found that not to be the case. My students have done well, the dialogue between the students and myself and with each other have been active and sometimes intense. The qualitative result has been consistently a high level of performance by the students, and a strong outcome in terms of academic performance. As we rely on materials and electronic resources more than on lecture it has been a challenge for me in shifting focus from lecture to textual and electronic resources. I must admit that the students with the proper text and ancillary resources do as well if not the same as in class students for the same subject. I have found that it has also been a great leaning experience for me. My computer skills have gone from negligible to well -honed and each course allows for the evolution of new approaches and integration of new materials and resources that allow for a building of a more refined on- line learning experience. I still teach in the traditional classroom and know that this method of delivery also has its merits and strengths but I do realize that creating more opportunities for learning for students that are not able to approach education from the traditional model is also an important component of teaching. Lastly, having taught on line these last four years, I find myself integrating approaches and materials to my on campus classes which allow for expansion of the learning experience for my on campus students I am committed to on line education, mark me as one of the converts. Thomas K. Mirabile University of St Francis Joliet, Illinois lawchicago@earthlink.net
  
  thomas k Mirabile
  university of st, francis
  Illinois

• Friday July 25, 2003 at 12:48 am
  I have a question to all who have posted there comments about the on-line teaching I would like the know the timeframes for their on-line courses? Were these courses completed in eight (8) week, 13 weeks etc. Exactly who many courses were being taugth? I would like to share my exprence as a recent participant of the on-line experience. I in fact found it to be very frustrating and not as helpful as I was led to believe. I was given the notion that the on-line course would be to my advantage. I am a full time single mother and a full time employed Probation Officer with some what of a disability of the usage of my right leg. I was invited to participate in an eight week on-line course of Negotiable Instrument and Criminal Procedures. These on-line courses did not fair well as oppose to the traditional classroom setting. Only 31% of the only students were successful. Trying to get readily responses and directions were very difficult. The professor did not have the time to answer each question rigth away. The delays in receiving answer to the questions at times, most times resulted in the student being misled by another student. Also most times your question would "fall in the cracks" and would be often forgotten or ignored because the student as well as the teacher required to keep up with the daily assignments. Everything was expedited in these eight (8) week courses. Any and every question and comment had to be posted this too is very tedious. Prehaps online works "only if" the time frame is extended past eight weeks for two (2)courses. On line is not friendly to those who work full time and lead very active lives in such a short period of me. In short online was not the better option for the other 69% of the students who were unable to pass.
  
  M. Nowell
  Student
  Florida

• Friday September 05, 2003 at 1:30 pm
  Professor Van Detta has it right! I am a 1st year law student in the realm of virtuality that Concord Provides. In fact, Prof. Van Detta is my guide through this first year. I have also graduated from, what he labels a brick and mortar school, with a BSBA degree in addition to an AA degree from a community college. In comparison, from the eyes of a student recently involved in both parallels of education, the online schooling is the holding for the future. In the "brick and mortar" business college I attended (graduated in May of 2000) I recall attending the general business course in a classroom that easily could have double as a huge theatre (approximately four of the usual modern theatres in one room ... making the classroom in the movie "The Paper Chase" seem ideal) with in excess of 300 students! At times, when the remaining seats were in the rear of the class, I missed out on comments in lectures simply because the professor was a 30-second walk away and speaking in an unintelligable volume. The black boards were no longer used and instead a power-point presentation was the norm since it could be broadcast on a main screen as well as satellite monitors for those in the rear. Finally, interaction with the professors was non-exitant. How can a professor acknowledge and respond to individual questions from 300 students in a classroom setting? -They can't and don't. The public community is increasing its desire for further education every day and the population is only growing along with it. This indicates that the number of persons desiring advanced education may soon outnumber the available seats in "brick and mortar" classrooms. The solution seems to be online (distance learning) education. I first heard of such while in a business course and advocated, in a "prepared" speech, as to why it would not work. Ha! I was dead wrong. In online education you have IMMEDIATE (well there is the usual internet speed delay) contact with your professors. There are two forms, online weekly chats (which are live sessions with your professors) and the good ol' e-mail (imagine calling e-mail the old way of communicating). With the online chats, you submit a question and the professor is likely to reply within a few seconds AND EVERYONE CAN HEAR BOTH YOUR QUESTION (the professor will read it to the class) AS WELL AS ALL OF THE RESPONSE. Tech glich? Computer Crash? Doesn't matter. The live chats are archived and can be replayed at will (try getting a "brick and mortar" professor to repeat herself, verbatim, of the entire class lecture, and again, and again....). I also mentioned the good old traditional e-mail method of contacting professors. I did e-mail professors while attending "brick and mortar" courses. Most do not reply at all and those that do generally reply with a pretyped "memo-style" statement that loosely pertains to your question or a simple "yes/no" type of response. My first e-mail to Professor Van Detta resulted in a response much like the one he posted above ... extensive, in depth, throrough, and, best of all, useful. I have e-mailed on other questions and matters and have received consistent quality of replies. So, in terms of being able to get more contact with students/professors online can't be beat by "brick and mortar". Now, also addressed was a question of quality of the "meat" of the education. Specifically, how extensive the education was for online law school. Courses are one (calendar) year in length and the school is (as required) 4 years long. It's not a business seminar that last two days including time for coffee and cookie snacks. Then again, you do need to receive cookies while online. p.s. for those who think this is a student trying to weasel a good grade on his next essay exam, you failed to understand Professor Van Detta's remarks. Two, independant, professors review each essay exam. In addition, the exams do not contain student identity (per rule of the college) to ensure fairness in grading is maintained. The exams are digitally tracked through the process until returned to the student with a grade a comments.
  
  Kerry Porter
  Student
  Florida

• Thursday October 02, 2003 at 6:52 am
  I have taught on the college, grad school and law school levels for more than thirty years much of it at fixed facility accredited law schools. I have also taught on- line at three different schools and now that I teach full time at Concord Law School, I find myself increasingly committed to on-line learning. It is not for everyone and requires a great deal of organization, maturity and most importantly, the ability to be a self-starter. However, to suggest that interaction is limited or does not take place is simply wrong. My teaching style is very interactive. I engage students regularly and have always done so. In my fixed facility experience, students had to literally be forced to respond. In my on-line experience both at Concord and elsewhere, I find students respond quickly and competently and the interaction is very stimulating. The numnbers of people who "step up to the plate" far exceeds my experiences at fixed facilities. Just like every individual is not necessarily a good candidate for on-line learning, every professor is not necessarily a good on-line professor. On-line teaching is much more daunting and demanding. It requires large doses of leadership and creativity; but the rewards are enormous. The absence of body language and commentary coupled with a platform that encourages student participation, at Concord, creates a shared-learning atmosphere that is nothing short of brilliant. Competent on-line teaching also requires attention to the student. Programs require faculty to be responsive and measure faculty performance. The expectation is that faculty must respond rapidly to student inquiries and the response must be part of the learning experience. The greatest aspect of on-line education is access to quality learning. Concord and other quality on-line programs open doors for people who are unable to come to fixed facilities by reason of jobs, family obligations and geography. These programs allow people to grow and become more productive and capable citizens. I emphasize the word quality because it is my experience that on-line programs which are properly planned and developed(like Concord's) have the same or even higher quality than many fixed facility programs. This is due, in large part to an emphasis on measuring outcomes and to an emphasis on understanding how adults learn. Most fixed facility schools spend precious little time and effort on either in my experience. In order to reach and teach people on line, one must understand adult learning concepts and be able to measure outcomes. Most importantly, a successful program, like Concord's, is based on real student-centered thinking as opposed to the traditional fixed facility approach of faculty-centered thinking. In the end, the two models exist together to reach somewhat different audiences; one is not better or worse than the other. But, both deserve respect.
  
  William I. Weston, J.D., Ph.D.
  Concord University School of Law
  Florida, USA

Please be patient - when you click the Post button your comments have been posted, although they may not show up immediately. If you hit Post again (or Reload) they will be posted twice!