So, in an attempt to avoid more grading (as Michael wrote about so eloquently last week), I was thinking about better ways of assessing progress in ADR classes. I, for one, still don’t think that I have quite figured out the successful way to test law students. I also think students know this.
I give quizzes during the semester on each ADR process. These quizzes are multiple choice–this makes it much easier to grade but really difficult to write. So…I let the students know that they can email me if they think the question was not clear, etc. Here are some of the best emails I’ve gotten:
This one explains the difference between positional and interest-based negotiating: “I’m willing to expand the pie. My underlying interest is to be one point closer to 30 [the total number of questions]. Given my interest, I am willing to forego positional haggling about the correctness of my response. If doing a song and dance will get me another point, I’ll do it. Well, maybe for two points…”
A somewhat self-explanatory one: “I was hoping that you would change all of my incorrect answers to correct answers. If you’re not willing to do that, perhaps you would reconsider only one of my incorrect answers (you have just witnessed my first use of the rejection-then-retreat technique.)”
And one that is all about setting the mood for grading: “Dear Prof. Schneider, Please sit in a comfortable chair and enjoy a piece of chocolate before continuing to read.” [Clearly, this student knows me best of all.]
I’m not sure that negotiating your grades is a great way to deal with this (after all, inviting emails from 78 students is foolhardy at best) but it is gratifying to see the few that step up and demonstrate their own learning in the process of trying to persuade me to revisit whatever the particular question was on the quiz.
And now I should return to grading the final exam–a question that asks them, based on a fact scenario, to explain the process choices to their client, to explain the advantages and disadvantages for each, and then to choose a process based on these facts.
I know it’s too late for this year but if anybody has better ideas for testing, I’d love to start talking. At this point in the semester, I am ready to contemplate oral interviews with each student much like dissertation defenses. I am convinced that it would only take slightly longer than reading their exams and be far more enjoyable!
Andrea
A couple of things occur to me. First, I’m reminded of a scene in the movie Clueless with Alicia Silverstone (a 1990s adaptation of Emma) where her father says, “You mean to tell me that you argued your way from a C+ to an A? … Honey, I couldn’t be happier than if they were based on real grades.”
Second, I’m interested in this topic myself. During the course of my mediation class this year, the class as a whole decided to try an experiment. Yes, the class asked for a mediation about the grading process, and I agreed to do some modified group facilitation. One of the issues that came up was the irony of how, in an class that purports to teach an interest-based model of conflict management, we were still using adversarial grading methodologies. To me, part of the issue is: what kind of pedagogical message is that to students? It made me do some deep soul searching about the difference between “Do as I say, not do as I do.” And all of the psychological literature I recall suggests that its the modeling of behavior that is the most important for long-term retention. And as a result (after some interest identification and option generation) the class mutually agreed to take a more interest-based approach to grading.
Third, as an additional matter (and as part of our experiment), we decided that the students themselves would be able to allocate the weight of grades given in particular areas. That meant, if the student thought that they would do better in writing process-based journals or the final exam, then they could end up weighting those aspects of their grades more heavily. We talked a lot about Nancy Welsh and procedural justice, and at the end of the day, we decided it would be better to give students more control over how their performance was evaluated. My perception was that this was something the students appreciated.
From my perspective, even though I ended up doing a lot more work reviewing draft journals than I otherwise would have, the situation worked out beautifully in the end. The students felt more in control and experienced a genuinely teachable moment about the value of mediation and interest-based dispute resolution. [And if any of my students are lurking here – they should feel free to post anonymously about this if they agree or disagree.] Beyond that, when I was reading the mediation journals and watching students integrate their thoughts about their mediation simulations, mediation theory and their real life conflict management skills, I saw real and tangible benefits. Draft journals were thoughtful, detailed, analytical, introspective, practical and just darn fun to read. As a result, while I know that it can be difficult (particularly in a class that is larger than 36 people), I would strongly encourage the drafting (and re-drafting after extensive comments from the professor) of journals to help students in their own evolution of thinking about ADR and conflict management. I was deeply humbled to see the real evolution of people’s thinking over the course of a semester. And it gave me hope for the future of this new generation of lawyers.
Just a few comments from the peanut gallery…