You’re probably on a high after having graded uniformly erudite papers in your courses, right?

Or is your head still aching from trying to figure out which parallel universes your students come from?

I’d guess that you’re more likely to be in the latter group than the former.

Now Throw AI into the Mix

As if you didn’t have enough to worry about, now some papers sound like they were written by the love child of a robot and a corporate communications consultant.

Faculty are right to worry that students may not develop essential analytical and writing skills if they rely too heavily on AI tools.

Concerns about de-skilling are prompting faculty to reflect on their writing assignments, sometimes prohibiting AI use.  These concerns create an opportunity to take a broader look at the pedagogical goals and methods we use to teach legal analysis and writing.

My article, De-Skilling or Re-Skilling?  The Case for Smarter Writing Assignments, challenges the assumption that students’ use of AI inevitably de-skills them, undermining their learning.

Instead, it argues that our upper-level writing assignments often do a pretty good job of undermining learning all on their own.

Problems with Traditional Student Papers

Too often, faculty slog through reading bloated, disorganized, and/or confused student writing.  Traditional end-of-semester law-review-style papers often fail to help students develop clear, concise, persuasive legal writing.  They’re too long, academic, and disconnected from the kind of writing lawyers actually do.  Students typically get little feedback along the way, often procrastinate, and sometimes turn to AI tools as a last-minute lifeline.

If you’re frustrated with the quality of student writing, concerned about the impact of AI, or just tired of reading 5,000-7,500 words footnoted mush, check out De-Skilling or Re-Skilling?

ABA Requirement to Provide Formative Assessment Throughout Law School Curricula

Students often receive little or no formative assessment when writing course papers.  The ABA defines formative assessment as “measurements at different points during a course or at different points over the span of a student’s education that provide meaningful feedback to improve student learning.”  (Emphasis added.)  Under the revised ABA Standard 314, “A law school shall utilize both formative and summative assessment methods throughout its curriculum to measure student achievement of course learning outcomes, improve student learning, and provide meaningful feedback to students.”  (Emphasis added.)

This revision, which takes effect next academic year, underscores the importance of formative assessment.  Although it specifically requires formative assessment only in 1L courses, your dean may ask you to provide formative assessments in your upper-level courses to help comply with the ABA requirements.

But more importantly, formative assessment is just good pedagogy – a practical way to help students learn.

Use Shorter Assignments to Foster Deeper Learning

De-Skilling or Re-Skilling? suggests using shorter, bar-journal–style assignments.  You would break them into three parts – outline, first draft, and revised draft – and provide feedback on the first two parts.  By giving this formative assessment and reading students’ responses to your feedback, you can see how they think and help them learn.

When using these assignments, you could prohibit or allow students to use AI as described in Solving Professors’ Dilemmas about Prohibiting or Promoting Student AI Use.

If you allow students to use AI thoughtfully – such as for brainstorming, revising, and reflecting – you can help them improve their legal reasoning and writing skills as well as increasing their “AI literacy.”

Will You Give Students Feedback About Basic Writing Skills?

Many students start law school with poor writing skills.  They need instruction in grammar, punctuation, vocabulary, and organizational structure.  Providing detailed feedback on these basic writing skills can be tedious and time-consuming work, and many faculty understandably have little time or inclination to do it.

If you don’t provide students with this kind of detailed copy editing feedback, consider encouraging them to use AI for that purpose – even if you prohibit it for other tasks.  This does not undermine analytical thinking – it helps students communicate their ideas more effectively.

Keeping Our Eyes on the Ball

The difference between de-skilling and re-skilling is not whether students use AI.  It’s whether we are willing to improve our teaching methods to meet students’ learning needs.

If we want students to think more deeply and engage more fully, we should focus on how we teach and grade – not just whether they use AI.

De-Skilling or Re-Skilling? also addresses how faculty can re-skill ourselves to respond to this moment.  It describes how reviewing student chat transcripts can become a rich (and surprisingly efficient and enjoyable) learning tool for both students and faculty.

What Do You Do in Your Courses?

Our writing assignments probably vary.  What has been your experience?

• How long are the papers you assign?
• How satisfied are you with the quality of students’ papers?
• How much feedback, if any, do you provide on outlines or drafts of papers?
• Have you used shorter, practice-oriented assignments? If so, how did the shorter length affect their learning?
• Have you permitted or prohibited student use of AI? How has that affected the quality of their papers and how much they learned?
• What AI policies have you used? What have been the effects on students’ work?
• Have you provided guidance or materials to help students use AI responsibly?

Please share your thoughts.