Culmination - Part 1

As we stated at the beginning of this journey, Atiba Ellis and I began this blog to document our experiences using technology, inter-disciplinary teaching and the case of Citizens United. The purpose was to explore the mandate set out by the Society of American law Teachers: transformative teaching. Specifically, we wanted to explore the following:
Whether the Citizens United case provides an opportunity to expose the power that corporations have to change the political landscape and how that power has been augmented through the Citizens United opinion.
To do so, we wanted to illustrate the creative methodologies that can be used to demonstrate how corporate influence can transform the individual person’s relationship with the state. Specifically, at the conference, we had hoped to present the results of a semester of teaching the Citizens United case in our respective fields of Corporations and Election Law. We were going to discuss how we first took the opportunity to have a collaborative conversation among ourselves as professors to compare our disciplinary-specific analyses of the Citizens United case as well as elaborate on points of common reference which cross our disciplinary boundaries. Second, we wanted to discuss how each of us crafted an approach in each of our individual courses. Third, we wanted to reflect on our discussions of the Citizens United case in a cross-disciplinary forum at our law school and the techniques we used to generate discussion and focus on the power relationships created and reshaped by the decision.
Our presentation was to focus on how we as professors strove to bring to light—both individually and collaboratively—how the power relationships between corporations and political power have been reshaped through this decision, how those relationships have worked to the detriment of individual voters, and how, using the different disciplinary tools we possess, students should assess and answer the concerns raised by the Citizens United precedent.
Our goal was to present our findings to the Society of American Law Teachers at their conference in December.
As is the case with many projects, what our project became was very different from where we began. What had started as a project that would primarily focus on the Citizens United case and its impact on teaching, became a more generalized examination of teaching, Millennials, and technology.
What always amazes me is how much you learn, not from achieving your goals but from taking the journey to get there. For me, my fall semester, exploring all the frustrations, challenges and victories in making this vision a reality has helped me develop a better understanding of my students and myself as a teacher. I also was reminded of the challenges and rewards of working on a collaborative project.
I presented my insights during our panel discussion in December, but for those of you who were unable to attend, I summarize the main points here:
1. The Challenges in teaching Millennials;
2. The Student Engagement Conundrum – how to get students to engage;
3. The Substance – using Citizens United to teach;
4. The Effect this project had on my on my teaching and my scholarship;
5. Our Failures & Successes – and what I learned from them.
Over the next few mpnths, I will try and spend some time discussing each aspect of this. Hopefully, you can offer feedback and share your experiences as I review the last part of the journey.
 

The Wrap Up Panel

On November 4, 2010 Atiba Ellis, Stefan Padfield and Wilson Huhn participated in a panel to discuss the Citizens United case. The panel used Skype to have the discussion happen simultaneously in both Akron and at WVU. The timing was also fortuitous: although the discussion did not focus exclusively on the most recent election cycle, the case took on added relevance in light of the elections two days before. In fact, the panel garnered news attention because of its timeliness. The downside? The technology didn't record the panel. However, given the impact that the panel had both internally and externally, Atiba thought it would be a good idea to try again - this time with a wrap up panel discussing some of the key issues and the participants' experiences with Skype. The second time, the technology worked great and we were able to record the whole discussion. So, for your viewing enjoyment ...

Follow the link here to view the file through dropbox (since its over 10 minutes neither blogger now youtube could support it.)

Example of Teaching to Millenials

Prof. Charles Calleros, of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, has provided us with this excellent example (given by his son Alex) of using technology to teach to generation millenials. The video shows how animation can covert what would otherwise be an ordinary lecture into a fun, entertaining and memorable event.

This particular example has Prof. Phillip Zimbardo lecturing on the different perspectives of time ...

Teaching at the Speed of Light

“They’re lazy” “They’re privileged” “They’re spoiled” ‘They’re entitled.” “They’re easily distracted” These are all labels that have been put on “generation millenials” - those folks born between 1988 - 2001. I have come into contact with many millenials in my profession and the only label that I universally adopt for them is my students. And, as a professor to these students, there is a responsibility I feel to make sure that they are learning in the most effective way for them. Of course, students face obstacles when entering college. They face even more as a law student. Because, as we have heard ad nauseum in the profession, one of the most important parts of our job is teaching students to “think like a lawyer” (whether we get them to “practice like a lawyer” is an entirely different debate).

Thinking about this, and with support of both our home institution and the Society of American Law Teachers , Atiba Ellis and I, two professors at WVU’s College of Law, have set out on a quest to truly understand and respond to teaching these students. How do you reach this generation in a way that fosters a learning environment that meets their needs without diluting the fundamental principles that we are trying to instill? In short, what exactly does it mean to teach in the 21st century?

Certainly, technology is a huge component of this: Facebook; blogging; Twitter; texting; podcasts … all of these are developments have gone from nascent to established with such speed that, web surfing (all the rage when I was in law school) is actually quaint in comparison. Many professors (including one of us) have chosen to ban the intrusion of all student-driven technology in the classroom. But is that really necessary? What if instead, we made the technology work for us? We hope that part of our journey will answer these questions.


But while technology is certainly the most tangible aspect of the changes during this generation, it isn’t the only one. The constantly shifting culture, with all of its attendant references guarantees that allusions to Ferris Bueller or the Sugar Hill Gang will be met by millenials with vacant looks. Luckily Beloit College’s mindset list can help us bridge the cultural reference gap – but is that enough? And do we really want to? Oftentimes cultural references serve as a means of gaining familiarity. But is that what these students would like? Is this generation craving accessibility or formality?


Finally, is there anything different about this generation’s collective personality that drives the way they learn? Is multi-tasking now the only way that a student can actually focus? Given the many images and speed of light changes that are streaming at them 24 hours a day, can a student truly learn in a way that is the same as the teacher teaches? Are the main traditional teaching styles: auditory, visual, verbal, and kinesthetic, even valid anymore? What style of learning is triggered by watching a You Tube video? Or tweeting your response to a webcast? Is it simply old styles in new clothes? Or is something fundamentally different happening here?
And given that, how does this impact the teaching of law? Is the Socractic method, pioneered in 1879, still the best way to approach learning in 2010? Or are there other, more effective ways to make students engage?

These are the questions we will be exploring during our journey. We hope to present our thoughts during the annual S.A.L.T. conference in Hawaii in December. Where the journey goes after that, it’s hard to say. But we welcome and appreciate your thoughts, comments and teaching tips along the way.