Formative Feedback in Many Forms

By Sandra Simpson, Gonzaga University School of Law

While attending the Institute for Law Teaching and Learning conference this past summer, I learned about live critiquing from Professor Amanda Sholtis from Widener University Law School in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  Her session captivated me, and it made me want to try live critiquing with my first year LRW students.  The following is a brief description of my formative assessment with my first closed-universe writing problem:

1. The students are given three heavily edited cases to synthesize and a fact pattern containing a problem to solve. It is a problem which has three elements and, therefore, will have three IRACs (or IREAC, CREAC, etc.).
2. We synthesize the cases in class together.
3. For the next class, I give them a writing template and a writing example. They are to read those documents and bring a completed draft of the closed-universe problem to the next class.
4. During that next class, they were given my rubric to self-assess one of the IRACs they wrote (I choose which IRAC they self-assess in class).
5. I give them 20 minutes to work through the rubric with their own paper.
   1. 1. For the self-evaluation, I instruct them to use the rubric which fully explains what a good issue statement should contain; what a good rule statement should contain; what definitions should look like, etc.
      2. I also instruct them to note in the margin of their paper what needs to be improved on their paper for each section of the IRAC.
      3. Then, I give them a “good” example of the IRAC for the same issue which they just worked on for the self-assessment. The “good” example is fully annotated by me, showing the students what is good about each section of the IRAC.
      4. The students used the rest of that class period to review the “good” example and compare it to their paper.
      5. I was available during that classroom work time to answer questions, etc.
      6. Once the self-assessment was over, I told them they need to apply what they learned while writing the final draft.
6. Once the students turned in their final draft, which only contained the two un-assessed IRACs, they signed up for a live critique with me.
7. I give each student ½ hour to go over their final draft with me.
   1. 1. I don’t review their final drafts until we are sitting together for the face-to-face conference.
      2. I have my rubric with me, and I have a “good” copy of the two remaining IRACs with annotations of what is good in each section of the IRACs.
      3. The students take the rubric and the “good” paper home with them.
      4. During the ½ hour, I spend with each student, I just start reading his or her paper. I stop periodically and make comments on what is good and what needs improvement.  The students take notes, ask questions, and dialogue with me.

I found the process helpful in getting to know my students, getting to know the sticking points in their thought/writing process, and getting feedback on my instructions.  The students overwhelmingly preferred it to getting a bunch of comments on a paper which they admit they usually don’t read, and if they do, they often don’t understand them.  With the next paper, I gave the students the choice to have live critiquing or written critiquing.  Over half of my students chose live critiquing, which I considered a good sign that students liked it.

The downsides to this process, however, are:

1. I have 37 first-year LRW students so I spent a lot of time meeting with students. I would, however, have spent the time grading anyway.  Thus, I think the time spent is a wash.
2. It is stressful to meet face-to-face with students and talk to them about what they are doing wrong. I am a social person, and so I really enjoyed the process.

I found live critiquing inspiring, helpful, and surprising. If anyone would like more information about this, I am happy to engage in a further conversation.