Teaching a Collaborative Seminar
by
Louis J. Sirico, Jr.

Until three years ago, I had never taught a seminar. In fact, I had avoided seminars. I viewed the typical seminar as a collection of students, each writing a paper independently of the other students. In the closing weeks of the course, the professor might attempt to introduce some interaction, perhaps by assigning a few students to critique another student's paper. Thus, I saw the seminar as one of Kurt Vonnegut's "granfalloons," that is, an organized group of people who think they have something meaningful in common, but don't. I would rather teach what Vonnegut would call a "true karass," a group of people whose lives are bound together in profound ways. (See Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle.)

When it came my time to teach a legislative drafting seminar, I drew upon the pedagogy that I had practiced in teaching legal writing. I decided to reject the individually oriented seminar in favor of a collaborative seminar, one in which students would genuinely help one another turn out excellent products.

At the beginning of the course, I told the students what I had in mind. Students would choose problems that concerned them. Each student would draft a statute, ordinance, or regulation that addressed the problem and also write a detailed commentary explaining and advocating the legislation. The commentary would resemble a legislative committee report. In almost every class meeting, each student would explain at what stage of the process he or she stood and what problems the student was facing. Then the rest of the students would offer their assistance. Each student would also hold several individual meetings with me where I would review their efforts and make suggestions. In short, we would help one another.

In fact, we adhered to this plan and really did help one another. I was often pleasantly surprised at the information and suggestions that students offered their colleagues. Some students could offer factual information about the issue. Others could suggest alternative ways to deal with it. Still others could offer advice to insure that people or organizations would not find ways to circumvent the proposed legislation. (Offering this advice and helping students in learning to use precise language were my primary contributions.) As a group, the students had far more to offer than I as an individual could have offered.

For example, a student seeking to permit beer sales on Sunday learned that the issue was entangled with Pennsylvania's system of state liquor stores and licensed beer distributors. He learned that the present system exists not because of moral concerns but because it raises substantial revenues for the state. A student wanting to preserve open lands realized that any new program requiring state funding faces a serious obstacle. He responded to critiques by developing a free market system to achieve his goal. Another student was concerned that powerful groups avoid financial disclosure laws by making contributions to issue advertising instead of political candidates. He realized that he would have to settle for a statute that still permitted some contributors to avoid the requirements of any statute that he could devise.

In the closing weeks of the course, I decided not to hold a mock legislative hearing, with each student facing a "legislative committee" composed of other students. Although other colleagues had found that format to be effective, I decided to continue the collaborative process. Students would make their presentations and expect other students to offer constructive suggestions. Students would not turn in their final products until after the presentations. With this format, the presentations would serve as the final collaborative effort.

The seminar worked splendidly. The students helped one another significantly and perhaps learned more about the value of working with others. I can't wait until I have the chance to teach the seminar again.