These resources are designed to highlight the benefits of formative assessment methods in the law classroom from the perspective of other law faculty members.
Lynda.com provides tutorials on virtually any subject imaginable. All of Lynda.com is available free to UT faculty, staff and students.
ABA Standard 314
Standard 314. ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING A law school shall utilize both formative and summative assessment methods in its curriculum to measure and improve student learning and provide meaningful feedback to students.
Interpretation 314-1 Formative assessment methods are measurements at different points during a particular course or at different points over the span of a student’s education that provide meaningful feedback to improve student learning. Summative assessment methods are measurements at the culmination of a particular course or at the culmination of any part of a student’s legal education that measure the degree of student learning.
Interpretation 314-2 A law school need not apply multiple assessment methods in any particular course. Assessment methods are likely to be different from school to school. Law schools are not required by Standard 314 to use any particular assessment method.
Guiding Principles:
The Student Learning Outcomes Subcommittee suggested that certain assumptions should guide the implementation of the changes in the Standards that would result from its recommendations.These include:
• The process of identifying, assessing and improving outcomes is more important than ensuring that every student achieve each outcome.
• Different types of faculty—doctrinal, clinical, legal writing and others—play important roles in identifying and assessing learning.
• Faculty should have the central role in identifying, assessing and improving learning outcomes.
• Outcomes will differ based upon law school missions.
• Although the traditional legal curriculum, which purports to teach students to “think like a lawyer,” will remain at the center of law schools’ J.D. programs, schools should measure how successful their students are in mastering that skill and in bridging the gap between it and other lawyering skills.
• Focusing on outcomes should serve as a catalyst for law schools to be intentional in curriculum development.
• The focus on outcomes should shift the emphasis from what is being taught to what is being learned by the students.
Guidance:
Schools must beengagedinmeaningful assessment of their progress in helping students achieve outcome goals. The Standards create considerable space for schools to develop their own assessment schemes that fit their program and their culture. However, each school must use both formative and summative assessments. Interpretation 314-2 makes clear that multiple assessment methods are not required in every course. Nevertheless, Standard 314, as the Accreditation Committee is likely to apply it, will require that formative assessment be integrated into the law school’s program to, as Interpretation 314-1 states, “provide meaningful feedback to improve student learning” in the law school’s overall program. The flexibility allowed in this Standard and these Interpretations is meant to permit schools to experiment and to reflect the diversity law schools’ missions and programs. Nonetheless, the amount and variety of assessments utilized by each school should demonstrate that it is seriously measuring its success in meeting the outcomes that it has identified as appropriate to its mission. Learning outcomes clarify what students are expected to learn or master. Assessment should measure the level of attainment of those learning outcomes being achieved by students. This requires schools to collect evidence that demonstrates the level of attainment. In planning for this collection, schools should identify both the methods of assessment as well as the sources for making those assessments. The assessment of how certain outcomes are being met by students may include consideration of co- and extra-curricular activities. Because determining the level of attainment requires some subjective judgments, multiple methods of assessment will more likely produce an accurate portrayal. As noted in Interpretation 315-1, the sources of this evidence may encompass different constituencies, including students, alumni, attorneys and judges in addition to faculty. It is not the goal of assessing the level of attainment, and probably not realistic to expect, that each student will achieve the same level of mastery for every outcome. Some students will master some outcomes in a more proficient manner than others. Further, to the extent that learning outcomes are developed for certificate and specialty areas, learning outcomes within those areas will not be relevant for all students.
American Bar Association 2015 Guidance Memo on Learning Outcomes. Emphasis added. Full statement can be found here.