1 / 21

Exam Essays – Common Mistakes Among At-Risk Students

Exam Essays – Common Mistakes Among At-Risk Students. Robin Boyle, St. John’s Law School Assistant Dean for Academic Success & Professor of Legal Writing. October 22, 2011. LSAC Academic Assistance Topical Workshop “Finding a Way Through: Working With Students Who Have Learning Disabilities”

varick
Download Presentation

Exam Essays – Common Mistakes Among At-Risk Students

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Exam Essays – Common Mistakes Among At-Risk Students Robin Boyle, St. John’s Law School Assistant Dean for Academic Success & Professor of Legal Writing

  2. October 22, 2011 • LSAC Academic Assistance Topical Workshop • “Finding a Way Through: Working With Students Who Have Learning Disabilities” • My experience: • Teaching LRW for 18 years • Directing ASP for 6 years • Contracts I (Conditional Admissions Program) for 4 years • Legal Analysis Practicum (At-Risk 1L) 1 year • Agency Practicum (At-Risk 2L) in progress

  3. Why Focus on At-Risk Populations? • Prevalence of learning disabled students (although not all LD students are on the lower end of GPA range).* • Not all at- risk students have diagnoses. • Not all students with diagnoses inform me. • Even if I’m informed, not all LD present the same way on exams. • * See Leah Christensen, Legal Reading and Success in Law School: The Reading Strategies of Law Students with ADD, 12 The Scholar: St. Mary’s L. Rev. on Minority Issues 173 (2010).

  4. About the LAP (1L course) • 36 students enrolled in total: • 17 students below 2.1 (Academic Probation) – mandatory enrollment • 10 students b/w 2.1 & 2.2 (Required to receive AS services) – mandatory enrollment • Offered to @ 30 students whose GPA were b/w 2.2 and 2.49 – of those students, 9 opted in

  5. In 1st year/2nd semester LAP course • Predominant problems • Not providing enough text • Going off on tangents – stream of consciousness • Haven’t mastered IRAC (“I didn’t get it 1st semester”) • Need more careful case reading & statutory reading • Strategies to Remedy • Provided weekly writing assignments • Focused on IRAC • Explained different purposes (not just exams – “If a memo, then . . . If a brief, then . . . ”)

  6. Course topics • Close Case & Statutory Reading • Outlining • Rule Synthesis • Application of Law to Fact – Analogy/Distinction • Essay Exam Writing • Learning Styles* • See Robin A. Boyle, Law Students With ADD: How to Reach Them, How to Teach Them, 39 John Marshall L. Rev. 349 (2006)

  7. Emphasis • Organization of Legal Analysis: • Intro (thesis paras) • Divide by sub-issues • Rules – with and without statutes, synthesis of case holdings • Application to facts with detail (not skipping steps) • Stating counterarguments • Stating conclusions without ambiguity

  8. Writing Assignment Topics • Assignment #1 Common law: • Contracts case: Sidway v. Hamer – (uncle who promised nephew not to drink/gamble until age 21 - $) • produce case brief, • summarize for a course outline, • write essay on hypothetical fact pattern.

  9. Statutory Analysis • Assignment #2 • New York Vehicle & Traffic Law – • Definition of Motor Vehicle in Sec. 125 (vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power, then exceptions . . .) • Two fact questions – how would the court decide (actual cases)? • In each question – was there a “motor vehicle”?

  10. Practice Separating by Issue • Assignment #3 - • Restatement 2d Sec. 90 (Promise Reasonably Inducing Action or Forbearance) • 1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action . . . • 2) on part of the promisee . . . • 3) does induce such action . . . • 4) is binding if injustice can be avoided • Two hypo fact patterns given – essay answers required

  11. Rule Synthesis • Assignment #4 • Covenant not to Compete – two fictitious cases and a fact pattern • Goal was to divide by sub-issues • Synthesize rules • Apply in detail

  12. More Rule Synthesis • Assignment #5 • Topic: Emotional Distress • Restatement 2d of Torts • 4 Summaries of cases • Hypothetical facts • Goal: Write an essay using IRAC

  13. Course Materials • Distributed Succeeding in Law School, by Herb Ramy • Handouts

  14. Results of First Year LAP course • Students who attended class and turned in assignments showed improvement in their Spring GPAs to a statistical significance level in comparison to those in their GPA cohort who did not participate. • Suggestions – try to get buy-in from students (relevant topics, offer course credit, offer course grade)

  15. Improvements seen from 1L to 2L • More text in their essay answers. • Some students are using good organization to essays. • Some students are reading cases and Restatement very well. • Some 1Ls improved GPAs and are not required in 2L course.

  16. Agency Practicum • Course text: J. Dennis Hynes & Mark J. Loewenstein, AGENCY, PARTNERSHIP, AND THE LLC (Abridged 7th ed. Lexis Nexis). • Two sections – 9 in Day • 9 in evening • Most of the students are required to take course (GPA’s under 2.2).

  17. Agency Practicum (2L’s) • Common Problems with essays and exam answers • Issue statements lack legal terms • Rushes past the rule (reduced to bullet outline, parenthetical) • Doesn’t delve into the next level of rule (repeats the general rule) • Lacks meaningful application of law to fact • Brushes past counterargts • Mentions cases that were not covered in class

  18. HW for Agency 2Ls • Writing short essays to hypothetical problems • Submitting course outline of first two chapters (I spotted over-inclusive and under-inclusive outlining) • Drafting contract provisions from the point of view of 3 different parties • Self-Assessment survey (what percentage of time last semester did you spend on briefing cases? What did you learn from meeting with your professors about exam-taking skills?)

  19. In-class work • Provided an open-book mid-term • Reviewed in class the exam & assigned re-write as HW • Because it was doctrinal course, spent more class time discussing cases than in LAP course (1st year). • Small class size allowed for students to spend time on their questions about assigned readings and other topics

  20. Integrating ASP skills • Learning styles assessments (online Building Excellence) • Time Management • Test Anxiety discussed • Individualized feedback – electronic commenting • One-on-one conferences

  21. Any Questions - • Contact – • boyler@stjohns.edu • (718) 990-6609 • Thank you!!

More Related