Most of us are experiencing the double whammy of reacting to an extremely contentious and never-ending presidential election, and at the same time, we were finishing our first full semester of distance teaching (and some like me, have even become elementary school teachers to our children, ugh!). Obviously, these stresses were considerable. Indeed, a host of articles provide us useful guidance on how best to cope with the election. Fewer articles explore the impact of Zoom on teachers and students, though some in fact have labelled the phenomena: Zoom fatigue. Not enough articles however have explored much needed self-assessment of the effectiveness of our Zoom teaching efforts. I suspect many reviews will have to wait for student evaluations. Despite that wise decision, I believe it would be useful to start to honestly ponder how much students learned, and whether they learned effectively.
For instance, I often teach 70-170 students per fall semester, often teaching two sections of torts. I perhaps was a bit lucky this semester because I previously asked for a break from teaching torts. Instead, this semester I taught upper-level courses--products liability and administrative law--where I could focus on teaching practical lawyering skills. Each class had roughly dozen students. In that environment, teaching via Zoom had many benefits. I could literally look into each student's eyes, albeit via a computer, and tell if they were understanding the materials, had questions, or simply disagreed with me. Zoom-teaching also allowed me to easily and seamlessly add extra-sessions with all or some students, based on my practicum-based class structure and grading system (in each class, the students were paired and had to litigate a case based on the theory taught in class coupled with a real-life fact pattern). While I look forward to the students reactions, last week I invited several of my colleagues to attend the final oral arguments in each class. I believe my fellow-professors and dean were extremely impressed with our students (no surprise in some respects because FIU Law students are consistently outstanding). Thus, it appears in these courses, Zoom-learning worked.
I nonetheless wonder, what if instead of teaching these soon-to-be lawyers, I had to teach from 70 to 170 first-year law students. Would I be able to effectively teach them negligence? Strict liability? Intentional torts? At first blush, it may sound fairly easy, but I would disagree. It is one thing to use Zoom for a dozen students, but it is an entirely different animal to teach 50 or more students via Zoom? Last spring for instance, I had the pleasure to teach at a neighboring law school. When we started the semester with in-person teaching, the students were a joy, and for me, it was teaching as usual. However, when the pandemic hit, it was a challenge to teach over 100 students with up to five separate Zoom pages in each class setting? I simply could not effectively tell who or how many were listening? How many were engaged? Then when the school changed the course's grading to pass/fail, that challenge only grew. As we tend to do, I adjusted. I taught the best I could under the circumstances--holding extra sessions, extra reviews, and even sharing my class notes for every class. But the question remained: was it enough?
While I look forward to your reactions, I believe Zoom works in some settings: small classes with upper-level students. I do not believe it works well with large classes, such as with our first-year curriculum. Perhaps the vaccine(s) will make the above moot? I nonetheless believe much more research and discussion is needed, especially if we are to stay apart for a longer period than we first expected.
I have been teaching two sections of Intro. to Property this term, all by Zoom of course. One of my sections (in our part-time night program) has 17 students; the other section has 63. I am finding major differences between the two sections that can not be explained by the maturity differences between part-time night and full-time day students.
A significant factor that traced directly to Zoom is keeping track of how the students are doing during each class. I normally require students to keep their video feed on (those needed an exception to this can get one by contacting me before each class). I do this because I need to be able to get feedback on how well the material is being understood. To do that, I have to be able to see everyone. In the gallery view that I use during class, Zoom allows a maximum of 49 images per screen. Seeing 49 people on a screen is somewhat challenging, but I installed a second, large monitor which makes it work (the students are on the large monitor, the powerpoint slides are on my laptop’s monitor).
As a general matter, particularly with the 17 night students, this set-up has worked. For the night class, everyone is on the same screen in a large enough image to be seen. The night class has developed its personality and, at least based on the quality of the briefing and the questions that are asked, is doing as well as classes I have taught live.
For the day class of 63, however, this Zoom-caused limitation of 49 images on a screen is a significant problem. With more than 49 students, I find it impossible to keep everyone in sight, particularly as Zoom rearranges the gallery fairly regularly. Flipping between screens as you try to answer a student’s question just doesn’t work. I worry about these students because, as the semester has proceeded and despite my video on rule, a significant minority of my students are now a black box with a name. When I call on these students to participate in class, I often get no response.
My conclusion from this is that Zoom class sessions should be capped at 49 students. Teaching a student that you can’t see isn’t practical.
Posted by: Ralph D. Clifford | November 23, 2020 at 09:48 AM
Thanks, Ralph for your comments. We seem to agree in large part. I like your suggestion on the cap---can you imagine the reactions from deans??? Of course, I appreciate your observations. Not my field or focus of late--too much on the immigration front for me these days. I nevertheless hope one of us studies these issues further. Cheers! E
Posted by: Ediberto Roman | November 23, 2020 at 01:30 PM
Bottom line: No matter how much anyone tries tries to fool himself/herself or others, Zoom sucks.
For those of us who remember the long history that happened before yesterday (unlike the juvenile students and many of their professors), "correspondence school" was a derided as inevitably subpar.
What is so astonishing is that the legal academic establishment has convinced students to pay for "distance learning" -- saving the costs to operate the physical plant (save fixed costs) and depriving these students of the experience and education for which they paid.
Soon, I expect, like that last "law school scam" movement, folks will catch on this to underhanded maneuver by legal academia (AGAIN)! It is like Wall Street: it never learns because there are seldom any real consequences for lying. (Too few law schools closed after the last round of "accountability" for ripping off students.)
What is the lie? That "distance learning" is worth anything like a real law school education. Anyone educator who so states is, in my view, knowingly prevaricating.
Posted by: anon | November 23, 2020 at 03:34 PM
Here's an idea that might appeal to all you woke, progressive tenured law profs, to solve the Law School Scam 2.0 issue (charging full tuition for less than 50% of the value).
Send in the adjuncts! THis would have a couple of salutary effects.
First, send in the older adjuncts first. This would help accomplish the universal goal of legal academia of a.) exploiting the help, by capitalizing on financial desperation and inequality, and b.) churning the ranks of the adjuncts, to prevent any of these lesser beings (who basically do exactly what you do, as most of you don't publish at all, and those who do, in the main, publish crap that no one reads or cares about) from attaining any of the meager "benefits" of longevity as an adjunct.
Second, this plan would enable tenured and tenure track faculty ample time to pursue their most important activities: remodeling, supervising the household staff (nannies, gardeners, housecleaners), etc. All pretense of "research" and "scholarship" can be dropped, in favor of playing around online all day, posting anti-republican talking points, posturing about who is the most "woke," and dreaming up new ways to basically control, and thereby make the lives of the people even more miserable.
Love it! Go all in, law profs. You know everyone loves you, right?
Posted by: anon | November 23, 2020 at 07:33 PM