Modules: Flexibility

January 22nd, 2013 / By Deborah J. Merritt

Full-time professors tend to like traditional semester courses. Give us a classroom (preferably with a podium and a blackboard at the front); an audience of full-time students; 3-4 credit hours; fourteen weeks of class meetings; and a final exam or paper. Now that’s education!

There’s no doubt that this structure works well for some professors, students, and material. The old-fashioned semester-long course may even provide a useful anchor for education. Perhaps at the beginning of a degree program, such as the first year of law school, students should take some traditional, full-semester courses to build a foundation for more individualized work. There’s also something to be said for students developing a relationship with a few professors over a full semester of class meetings.

But I’m also confident that the traditional structure does not work well for every subject taught in law school. Some insightful instructors are not available three times a week for fourteen weeks out of the year. Some subjects benefit from intense study over a compressed period. Some material just doesn’t generate lively discussion; students can learn it more effectively on their own. In law schools, we try too hard to fit everything into the framework of a full-semester course.

A modular law school would throw off the semester shackles. Some educational experiences might last a full semester–or even a full year. The modular school, however, would assume a different timeframe for most courses. Courses would meet at a large variety of times and places, using many different schedules. Students would assemble their coursework in many more configurations than they do today.

Why would we invite that type of mayhem? I outline some of the pros and cons, focusing on schedule flexibility, below. This post is the second in a series of posts discussing the concept of a more modular law school. For the initial, introductory post in the series, see here. Future posts will discuss modular content; assessments and feedback; cost; and other issues.

Advantages of Modular Scheduling

1. We live in an unbundled, on-demand world. This is a world in which people choose playlists; they don’t listen to songs in the order dictated by an album or radio station. We watch movies and tv programs at the times we find most convenient. We search instantaneously for information when we need it. We read our favorite columnists from multiple media sources rather than subscribing to a single daily paper.

These changes have occurred because customers want them. We value individual control and choice when consuming entertainment and information. The same tastes apply to education. Like it or not, students will increasingly demand more control and choice within their legal education. They will come to law school expecting more nuanced choices than we currently offer, because that is what they are accustomed to receiving elsewhere. To senior faculty, an upper-level curriculum with few requirements may offer boundless choice. For students growing up in today’s world, four courses that each meet for fourteen weeks will increasingly feel like a strait jacket.

2. A modular schedule, as I’ll explore in future posts, may deliver better learning. Modules will require more frequent assessment than semester-long courses, and are likely to provide more feedback. Both assessment and feedback promote learning. Modules will also focus professors on the value of each course component. We’ll have to ask questions like: “Do students really benefit from this three-week portion of my fourteen-week course? Even if they do, would they learn the material better in a stand-alone module, or through a different pedagogy? How do the different parts of my course advance doctrinal learning, thinking like a lawyer, and other practice skills?” Answering questions like these can improve teaching.

I will address modular content more thoroughly in a separate post, but it’s important to note that flexible scheduling need not impair learning; if done properly, it can improve learning.

3. Modular schedules would allow us to draw upon many more instructors. Practicing lawyers rarely have fourteen weeks of quality time to commit to a course–especially when we demand that those weeks correspond exactly to our semesters. Professors in other disciplines may not be able to commit a full semester of time to teaching law students. Many law schools have already recognized this fact and have created “short courses” to accommodate practitioners or professors in other disciplines. A modular schedule would make these courses far more common; in fact, they would become the norm rather than an aberration.

4. Modules could capitalize on learning experiences that don’t fit the traditional semester. Clinics and externships often struggle with the semester framework. Some client matters take less than fourteen weeks; others take much more. Legislatures, courts, and clients operate on different calendars than we do: Their problems don’t emerge neatly in August and conclude just after Thanksgiving. A more flexible schedule would allow law schools to design experiential courses around the experiences themselves.

5. Modular schedules can help students integrate classwork with part-time jobs or externships. The latter experiences are increasingly important for students to finance their legal education or gain workplace experience. The best experiences, however, may conflict with the bulk of law school classes. A modular schedule might allow a student to work full-time in September and October, when an employer has an opening. The student might pursue a single module at night during that time, then stock up on more modules later in the academic year.

6. Similarly, modules could help students who need to attend school part-time. The cost of living accounts for a significant part of law school debt; if students could work during law school, they might graduate with less debt. Even part-time programs are relatively rigid, following semester schedules and often providing much less course choice than the full-time program. A modular schedule would allow employed students to customize their schedule for their particular job. One job might impose heavy demands in April, while another requires extra hours in December. Under a modular schedule, students could choose modules to accommodate those demands.

7. Modular classes can include new types of students. With JD applications falling, law schools are likely to create new certificate, degree, and continuing education programs. Those programs will be most efficient if schools can integrate them with JD classes. Combining different student groups can also pay off for the students: JD students and practitioners, for example, might enroll in a common module. Those students would benefit from the practitioners’ insights, as well as from networking opportunities. The practitioners, conversely, might find that full-time students are stimulating classmates and prospective employees.

Drawbacks of Modular Scheduling

1. Modular scheduling is harder than semester scheduling; it adds pieces to the academic puzzle. Will all professors want to teach Monday through Wednesday during September and April? Will all practitioners prefer to teach on Tuesday evenings in October? Those are nightmares that, as a former associate dean, I can understand. But airlines and other businesses engage in much more complicated scheduling than we do at universities; I suspect we can produce a modular schedule. We may even find that modular scheduling creates fewer conflicts than semester scheduling does. Lots of professors like to teach at 11 a.m. M-W, but they may prefer different months of the year. As we spread the schedule over more hours, days, and months–and engage more different types of instructors–the conflicts may diminish.

2. Full-time, tenured faculty won’t like it. We are all creatures of habit, and full-time tenured faculty rarely have to alter their workplace habits. Changing course schedules, teaching times, and other expectations may be wildly unpopular. Forced change, of course, can be a good thing: In addition to accommodating student demand (or satisfying other institutional objectives), it may encourage faculty to re-examine silent assumptions underlying their courses and pedagogies. But full-time, tenured faculty are unlikely to applaud significant changes in the academic schedule.

3. Some modules won’t generate enough student interest. To accommodate both scheduling and subject preferences, schools may have to offer a large number of modules. Some of these modules will attract only a few students, requiring a decision about whether to cancel the module. Cancellation imposes costs on the students who anticipated that module; it can also impose institutional costs if the school committed to pay the instructor (or to credit a full-time professor for that module). Even if the instructor agrees to teach a different module or at a different time, time is wasted making those arrangements.

4. Expectations may overload students. If modules start at different times and extend for varying periods, instructors won’t know the demands imposed in other modules. What happens if four different modules schedule exams on the same day or during the same week? This happens with semester courses, and both students and professors complain about it. Expectation clashes may be more frequent with modular scheduling–and more complicated because students will enroll in different patterns of modules.

5. Universities may have to adjust their tuition schedules. Some universities charge by the course, others charge by the credit. Modules may not fit comfortably within either framework. If other parts of the university offer traditional semester courses, it may be particularly difficult for law schools to negotiate an appropriate price for their modules.

There is much more, both positive and negative, to say about modules. Stay tuned as I continue to explore this educational framework.

Permalink