Have You Checked Out the CALI Excercises lately?
by
Robert M. Lloyd

If you're one of the many law teachers who tried CALI's computer-based learning exercises in the past and found them frustrating, boring, or just plain unhelpful, it's time to give them another try. Like every other type of software, CALI's exercises have improved tremendously in the last few years, and if you're not recommending these exercises to your students, you're shortchanging them on a valuable learning experience. I've been researching the reasons students use or don't use computer exercises, and it's become clear that students will use these tools if their professors recommend them. Conversely, if their professors don't recommend the exercises, the students will ignore them.

We pride ourselves on the fact that in class we force our students to learn actively. Wherever possible, we use class discussion and Socratic dialogue rather than the straight lectures used in so many other disciplines. But all too often when students leave the classroom the studying they do is the most passive imaginable. They read hornbooks uncritically, and they memorize rules from commercial outlines. They even short-cut case analysis by buying canned briefs.

The better CALI exercises force students to think. Most often, they present a series of problems that the student has to analyze using the principles she learned in class. The problems are sophisticated, so it's not just rote learning.

The best exercises go even further. Just like a good classroom teacher, they ask follow-up questions. Rather than just tell students why their answers were wrong, they explore the misconception that led them to choose the wrong answer. Even if the students get the right answer, the computer may ask them about the reasoning that led to that answer. It's a form of artificial intelligence. A professor who has taught a subject for a few years learns what misconceptions students have about a particular subject, and she writes an exercise to correct the misconceptions and reinforce the correct analysis. The computer makes this approach even more efficient by allowing students to deal in depth with the areas where they are having problems and go lightly over the things they already understand. In the best exercises, any individual student sees only a small fraction of text screens. The computer doesn't show the rest because the student's answers to the previous questions have shown knowledge of the material. For the student, it's the next best thing to having a one-on-one session with the professor.

Not all of CALI's exercises are this sophisticated. But CALI has published a large number of exercises, so you can choose those that best fit your needs and your approach to the material. To get you started, I've reviewed CALI's most popular exercises and listed those that I like best for the basic law school courses.

CONTRACTS -- Scott Burnham, The Parol Evidence Rule

The parol evidence rule is perhaps the most difficult topic in contract law. Because there are subtle differences among its several formulations, it would seem an unlikely candidate for computerized teaching. But this exercise really gives the student an understanding of the rule. It covers the material in more depth than most of us have time for in class. Unlike lectures and hornbooks, it doesn't leave the student behind. It asks questions every step along the way. If students don't understand the material when it's initially presented in textual form, they'll get it again as part of the feedback to the wrong answers to the questions that follow each segment of text. There are enough questions that even the weakest student will understand the material presented by the end of each segment.

PROPERTY -- John A. Humbach, The Estate System and Basic Future Interests

These two exercises cover in detail the most difficult and frustrating material in the first-year property course. They can make the course go more smoothly for both the student and the teacher. The material is broken into the smallest possible segments -- generally one or two short screens of text -- and each segment of text is followed by a series of questions that reinforce the material and make sure the student has understood it. It will take students a while to work their way through these two exercises, but when they do they'll have a much better understanding of the material. Requiring students to use these exercises will allow you to move more quickly in class and reduce the frustration that normally goes along with teaching this material.

TORTS -- D. Douglas McFarland, Intentional Torts and Negligence

Each of these exercises is an in-depth exploration of the topic. There is a step-by-step progression beginning with the most basic issues. At each step along the way, there is a short textual explanation followed by a number of questions testing the student's understanding of the concept. It takes a good bit of time to complete the exercises (the author suggests four to five hours each), but the students who work their way through them will have a good understanding of the subjects. Time spent on these exercises will be much more rewarding than time spent with outlines or hornbooks.

The feedback from the questions makes sure that students understand each concept fully before they move on to the next one.

EVIDENCE -- Roger C. Park, Character Evidence Under the Federal Rules

This is the most frequently used of all CALI's exercises and for good reason. It's not only an excellent teaching device but a lot of fun as well.

Five cases are presented: a negligence case, the trial of Lizzie Borden, a bank robbery case, an entrapment case, and a larceny case. In some of the cases, the student is given a summary of the parties' contentions and then asked a series of questions about particular evidentiary issues that might arise. When the students answer, the computer doesn't always indicate immediately whether their answer was right or wrong. Instead, there are follow-up questions designed to probe the reasons for choosing a particular answer. Even when the students choose the right answer, there are sometimes questions designed to get them to change their minds. Studies have shown that this type of delayed feedback leads to better understanding and retention.

In other parts of the exercise, students are given a transcript of the testimony, one question or answer at a time, and instructed to object at the appropriate points. The computer evaluates each objection, and at the end of the segment it gives an explanation of the judge's rulings. After that, the computer runs students through each of the objections they might have made but did not and requires them to rule on each of these objections.

I thoroughly enjoyed doing the exercise even though I don't teach evidence and (if my performance on the exercise is any indication) don't remember much from when I studied it.