JURIST - Brenner: Teaching a Virtual Law Class

Lessons | Talkback | Archive
—————————————————————————————
In this monthly column, law professors comment on the many academic opportunities and challenges presented by Web technology.

As with all JURIST columns, you're invited to Talkback. This month...
—————————————————————————————
Teaching a Virtual Law Class

Susan Brenner, University of Dayton School of Law

In the fall of 1998, I taught my Criminal Law Seminar as a virtual class, i.e., entirely online. While several factors played a role in my decision to replace face to face sessions with a virtual learning environment, the most important was the subject-matter of the course.

A year earlier, I had for the first time devoted the seminar to computer crimes. Until then, the class had focused on more traditional topics and I was quite satisfied with the usual format (e.g., students reading and discussing printed materials, writing and presenting papers on discrete topics). But I decided it was not an effective way of dealing with this subject-matter: For one thing, the printed materials on computer crimes tended to be out of date given the volatility of this area. For another, I was aware of my limitations in dealing with many of the technical aspects of these crimes; I wanted to involve others with expertise in these areas, but very few such individuals were located near my law school. And on a more abstract note, it seemed to me that students could better understand the crimes that are committed in cyberspace if their learning experience took place in cyberspace. Consequently, I decided to teach the seminar entirely in cyberspace.

With the invaluable help of my research assistant, I created a web site, located at www.cybercrimes.net. It currently hosts two ventures: The seminar, now known as the “Cybercrimes Seminar,” and a “Cybercrimes Moot Court Competition,” which was created and is conducted by my colleague, Professor Rebecca Cochran. The moot court area is open to the public, but the seminar is not; to access the seminar, one needs a password and user name.

Before I describe the seminar’s virtual classroom, I need to explain what was expected of the students. Instead of drafting individual papers on discrete topics, they collaborated to draft a “Model State Computer Crimes Code” (“MSCCC”). Each student drafted specific sections of the MSCCC, which was based on the Model Penal Code. Like the MPC, the MSCCC consists of articles, some of which address procedural issues while others define offenses; and like the MPC, it includes commentary which explains the decisions that were made in drafting each section. To give the students a context for their work, before class began I surveyed the computer crime statutes of the states and assembled a “shell draft” of the MSCCC that divided issues into eight articles dealing with both procedural and substantive matters. The students used the citations in the “shell draft” as the starting point for their work.

The seminar’s virtual classroom was designed to accommodate this endeavor. It contained these “areas”:

Library: This contains links to sources on cybercrimes and legislative drafting. It gave students a place to start researching the issues involved in drafting their sections of the Model Code.
Drafts: Initially, this only contained my “shell draft” of the MSCCC. Later, it contained a “presentations” area where students debuted the first drafts of their sections.
Syllabus: The detailed syllabus gave the course requirements, the reading assignments, the grading scheme and other pertinent information.
Class: This is where we held our online classes. It contained the reading assignment for each class, which for the most part consisted of links to material on the Internet. It also contained a threaded discussion list where participants exchanged views on the material assigned for that week.
Discussions: This area contained threaded discussion lists, one for each of the eight articles of the Model Code. Students and faculty used the lists to debate the need for and intricacies of defining particular offenses. Once students started presenting their drafts, they used this area to seek comments on their work and respond from suggestions made by other participants; since students presented their initial drafts early in the term, this dialogue was an ongoing process that lasted for the remainder of the term.
E-mail: This was an internal e-mail function. Each seminar participant could e-mail any other participant internally, by using this system.
Bios: This area listed the names of the students in the seminar. It also listed the names and gave biographical information on the experts (prosecutors, law enforcement officers, defense attorneys) who served as online adjunct faculty and helped teach the course.

On the opening screen of the virtual classroom, each area was graphically represented by a button that appeared on an introductory screen; students accessed an area by clicking on the appropriate button.

Each class ran from 9:00 a.m. EDT on one Monday until 9:00 a.m. EDT on the following Monday, when another class began. Classes consisted on online discussions. At first, these discussions focused on assigned reading material; later, they focused on the students’ work on the MSCCC. Students and online adjunct faculty participated in these discussions, which were impressive in several respects: Once they got used to the online format, students posted extensively in the discussion forums, as did the online adjunct faculty members. At first, the students tended to defer to the views expressed by the outsiders, but they soon became comfortable in disagreeing with the “outside” faculty members. Students became very involved in the discussions, so much so that they often amazed me. For example, in one of our early classes we were talking about the need to devise a statute that would address a heretofore ignored type of conduct. My goal for the discussion was simply to isolate and analyze the relevant policy issues; I was astonished when one student posted a well-thought out draft statute designed to deal with the problem and invited the other participants to critique it, which they did. This discussion not only allowed us to focus on the policy issues, it also provided an excellent object lesson in drafting cybercrime statutes.

The students also took their drafting assignments very seriously. They began presenting drafts of their sections early in October, and were very professional in reviewing and critiquing each other’s work. On several occasions, a student who had criticized another’s draft posted a follow-up message taking pains to point out that the critique was intended to be constructive; in each instance, the student whose work had been criticized responded graciously, inviting further such comments.

Because I was concerned that some students might not have the basic computer expertise needed for the class, I hired three law students as “technical teaching assistants.” They held weekly labs in which they taught students how to access the virtual classroom and participate in the online classes; they also helped students convert the text of their drafts to HTML and upload it to the presentations area of the seminar web site. I had initially assumed that the students would want to bring their text to the assistants and have them upload it. Instead, students insisted on learning how to do this themselves; consequently by the end of the term even students who had been almost computer illiterate at the beginning of the semester were comfortable with the online format and with a wide range of computer skills.

Teaching the class was very demanding-I found myself posting messages and responding to posts (and e-mails) late into the evening, during much of each weekend and even during holidays. (For example, I logged in on Labor Day and found twelve students plus several online adjunct faculty posting messages!) But while this was time-consuming, it was also exciting and rewarding: Students were able to think about comments that had been posted and to respond, often at length, with insights they might have been hard-pressed to develop in a conventional class. They were also able, and willing, to raise issues on their own, which often involved extra work on my part, as I educated myself about these issues and formulated appropriate responses. I learned during the few weeks that it was neither possible nor desirable to limit the online discussions to a single topic. While face-to-face discussions necessarily address only one issue at a time (though they may sequentially address a number of issues), an online discussion easily encompasses a variety of issues. With the online format, students can log into the class, review the messages that have been posted since they last logged in, and respond to them in order, according to the issues they address. The student can, therefore, participate in the discussion of multiple issues and can even add new issues to the discussion. The results in much broader discussions than occur in a face-to-face class. Once I realized this, I began taking advantage of this possibility and joining the students in exploring a variety of issues, all deriving from the general discussion topic for that week. I slowly surrendered the notion that I had to control the class, and came to see myself as facilitating those discussions I orchestrated as well as those that arose spontaneously.

After some initial hesitation, the students enthusiastically embraced the new format. The first week, I did not include the outside faculty, thinking it would be wise to let students experiment on their own; students posted messages freely and seemed comfortable with the format. The second week, I brought in the outsiders and student postings almost ceased; when I ran into students and asked why, the response was always the same: They were intimidated by the prospect of exposing their ignorance before these “experts”; several said “I have to do more research before I can post.” Fortunately, that stage did not last long-within a week or so, students and outsiders were freely interacting on the threaded discussion boards, and many were conducting extensive e-mail correspondence with each other. Indeed, during the semester many of the online adjuncts spent a great deal of time reviewing students’ drafts and critiquing them. As the semester passed, most, if not all, of the students told me how much they had enjoyed the class and how sorry they would be when it ended. I got the same response from many of the online adjunct faculty, and I certainly missed the class when it was over.

If anyone is interested in seeing the students’ work product, you can find the Model State Computer Crimes Code on our website, www.cybercrimes.net. And if anyone would like to visit the seminar’s virtual classroom to learn more about how it worked, I would be happy to give them guest access to the class. I would also be happy to answer any questions they might have.

© 1999 by Susan Brenner. All rights reserved.
—————————————————————————————
The views expressed in this column are solely those of its author, and do not reflect those of JURIST, its Advisory Board, its staff or its host institutions.
———————————————————————
Talkback

Engaged? Enraged? JURIST would like to hear your reactions to this column and the issues it raises...

———————————————————————