This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 13 November 2014, At: 09:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Effective Methods and Materials for Teaching Lawto Preservice TeachersDarlene Y. Bruner EdD a & Marilyn J. Bartlett ba University of South Florida , Tampa , USAb Texas A & M University , Kingsville , USAPublished online: 03 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Darlene Y. Bruner EdD & Marilyn J. Bartlett (2008) Effective Methods and Materials for TeachingLaw to Preservice Teachers, Action in Teacher Education, 30:2, 36-45, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2008.10463490

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2008.10463490

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Effective Teaching

Methods und Materials for Law to Preservice Teachers

Darlene Y. Bruner University of South Florida, Tampa

Marilyn J. Bartlett Texas A & M University, Kingsville

ABSTRACT: Schools today function in an environment of complicated rules and regulations. Training preservice teachers in educational law is not only necessary; it is important work. Pro- fessors and administrators were surveyed on the methods, materials, and strategies that they employed to teach education law to preservice teachers. The predominant teaching method used was lecture in combination with class discussion. Other methods used in conjunction with lecture and class discussion were case method and problem-based learning. Teaching strate- gies include the use of teacher-specific education law textbooks, media/technology, simula- tions, educational games, and cooperative learning groups. Emphasis needs to be placed on better preparing preservice teachers in the area of school law. This article offers insight into the effective methods, materials, and strategies currently being used in teaching preservice teach- ers school law.

Schools today are complex organizations ruled by a myriad of federal laws, state statutes, and local policies. Public school teachers are usu- ally uninformed and undereducated on issues of school law. In today’s litigious society, edu- cators who remain ignorant of the law do so at their own peril (Fischer, Schimmel, & Stell- man, 2003).

A review of the literature reveals numer- ous researchers who have advocated for legal education for preservice educators (Bounds, 2000; Dunklee & Shoop, 1986; Gordon, 1997; Gullatt & Tollett, 1997; Henderson, Gullatt, Hardin, Jannix & Tollett, 1999; Paterson & Rossow, 1997; Petzko, 1998). In 1997, only 2 states-Nevada and Washington-required a law course for teacher education preparation, and 16 states required that legal issues be ad- dressed in collective course work (Gullatt &

Tollett, 1997). Today a majority of the states call for discussions of legal issues embedded in core curricula of teacher education programs, but only 4 states require a specific law course (Gajda, 2008 [this issue]). For example, Nevada requires, for initial teaching endorse- ment or within 3 years from the date of the ini- tial endorsement, transcripts with completed coursework on Nevada school law, Nevada constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. An applicant may also present a passing score on commission-approved examinations in Nevada school law, Nevada constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. Florida statutes, however, do not require a stand-alone course; rather, it embeds school law within coursework:

The rules to establish uniform core curric- ula for each state-approved teacher prepa-

Address correspondence to Darlene Y. Bruner, EdD, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620. E-mail: dbrunerQtempest.coedu.usf.edu.

36 Action in Teacher Education Vol. 30. No. 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 09:

45 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Law to Preservice Teachers 37

ration program must include, but are not limited to, a State Board of Education identified foundation in scientifically re- searched, knowledge-based reading liter- acy and computational skills acquisition; classroom management; school safety; professional ethics; educational hw; hu- man development and learning; and un- derstanding of the Sunshine State Stan- dards content measured by state achievement tests, reading and interpreta- tion of data, and use of data to improve student achievement. (ES. 1004.04 (2b); emphasis added)

The focus of our review was to examine how school law is being taught to preservice teachers in programs of education. Because the majority of teacher education preparation pro- grams do not require a stand-alone school-law course, the literature on teaching preservice teachers school law is scant, if not nonexist- ent. There is, however, ample literature on law school teaching (Fines, 2003; Slawson, 2000; Yates, 2006).

In our article, we review current pedagog- ical methods used in teaching school law to preservice teachers. We then speak to the im- portance of addressing the needs of adult learners in the classroom. Next we discuss learning objectives and choices among the pedagogical methods that could be used in teaching law to preservice teachers, with the pros and cons of each method. Finally, we of- fer conclusions and recommendations.

Survey of Educational Law Professoriate

We surveyed professors and school administra- tors in the Education Law Association via the e-mail listserv. We asked our colleagues to share their knowledge about what preservice teachers are learning in the area of educa- tional law. Members of the listserv were asked if their institution offered or required preser- vice teachers to participate in a separate law course and, if they did, to identify the meth- ods, materials, and strategies used in the class. We also asked whether the study of school law

was embedded into other classes and, if so, what methods, materials, and strategies were used to disseminate the knowledge to the stu- dents. Finally, we ask our contemporaries to share our query with their colleagues in teacher education programs.

Because of the nature of the questions and the topic, there was a low survey response rate, which necessitated follow-up e-mail and tele- phone calls to gather our data. Fortunately, Education Law Association listserv members willingly shared names of persons in their in- stitutions, as well as others who could provide information for our review. We spoke with col- leagues at several institutions to clarify and confirm our understanding of the methods, materials, and strategies being used for preser- vice law education.

Some course syllabi were generously shared and reviewed for materials, methods, and strategies used, and follow-up contact was made with the instructors. As such, the lecture or lecture/discussion is the most often used teaching method. Some faculty indicated that because of time constraints and the amount of material to cover, the lecture method allows the maximum exposure of legal topics and that these stand-alone courses varied from one to three credit hours. Professors required a school law text in conjunction with specific assign- ments. Each required textbook explained the substantive law for the students and presented important court cases for class discussions. Two course syllabi indicated a preference for the problem method approach to reviewing cases. In addition, some courses required that students engage in mock trials and debates, and some included guest lecturers. Only one course outline indicated a required paper and class presentation, whereas several indicated quizzes and exams.

In addition, we contacted teacher prepara- tion program coordinators in eight universities in our state (Florida) who confirmed that legal issues are embedded in coursework and not taught in stand-alone courses. However, what is taught and how much is taught is often left to the discretion of individual professors and their knowledge of the law as it applies to the course. We attempted to analyze the methods,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 09:

45 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

38 DARLENE Y. BRUNER AND MARILYN J. BARTLETT

materials, and strategies used in education course syllabi via university websites where topics of school law are purported to be em- bedded, but we were unsuccessful in validating what, if any, legal issues are currently being ad- dressed. From the personal contacts that we made, it appears that special education, disci- pline, negligence, and accountability issues were most often discussed.

So, our findings are limited at best. Al- though many would agree that knowledge of school law is important (Davis & Williams, 1992; Haggard, 1981; Henderson et al., 1999; Manos, 2007; Zirkel, 2004), the program coor- dinators whom we contacted are doubtful that a stand-alone course for preservice teachers would come about in most states without a spe- cific mandate. Most state university teacher preparation programs focus on content knowl- edge and teaching methods and so exclude a stand-alone school law course. Thus, in the spirit of collegiality, we offer information about best practices in teaching adult learners as more colleges and universities reflect on training pre- service and in-service teachers’ school law.

Learning Needs of Adu It Learners

The term undrugogy was used to clarify differ- ences in the curriculum development needs of adults versus children (Knowles, 1984), and it has become known as adult kuming. Adults view learning activities through the lens of their experiences, and they need to connect their learning to this knowledge and experi- ence because they are relevancy oriented. That is, they are autonomous and self-directed, and they need to be actively involved in the learn- ing process (Anderson, 2006; A. M. Thomas, 1991). Adult learners are goal oriented and practical, focusing on learning that helps them to attain their goals (e.g., certification, ad- vanced degree, job role). As with all learners, adults need to be shown respect.

There are barriers to adult learning regard- less of one’s desire to meet goals. Because most adults have many responsibilities, they must balance the demands of learning against them.

There are three types of barriers for adult learners: situational, institutional, and disposi- tional (Carp, Peterson, & Roelfs, 1974).

Situational barriers include those things that are somewhat controllable but can get in the way, especially at the last minute, such as time. Personal factors such as interrole conflict (i.e., home management needs versus profes- sional needs), child care problems, and trans- portation problems are examples of situational barriers (Carp et al., 1974).

Institutional barriers are those problems created by the institution in which the learner attends. These might include conflict in course schedules, problems with the registrar’s or bursar’s office, and even poor advisement. The adult learner has no control over these types of barriers but must find ways to accom- modate them. Institutions rarely acknowledge these as interfering with the learning needs of adult learners (Carp et al., 1974).

Dispositional barriers include the personal aspects of adult learners, such as their attitudes and feelings about themselves. The greatest barrier lies in a lack of confidence in one’s abil- ity to successfully complete coursework or a program, especially if earlier attempts at educa- tion were less than successful. Bandura (1995) would refer this as a lack of self-efficacy-“the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and exe- cute the course of action required to manage prospective situations” (p. 2). If we followed the thinking of Bandura (1995) and Carp et al. (1974), then institutions that teach adult learners might help students by addressing self- efficacy and its effect on learning. If students understood Bandura’s (1995) concepts of mas- tery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states, then per- haps adult learners could cope with disposi- tional barriers to learning and so persist in their efforts, thereby succeeding and gaining self- efficacy.

How do these adult learner characteristics affect instruction? Clear course objectives, meaningful assignments, variety of teaching methods, and active participation in the teaching and learning process are important to adults. Effective teaching comes in many forms. The important factor is that students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 09:

45 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Law to Preservice Teachers 39

learn and apply knowledge to new settings. The transference of learning is more likely to occur if student motivation is high, if there is an association with something known, if the information is similar to what is known, and if the learning is highly beneficial to one’s job (Lieb, 1991). When teaching adults, one should use a combination of teacher- and learner-directed methods and strategies (Dav- enport & Davenport, 1985).

Pedagogical Methods for Preservice Teachers

Before one begins to address how to teach, one needs to answer the question, what do you want your students to learn? That is, what are the course objectives? These objectives dictate how you share information with the students. Effective planning begins before the first class meeting and includes the objectives for the course, text, materials, and key questions to ask that give structure and direction.

For the most part, a preservice course in school law will expose future teachers about their rights and responsibilities as professional educators. The course will likely be a potpourri of legal issues (negligence, search and seizure, special education, religion, etc.) and US. con- stitutional law (Gullatt & Tollett, 1997) taught with Herculean strength in a one-se- mester 1- to 3-hour course credit.

There are several distinct teaching meth- ods that were employed by professors of school law and shared via our survey. These may not necessarily be used at the undergraduate level but certainly could be. We offer a brief expla- nation of some of these teaching methods and then discuss the pros and cons.

Lecture

The most often used method of teaching is the lecture. A given topic is presented, from which the instructor may lecture extempora- neously, from memory, or from material (e.g., a PowerPoint presentation, a book, a set of notes). This method is appropriate when con- veying information, such as a new concept or

a theoretical framework. When lectures are done well, they can be informative and inspi- rational. The advantage of the lecture format is that instructors can disseminate vast amounts of knowledge in short periods (Eagar, 1996). Lectures, skillfully done, convey infor- mation that students may not get any other way. Used successfully, lectures can synthesize and interpret complex materials for students (Center for Teaching and Learning, 2001).

The length of the lecture should be in line with the attention span of the listener. For adults in the role of passive listener, attention span is about 15 to 20 minutes for retention of information and 90 minutes for understand- ing. Pike (2003) suggests the 90/20/8 rule: Never teach a topic for more than 90 minutes; change the pace every 20 minutes; and in- volve students in the content every 8 minutes. Pauses in lectures (2-3 minutes), to allow stu- dents’ time for note taking or to share with a classmate the points just presented, actually increase student learning and long-term mem- ory (Ruhl, Hughes, & Schloss, 1987).

A concern for the lecture method is that higher-order critical thinking may not be ad- dressed without opportunity to practice the skills. Another point of concern with the lec- ture method is that transfer of knowledge for long-term retention is difficult for most learn- ers without application, especially for those who have trouble discriminating between what is important to remember from the lecture and what is less important (Center for Teaching and Learning, 2001). There is also the reality that what students heard and remembered may not be what you said, given that the auditory learning process is subject to error and interfer- ence. Listening to the spoken word is the least effective method for most learners, with the most meaningful being directed hands-on ac- tivities (Dale, 1969). Many believe that stu- dents learn when lecture is used in combina- tion with several other forms of teaching, such as those in the following discussion.

Class Discussion and Questions

Good questioning techniques increase student participation. Questions may call for limited

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 09:

45 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

40 DARLENE Y. BRUNER AND MARILYN J. BARTLETT

responses, or they may be open-ended. In- quiries can help to “reinforce the subject mat- ter, prove it, refocus it, redirect it, or rephrase it” (Schugurensky, 2003, p. 5 ) . Good question- ing is well thought out and most often planned ahead. Gaining skill in effective questioning takes effort and practice. At its best, question- ing can create active engagement via analyti- cal skills; at its worst, questions can create fear, confusion, passivity, and resentment (Fines, 2003).

Structured class discussions represent dia- logue among participants where the instructor leads and facilitates. This type of discussion must be carefully planned with questions that are prepared to ensure that important informa- tion is addressed and so evokes critical think- ing on the students’ part. Good discussions emerge when the dialogue takes place in an at- mosphere of trust (Center for Teaching and Learning, 2001).

The use of Bloom’s taxonomy of educa- tional objectives (1956) may be helpful in planning the key questions to address the cog- nitive domains and intellectual skills at all levels. At the lowest level are knowledge ques- tions that assess factual recall of materials read in preparation for the class (who, what, when, where, how). This type of question should be used sparingly. To check comprehension of ba- sic legal issues, the comprehension level on Bloom’s taxonomy might have students sum- marize or paraphrase a case or statute. At this level, students are seeking meaning, determin- ing cause and effect, interpreting facts, and so on. When reading statutes, a student unfamil- iar with the law often neglects important con- ditional statements and whether terms are conjunctive or disjunctive (Fines, 2003). Question phrasing, such as give examples, illus- crate, and describe, can help improve compre- hension. Bloom’s next level is application, and it calls for students to use previously learned information and apply it to new situations. Language to elicit information for application includes apply, relate X to Y, give evidence of, and so on. The analysis level involves examin- ing informational materials to develop diver- gent conclusions by seeking out motives and causes and by making inferences and/or find-

ing evidence to support generalizations. The student can recognize patterns and meanings and thus see parts and wholes. Fines (2003) believes that application and analysis levels fit together in the teaching of law. She states that it is important to signal students when moving from convergent to divergent questions. The synthesis level is a process of applying prior knowledge and skills to create something new or whole, whereas evaluation involves judging the value of materials on the basis of personal opinions, making choices, and critiquing ideas. The analysis, synthesis, and evaluation levels help students develop critical thinking skills.

The combined use of questions and lec- tures is currently the predominant teaching method for school law. Planning questions at all levels of Bloom’s taxonomy can aid in the development of critical thinkers. Even when questions are well thought out before class, they may not work, because they are vague or confusing. The key is not to allow the confu- sion to continue but to clarify the point and move on.

Case Method

The pure case method approach to teaching law involves a form of problem solving that actively engages the learners. The instructor’s role is not to teach the law but rather to teach students how to extract the law from cases they have read (Slawson, 2000). By analyzing cases, students try to understand what the courts were thinking when decisions were handed down. This method teaches students to take what they have learned and to apply legal principles in making judgments in subse- quent situations. This can be used in large or small group settings.

To our thinking, this method may not be appropriate for preservice teachers, because it is inconsistent with the objectives of what we want them to learn. I t may also be ineffective for law school teaching, and it may prevent most students from learning the law (Slawson, 2000). Our goal for preservice teachers is to have them understand cases and their implica- tions for schools, not to teach them to think

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 09:

45 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Law to Preservice Teachers 41

like lawyers to solve legal issues. In addition, the case method would not allow time to teach substantive law and how to communi- cate with stakeholders, nor would it prepare students to act within the legal boundaries of schools.

The Problem-Based Method or Court Case Studies

Court cases can be used to help students ana- lyze legal problem situations and reach conclu- sions about the outcomes. Court case studies can take different forms: legal cases based on court opinions; hypothetical situations; and real-life situations drawn from newspapers, books, blogs, and other sources. They are usu- ally presented in written format but can also be presented through movies and audio recordings (Street Law and the Supreme Court Historical Society, 2002).

This problem-based learning method of using legal cases (Tan, 2005) may be a better way to teach preservice teachers about case law. Students are presented with readings and problem scenarios in advance. As in the case method, looking at a problem requires stu- dents to identify the issues, find the applicable law and prior cases, consider the laws and ear- lier decisions, analyze their findings, and draw a conclusion. Discussion, although it may be similar to that of the case method, focuses on solving the problem (Tan, 2005). In essence, students learn to reason-a skill that can be used in all facets of teaching and learning.

One of the pros of using the problem- based learning method / case study is that stu- dents can come to class prepared to discuss their thinking. Another pro is that cases can often be found in many textbooks, thus saving teachers the time to prepare their own cases.

Textbooks

The use of textbooks has long been viewed as a way to have ready access to information on course topics. Much has been written of the significant role of textbooks as the primary ve- hicles for delivering content knowledge-in essence, determining in large measure what

goes on in a class (Hummel, 1988). Likewise, textbooks have engendered criticism as being limited, linear, and static in design and presen- tation (Carroll, 2001; Lieberman & DiVito, n.d.).

From our survey, the following texts were in use to teach preservice teachers: LaMortes School Law: Cases and Concepts (2008); Schim- mel, Fischer, and Stellman’s School Law: What Every Educator Should Know--A User-Friendly Gu& (2008); and S. Thomas, McCarthy, and Cambron-McCabe’s Public School Law: Teacher’s and Student’s Rights (2008). In addi- tion, Essex’s School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guid.e for Educational Leaders (2007), and Underwood and Webb’s School Law for the Teachers: Concepts and Applications (2006) may be appropriate for preservice education.

These textbooks present substantive law in language that preservice teachers can un- derstand. They contain glossaries, offer scenar- ios for the students to resolve, and include guiding legal principles for the students to re- member. They offer “points to ponder” to al- low for further class discussion. One text in- cludes extensive online resources through the publisher and other websites. Teaching through a textbook allows the instruction to stay on point, and the students have ready ac- cess to review materials before and after the class discussion.

The advantage of using textbooks lies in having information available for all students and in sometimes having supplementary mate- rials. Disadvantages of textbooks may include an overdependency on the text, the rising cost of texts, and the lack of student use (unless the text or portions of it are linked to assignments, lectures, and other class work).

Audiovisuals, Media, and Technology

The use of personal and professional websites, PowerPoint presentations, overheads, pub- lisher websites, video taped lectures, smart boards, and so on, have advantages and disad- vantages. Most technology, except the use of overheads that accompany the lecture, can be used by the students on their own time. Many

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 09:

45 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

42 DARLENE Y. BRUNER AND MARILYN J. BARTLETT

publishers now offer instructors and students access to specially prepared websites where the materials and activities have been designed by the author of the text. Personal and Power- Point presentations, including those provided by the publisher, should utilize the latest avail- able technology to support the lesson in an in- teresting and creative manner (e.g., embedded links, video clips).

Many institutions encourage instructors to use a technology classroom management sys- tem, such as BlackBoard or WebCT, where in- structors can engage students in activities out- side the classroom or teach the course entirely online class. Instructors have the capability to host discussions online, lead real-time chats, be available for questions during the week, post new assignments, receive written assign- ments from students, maintain the course cal- endar, announcements, file handouts such as the syllabus and reading assignments/materi- als, and maintain a grade book. This is partic- ularly helpful for students to have on-demand access to the information.

Students having informational access 24/7 is both a pro and a con. Because of their access to technology, some students have the expec- tation that the instructor is also accessible 24/7. When using technology, one should cover the expectations for not only the stu- dents but the instructor as well. The effective use of systems such as BlackBoard or WebCT requires that the instructor and students make effective use of the technology. Increasing technology skills is a constant challenge for all educators.

Graphic organizers are another method that could be used to teach law. Graphic or- ganizers, sometimes called concept mags, are a pictorial way of organizing information. They can be Venn diagrams, concept webs, fishbone diagram, comparison charts, flowcharts, and so forth. An example might be making a flow- chart on search and seizure that accurately de- picts the laws and regulations as they apply to school personnel. I t would require students to analyze the laws, synthesize and evaluate the particulars, and then graphically demonstrate the nuisances of the law using key words and images.

Educational Games

Involving educators in nonstressful learning games that use real case scenarios reflecting the workplace is in line with adult learning theory and brain research on how people learn (Tan, 2005). People learn by doing. The chal- lenge is to engage students in meaningful ac- tivities that reinforce the knowledge skills and dispositions necessary for understanding legal issues as they apply to schools. At this time, there are no commercial learning games for law; so, professors who want to use this method will have to develop their own.

A proponent of the use of technology for reinforcement games on various topics in law, R. Safransky observed, “Games can be moti- vating and fun while providing learning at the same time” (personal communication, January 31, 2008). He works with technology re- sources at his university to develop games for students that review legal issues covered in class, and all students registered for the course receive a CD of the games. The games on the CD cover topics on school security, special ed- ucation terms and cases, the Fourth Amend- ment, and other topics of education law.

Simulations and Role-Playing

Simulations are methods where students can apply and extend their learning. Situations that lend themselves to role-play include con- flict resolution situations and individual dilemmas that can be used for specific issues or problems. Role-playing can be motivating for the participants as well as for the observers.

In preservice teaching of legal issues, role- play can revolve around specific issues and problems, such as job security or mock teacher- dismissal proceedings where the students pre- pare to debate, mediate, and argue their posi- tions and come to a resolution with the opposing side. Participants in the role-play may volunteer or be assigned, and it can be done in whole group or several small groups simultane- ously. Students must prepare their approach and present their thinking extemporaneously, which builds confidence in communication skills. After the role-play, it is important to de-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 09:

45 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching Law to Preserwice Teachers 43

brief and evaluate the learning. This method also helps student integrate legal theory and practice.

A possible con of role-play is that not all adults are comfortable with it and may resist. A feasible solution is to have observers and recorders to help facilitate the debriefing. An- other con might involve the time allotted for the class. A good role-playing or simulation activity involves planning to identify the issue or case, the roles, the materials needed, and the debriefing questions.

Group Work and Cooperative Learning

Groups can be used for peer teaching, discus- sions, and completing instructional tasks. The size of the group should be no larger than six so that everyone has opportunity for meaning- ful participation. The tasks may be to analyze and solve problems, apply concepts of law to hypothetical scenarios, or teach a concept to the group. All of these easily apply to teaching education law. Sample discussions topics for groups include students’ due process rights and the rights of non-English-speaking students.

Cooperative learning groups have as- signed tasks and roles for the participants. Groups should have members of different backgrounds and abilities, and each member should be responsible for helping others in the group to learn and participate in the task. The nature of the discussion is usually different from dialogue within the larger class because interaction with peers causes students to think differently about their learning as they become actively engaged in constructing knowledge, which includes group processing.

Successful group assignments require criti- cal analysis of both the instructor and the stu- dents. Tasks must be clearly delineated and ob- jectives for the activity defined. If the assignment requires additional factual knowl- edge, problems should be given ahead of the group’s work. The goal is to create both indi- vidual and group accountability.

The advantages to group work include in- creased understanding of complex issues (thereby creating a better solution), use of

critical thinking skills, and the ability to work in teams. Disadvantages include competition between teams, and the exposure of individual students’ lack of knowledge.

Conclusion

Once again, we hear the words “Good teach- ing is good teaching.” If instructors take the time to prepare properly, develop specific learning objectives, and plan activities that acknowledge differences in learning styles, then our preservice teachers will enjoy and learn from the study of school law. We must communicate high expectations for students (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) and clearly state the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for the course.

We know that the 90/20/8 rule is a good rule of thumb to follow-that is, never teach longer than 90 minutes, change the pace every 20 minutes, and involve students every 8 min- utes (Pike, 2003). Good practice involves ac- tive learning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). A variety of classroom activities-in the form of games, simulations, and role-playing-are important to make the learning real for stu- dents. This eclectic approach to class meetings will help keep the learners focused.

Good practice develops positive interac- tion and collaboration among students (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Purposeful group work and case studies increase higher- level thinking skills, and teamwork creates better solutions. Cooperative learning group assignments challenge students to analyze and solve problems, as well as exercise judgment.

Good practice encourages interaction be- tween faculty and students (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Interactions in the form of lecture and class discussions can create inter- est and motivation and so build self-efficacy in students. Lecture and discussions can lend themselves to didactic and constructivist in- struction.

In our review of the methods, materials, and strategies for teaching preservice teachers education law, we found that professors are us- ing a multiplicity of teaching methods that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 09:

45 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

44 DARLENE Y. BRUNER AND MARILYN J. BARTLETT

accommodate different learning styles. What was shared and what we have presented are examples of good teaching strategies that can be used for teaching preservice teachers legal issues. W

References

Anderson, L. S. (2006). Incorporating adult learn- ing theory into law school classrooms: Small steps leading to large results. Appalachian Jour- nal of Law, 5, 127.

Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collec- tive self-efficacy in changing in changing soci- eties. In Efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy ofeducational objectives: Handbook I . Cognitive domain. New York: Longman, Green.

Bounds, H. M. (2000). Mississippi educators’ and prospective educators’ knowledge of school law as it relates to selected components of stu- dent rights and tort liability. Dissertation Ab- stracts International, 61(09), 3420. (UMI No. AAT9988737)

Carp, A., Peterson, R., & Roelfs, P. (1974). Adult learning interests and experiences. In K. P. Cross & J. R. Valley (Eds.), Planning for non- traditional programs: An analysis of the issues for postsecondary education (pp. 11-52). San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carroll, D. W. (2001). Using ignorance questions to promote thinking skills. Teaching of Psychol- ogy, 28(2), 98-100.

Center for Teaching and Learning. (2001). Course planning and teaching. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from at http://ctl.unc.edu/hpl4.html and http://ctl.unc.edu/hpl5 .html

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, 2. F. (1987, March). Seven principals for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin. Retrieved Febru- ary 13, 2008, from http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/ intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/tea chtip/7princip.htm

Dale, E. (1969). Audio-visual methods in teaching (3rd ed.). Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Davenport, J., & Davenport, J. H. (1985). Andra- gogical-pedagogical orientations of adult learners: Research results and practice recom- mendations. Lifelong Learning, 9( l ) , 6-9.

Davis, B. M., & Williams, J. L. (1992). lntegrating legal issues into teacher preparation progrums. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED347139)

Dunklee, D., & Shoop, R. (1986). Teacher prepa- ration in a litigious society: Implications in times of reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 57-60.

Eagar, J. (1996). The right tool for the job: The ef- fective use of pedagogical methods in legal ed- ucation. Gonzaga Law Review, 20, 389.

Essex, N. (2007). School law and the public schools: A practical gulde for educational kuders (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fines, B. G. (2003). Questions, answers and law school teaching. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/profiles/ glesnerfines/questions.htm

Fischer, L., Schimmel, D., & Stellman, L. (2003). Teachers and the law. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gajda, R. (2008). States’ expectations for teachers’ knowledge about school law. Action in Teacher Education, 30(2), 15-24.

Gordon, H. R. D. (1997, February). Legal knowledge of secondary school pnncipals: Impact of selected variables. Paper presented at the 20th annual conference of the Eastern Educational Re- search Association, Hilton Head, SC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423182)

Gullatt, D. E., & Tollett, J . R. (1997). Educational law: A requisite course for preservice and in- service teacher education programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 48( 2) , 129.

Haggard, C. L. ( 198 1 ). A descriptive analysis of school law for prospective teachers as provided the four state universities in Indiuna (Doctoral disserta- tion, Ball State University). (ProQuest Disser- tation Abstracts No. AAT8120503)

Henderson, M. V., Gullatt, D. E., Hardin, D. T., Jannix, C., & Tollett, J. R. (1999). Preventive law curriculum gulde. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Board of Regents.

Hummel, C. (1988). School textbooks and lifelong ed- ucation: An analysis of schoolbooks fiom three countries. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO In- stitute for Education.

Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.

LaMorte, M. (2008). School law: Cases and concept (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lieb, S. (1991). Principles of adult karning. Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://honolulu.hawaii

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 09:

45 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teaching h w to Preservice Teachers 45

.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/ teachtip/adults-2.htym

Lieberman, J. A., & DiVito, N. (n.d.). WILT: A WWW bused interactive language teaching tool. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://www .ii.metu.edu.tr/DLC/-notes/WILT%20A%20 WWW%20based%20Interac t ive%20 Language%20Teaching%20Tool.htm

Manos, M. A. (2007). Knowing where to draw he line: Ethical and legal standards for best classroom pactice. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield.

Paterson, F. A., & Rossow, L. F. (1997). Preventive law by the ounce or by the pound: Education law course in undergraduate teacher education programs. National Forum of Applied Educa- tional Research journal, 9(2), 38-43.

Petzko, V. N. (1998). Preventing legal headaches through staff development: Considerations and recommendations. NASSP Bulletin, 82(602), 35-42.

Pike, R. W. (2003). Creative techniques handbook: Zps, tactics, and how-to’s for delivering effective training (3rd ed.). Amherst, MA: Human Re- source Development Press.

Ruhl, K. L., Hughes, C. A., &Schloss, P. J. (1987). Using the pause procedure to enhance lecture recall. Teacher Education and Special Education, 10, 14-18.

Schimmel, D., Fischer, L., & Stellman, L. (2008). School law: What every educator should know- A user-fnendly guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schugurensky, D. (Ed.). (2003). Questions and an- swers on adult education. Retrieved October 29, 2007, from http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/ -daniel-sc/faqs/qa 14.html

Slawson, W. D. (2000). Changing how we teach: A critique of the case method. Southern California Law Review, 74(1), 343.

Street Law and the Supreme Court Historical So- ciety. (2002). Instructions for case study. Re-

trieved November 1, 2007, from http://www . landmarkcases .org/casestud y.htm1

Tan, M. S. (2005, November). Teaching school law: Making it relevant to K-12 administrators. Pa- per presented at the 51st annual conference of the Education Law Association, Memphis, TN.

Thomas, A. M. (1991). Beyond education: A new perspective on society’s management of learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thomas, S., McCarthy, M., & Cambron-McCabe, N. (2008). Public school law: Teacher’s and stu- dent’s rights (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for the teachers: Concepts and applications. Up- per Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yates, M. (2006, November). How to enhance your school law course: Tech for non-techies. Paper presented at the 52nd annual conference of the Education Law Association, Nassau, Ba- hamas.

Zirkel, P. A. (2004). Education law course offerings in law schools. journal of Law and Education, 33(3), 327-340.

Darlene Y. Bruner is associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of South Florida, Tampa. Dr. Bruner has extensive ex- perience as a school principal and district in- structional supervisor. She teaches courses in supervision, law, and curriculum.

Marilyn J. Bartlett is dean of education at Texas A&M University, Kingsville. Her expe- rience includes being a school teacher, princi- pal, assistant superintendent, law clerk, and professor. She teaches law, policy, and ethics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 09:

45 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014