Assessing Law Students as Reflective Practitioners – Comprehensive Study Notes

I. Introduction

• Article: “Assessing Law Students as Reflective Practitioners,” 62 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 49 (2017–2018)
• Authors: Jodi S. Balsam (Brooklyn Law School), Susan L. Brooks (Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law), Margaret Reuter (University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law).
• Two founding premises
– Experiential/clinical faculty aim to graduate reflective practitioners.
– Despite reflection’s personal nature, faculty can meaningfully assess it through journals/essays.
• Purpose of the article
– Narrate the genesis of each author’s reflective‐teaching techniques.
– Describe creation of a shared rubric.
– Explore whether rubric can be scaled to a school-wide learning outcome. ## II. Reflective Practice: Concept & Significance
• Multidisciplinary core competency (medicine, mental health, teaching, etc.).
• For lawyering: fosters professional identity, lifelong learning, core values, social justice commitment, resilience, practical wisdom (Aristotle’s phrónêsis).
• Classic model (Donald Schön):
– Observe one’s actions in context.
– Analyze observations (often with feedback).
– Distill new knowledge.
– Apply knowledge to future actions → continuous learning loop. ## III. Evolving Accreditation Landscape
• ABA Standards & Rules for Approval of Law Schools
– § 301(b): Schools must publish institutional learning outcomes.
– § 302: Minimum outcomes include knowledge, analysis, ethics, and "other professional skills" (listing self-evaluation).
– §§ 303–304: Self-evaluation/reflection explicitly required in experiential, clinic, and field-placement courses.
– § 315: Mandates ongoing evaluation of curricula and learning-outcome attainment.
• Holloran Center database (St. Thomas Univ.)
– As of Nov 2017, 24 U.S. law schools publicly include reflection/self-evaluation in learning outcomes (e.g., Brooklyn, Ohio State, Villanova, Montana).
• Example phrasing: Ohio State defines reflection as “meta-cognition”—the ability to recognize knowledge gaps and adapt. ## IV. Authors’ Professional Backgrounds & Motivations
• Jodi Balsam
– Leads BLS externship program; prior large-firm/in-house litigator.
– Saw value of corporate feedback loops; integrated interactive journals in 1L writing courses.
– Empirical study (with Reuter) of supervisor evaluations re: student self-critique.
• Susan Brooks
– Former social worker; scholarship on “relationship-centered” or “relational” lawyering.
– Five core clinical concepts: 1) andragogy; 2) democratic teaching; 3) disorienting moments; 4) parallel-universe thinking; 5) reflection-in-action.
– Implements reflective practice in Justice Lawyering Seminar, externship seminar, Family Law, and Communicating for Success.
• Margaret Reuter
– Research on activity-intensity & practice readiness.
– Aims to deliver intensive externships; refined Indiana Maurer teamwork-based ethics course teaching deliberate & reflective practice. ## V. Initial Individual Rubrics & Assignments
• Common features
– Multiple reflective prompts throughout semester.
– Balance personal (feelings of inadequacy) and systemic (justice, role of law).
– Used in clinics, externships, doctrinal, and writing courses.
• Sample structures
– Balsam: 4 critical essays, 750–1{,}250 words each; 3-level grid (excellent/competent/needs-work) across 7 factors.
– Reuter: 7 bi-weekly journals (15–20 pp. total); body graded holistically.
– Brooks: Two \approx2{,}000-word essays (one focused, one open-ended) with 4-page guidance memo. ## VI. Convergence & Key Shared Criteria
• Careful description of experience (close observation).
• Cognitive analysis + emotional engagement.
• Evidence of personal change or planned change.
• Appreciation of others’ perspectives (parallel-universe thinking).
• Professional writing quality & compliance with requirements. ## VII. Creation of a Consensus Rubric
• Catalyst: ABA’s learning-outcome requirement & need for cross-course consistency.
• Six grading factors (three proficiency tiers: “First-Year Attorney Work,” “Effective Law-Student Work,” “Undeveloped”). 1. Object of Reflection 2. Perspective-Taking 3. Personal Engagement 4. Lessons Learned 5. Overall Quality/Depth 6. Writing Mechanics
• Perspective-Taking element influenced by Bryant & Peters’ Five Habits (parallel-universe thinking for cross-cultural competence).
• Highest-level descriptors (sample):
– Object: clear topic + context.
– Perspective: multiple viewpoints supported by evidence.
– Personal: deep analytical self-reflection on cognitive & emotional levels; candid strengths/weaknesses.
– Lessons: explicit insights + future action plans. ## VIII. Faculty Workshops & Feedback
• March 2016: Drexel internal workshop; participants generated criteria before seeing rubric—high overlap.
• June 2016: Alliance for Experiential Learning (NYLS) workshop; doctrinal & clinical faculty shared diverse assignments (court observations, team assessments, 1L adjustment reflections). Consensus on rubric utility.
• Oct 2017: Midwest Clinical Conference (Kansas) repeated exercise, confirming applicability. ## IX. Demonstration: Applying Rubric to Student Essays
• Essay 1 (transactional extern) findings
– Object: well-chosen but context thin.
– Perspective: includes supervisor viewpoint but needs nuanced speculation.
– Personal: candid self-doubt; good self-awareness.
– Lessons: strategy for eliciting feedback; future-action planning could deepen.
• Essay 2 (special-victims prosecution extern) findings
– Object: emotionally powerful “disorienting moment.”
– Perspective: mainly self-focused; minimal exploration of officers’ motives.
– Personal: strong emotional acknowledgment (“seeing red”).
– Lessons: validated investigative skill; needs reflection on systemic factors & emotional toll.
• Rubric also acts as diagnostic tool for psychological/ethical support discussions. ## X. Benefits of the Rubric
• Pedagogical transparency: clear expectations for students; anchors teaching plans.
• Cross-faculty consistency: reduces idiosyncratic grading, supports school-wide outcomes.
• Formative growth: multiple iterations + rubric allow tracking progression.
• Accountability: forces faculty to articulate what counts as quality reflection. ## XI. Challenges & Open Questions
• Perceived subjectivity vs. objectivity: rubric combats but cannot eliminate subjectivity.
• Balance specificity vs. creativity: avoid formulaic writing while giving guidance.
• Scaling: habit-formation demands repeated feedback; resource constraints in large classes.
• Adoption hurdles: teachers must align prompts and course design with rubric; comfort using “imported” tool. ## XII. Future Directions
• Seek more faculty across curricula to pilot rubric; gather data, refine elements.
• Engage law schools that declare reflection outcomes to discuss monitoring & assessment strategies.
• Continue empirical research (e.g., Balsam–Reuter supervisor study) on reflection’s impact on practice readiness.
• Goal: create an evolving, evidence-based toolkit for meaningful assessment of reflective practice in legal education. ## XIII. Appendix Snapshot: Rubric Matrix (Condensed)
• Three proficiency tiers per factor.
• Factor examples (First-Year Attorney level):
– Object: clear, contextualized topic.
– Perspective: multi-viewpoint w/ supported evidence.
– Personal: deep self-analysis (cognitive + emotional).
– Lessons: articulated insights + future change actions.
– Overall Quality: substantial treatment, demonstrated growth.
– Mechanics: vivid, well-structured, error-free prose. ## XIV. Ethical & Practical Implications
• Reflective practice tied to professionalism lapses in medicine—possible parallel in law.
• Critical for cultural competency, empathy, and social justice orientation.
• Supports ABA mandate for professional identity formation.