Introduction
Background:
Project LEGALIn 1976, James J. Carroll, Ph.D., formerly a high school social studies teacher, obtained federal funding for a consortium of Central New York schools districts to develop Project LEGAL. Following three years of curriculum development, the New York State Education Department reviewed LEGAL’s test data and validated the project for significantly advancing knowledge of legal issues and related critical thinking skills among elementary and secondary American history students of all ability levels. In 1982, another rigorous evaluation process conducted by the US Department of Education resulted in national validation. Over the next two decades, school districts in 33 states successfully adopted LEGAL. Thousands of teachers participated in LEGAL workshops and infused the project into their existing American history curricula. The evidence of success at these adoption sites led to revalidation by the USDE in 1992 and 1996. From 1993 through 1996, LEGAL received funding from the USDE’s Law-Related Education Program to work with gifted educators across the country. In 1996, Syracuse University Project LEGAL received a major grant from the USDE’s Javits Gifted and Talented Students Program entitled Project CRITICAL.
Project CRITICALThe title is an acronym for the five objectives of this new project: Curriculum Restructuring, In-service Training, Implementation, Computer Assisted instruction, and Learning outcomes. From 1996 through 1999, Dr. Carroll worked with 30 elementary and secondary American history teachers in New York City to adapt Project LEGAL’s exemplary approach to meet the special needs of urban, economically disadvantaged gifted students. Curriculum Restructuring took place at In-service Training workshops held throughout the school year and during the summers. Implementation began in year one with teachers using the existing LEGAL curriculum, and the new curricula in years two and three. Computer Assisted instruction took place in years two and three at project sites where students either had access to Macintosh computers to use CompuLEGAL or to the Internet. For some students, the Internet has been the primary vehicle for developing what Joseph Renzulli refers to as Type III enrichment activities; their creative efforts have truly enriched both their development and the development of Project CRITICAL. Learning outcomes were shown through our new tests that measure both know- ledge and the higher order thinking skills associated with authentic assessment. Teachers also applied authentic assess- ment criteria to evaluate students’ individual and group enrichment projects.
CRITICAL: Curriculum Restructuring for the GiftedThe twenty-first Century poses a variety of curriculum challenges and demands upon the field of social studies in general and particularly upon social studies education for the gifted. National and state standards for teaching American history and civics necessitate that schools restructure their curricula so that all students can master the greater emphasis on substantive content and concepts contained in these publications. Rapid changes in technology dictate that social studies courses must not only include content and concepts, but also need to effectively teach students critical thinking and problem solving skills. Wide disparities with respect to academic achievement across economic and ethnic groups must be narrowed. Gifted students, particularly those in urban, disadvantaged communities, must be motivated through challenging curricula that meet their special needs. Project CRITICAL’s curriculum restructuring process began by adapting Project LEGAL (see p.1). CRITICAL retains LEGAL’s emphasis on improving students’ knowledge of legal issues and critical thinking skills; the notion that infusion into a school’s existing curricula is the most effective structure (rather than self contained or add-on courses); and LEGAL’s core concepts such as teaching students about constitutionalism and legal value conflicts, and how the judicial system seeks to balance individual rights and societal responsibilities. To meet the special needs of gifted and talented (G/T) students, several of the law-related education (LRE) strategies used in LEGAL were combined with the concepts and methods of theorists such as Joseph S. Renzulli, Howard Gardner, and Lawrence Kohlberg, whose contributions are well known among gifted educators. What follows is a brief overview of how these three theorists influenced Project CRITICAL’s curriculum.
Renzulli’s Triad Enrichment Model:(adapted from The Enrichment Triad: A Guide for Developing Defensible Programs for the Gifted and Talented (Renzulli, 1977) Joseph S. Renzulli developed a framework for organizing qualitatively different learning experiences for gifted and talented students known as the Enrichment Triad Model, which is summarized below: Types of Enrichment Type I General Exploratory Activities Type II Group Training Activities Type III Individual and Small Group Investigations of Real Problems The purpose of Type I activities is to motivate the student and "to bring the learner into touch with the kinds of topics or areas of study in which he or she may have a sincere interest." These experiences should be the kind, which could lead to more extensive research and involvement if the student wishes to pursue them. In Type II Enrichment, the teacher uses methods, materials and instructional techniques that are concerned mainly with the development of higher level thinking and feeling processes. These processes include critical thinking, problem solving, and inquiry training. Thinking and feeling processes have been the focus of many programs for the gifted in the past since research shows that certain thinking and feeling processes provide students with skills and abilities that are applicable or transferable to new learning situations and other content areas. These skills or processes are useful in the changing world where knowledge is expanding continuously. Thus students are prepared to face new problem-solving situations. Type III Enrichment includes activities designed to enable students to become real world investigators and problem solvers. It is essential that students or small groups of students be allowed to select their own Type III activities based on their own interests related to the subject area. The role of the student changes from learner to doer. Type III activities should take place over a long time period and involve the creation of a project or product. In addition to the Triad Model, one of the other important concepts of Renzulli that is used in the Project CRITICAL curriculum is curriculum compacting. Every teacher and administrator is well aware that the greatest obstacle to adopting new innovations is time. In most content areas, particularly at the secondary level, teachers experience the problem of adequately teaching all of the required existing course content and mandates within the school year. Renzulli’s curriculum compacting, as its name suggests, demonstrates to teachers how they can add new curricula, such as Project CRITICAL, and still meet all of their existing requirements.
Applying Renzulli to Project CRITICAL’s Curriculum Renzulli advocates applying the Enrichment Triad Model to make "appropriate modifications of the regular curriculum for students who show evidence of outstanding mastery of basic skills (1985, p. 6)." Project CRITICAL’s first objective, curriculum restructuring, involves making modifications in a teacher’s existing American history curriculum. It also necessitated making modifications in the nationally validated Project LEGAL curriculum to address the special needs of gifted students. Project LEGAL contains ten-lesson introductory units (elementary, middle and high school) that are taught in the fall, followed by the infusion of problem solving lessons throughout the remainder of the year to reinforce the skills that are presented in the introductory units. The follow-up infusion lessons usually consist of Supreme Court cases on topics such as speech, press, religion, due process, and equal protection. Although Project LEGAL achieved national validation for increasing the critical thinking and problem solving skills of students of all ability levels, the question remained, "How could this exemplary approach be improved to meet the special needs of gifted students?" The underlying rationale of Renzulli’s Enrichment Triad Model is that within most classrooms there exists a talent pool of between 15 to 20% of the class. These students in an American history classroom will benefit from adapting both the regular curriculum and the traditional Project LEGAL curriculum. Using Renzulli’s approach, the first modification involved applying "curriculum compacting" to Project LEGAL’s existing introductory units. The units for all three grade levels contain ten lessons which each address the same learning objectives through activities appropriate for that level. Lessons one through three introduce the pervasive nature of law, the concept of values, and the interrelationship of laws and values. By applying curriculum compacting, the three introductory lessons were compacted into one lesson at each grade level for Project CRITICAL. Whereas Project LEGAL has different activities and worksheets for each of the three lessons, Project CRITICAL teaches all three learning objectives for each grade level by using one activity and one handout. The remaining learning objectives from the Project LEGAL introductory units related primarily to the skills associated with the case method, and they have been incorporated within six new Project CRITICAL units. In accordance with Renzulli, gifted students need opportunities to study particular topics in depth, and the Enrichment Triad Model provides a framework for organizing such units of study. For each of the three levels of Project CRITICAL, two topics were selected. The topics are those for which individual Project LEGAL infusion lessons are developed. Whereas the Project LEGAL infusion lessons are separate, unrelated lessons, the new units consist of eight lessons that enable students to analyze how legal concepts such as speech or due process have evolved throughout our constitutional history through Supreme Court decisions. Prior to teaching a unit, a teacher should select one or more from the wide variety of Type I activities that are presented. Our Project CRITICAL teacher participants suggested most of these activities. They are designed to create an interest in the upcoming unit and foster student motivation. The eight-lesson units contain mostly Type II activities intended to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills, for which Project LEGAL achieved national validation. The teaching methods for these new unit lessons have been adapted from Project LEGAL’s Teacher Manual. Law-related education methods, such as the case study approach, moot court simulations, role-playing and brainstorming, not only develop higher level thinking skills, but also foster developing positive attitudes toward our legal/judicial system, which is in accordance with the goals of Renzulli’s Type II activities.
Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences The work of Howard Gardner has had a tremendous impact on the field of gifted education. He is best known for his theory of multiple intelligences (MI) which he published in his 1983 book, Frames of Mind. MI attacks the commonly held notion that there exists one human intelligence that can be assessed by standard instruments. Rather, according to Gardner, the intellect is made up of several autonomous faculties that work individually or in concert with others. Frames of Mind described seven distinct intelligences, which may be summarized as follows:
(Recently, Gardner announced two other intelligences—naturalist and existentialist, but only the seven original intelligences above have been used in the curriculum restructuring and lesson development process for Project CRITICAL).
Applying Gardner to Project CRITICAL’s Curriculum Social studies is an academic discipline that focuses primarily on developing students’ abilities in the areas of verbal/linguistic and logic/mathematical intelligences. This is reflected in numerous recent publications of state social studies standards. Project LEGAL was initially created in 1976, several years prior to the publication of Frames of Mind and Gardner’s MI theory. Yet, from the beginning, LEGAL has incorporated a broad range of teaching strategies, which foster the development of various intelligences. For example, one of LEGAL’s unique features is the use of visuals of the fact patterns of landmark Supreme Court cases through which students may exercise their visual/spatial intelligence. Law-related education in general, and Project LEGAL in particular has included a variety of role-playing and simulation activities as instructional strategies. Such methods not only develop verbal/linguistic and logic/mathematical intelligences, but also can be used to further bodily/kinestic, interpersonal, and even intrapersonal intelligences. When Project CRITICAL began in 1996, it marked the first major curriculum restructuring of Project LEGAL since the completion of its initial development in 1979 (one of the drawbacks of attainment of state and national validation was that demonstration grants were based on the premise that there were no significant changes made in the major components of a validated project so that adoption schools had the assurance of replicating the same project for which proven test data had been obtained). As Project CRITICAL embarked on its objective of curriculum restructuring, Gardner’s MI theory offered a framework for lesson development which fit well with the varied strategies that were already a part of Project LEGAL. MI theory provided a stronger rationale for the law-related education methods that had been included in Project LEGAL. Rather than simply increasing student interest and motivation, these diverse methods could facilitate the growth of other areas of intelligences beyond the usual cognitive objectives in state social studies curricula and standards. These methods were not just a means to help students acquire higher order thinking skills, but also contained activities that are inherently beneficial to developing a broader range of intelligences. In creating the six new units for Project CRITICAL, each lesson plan has a category titled, "Multiple Intelligences." Under this category, several types of learning activities are presented related to that lesson which can be used by the teacher to develop various intelligences. Teachers are encouraged to make careful selections in planning each unit so that the intelligences are all addressed.
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development The late Lawrence Kohlberg was a Harvard psychologist who is most remembered for his theory of moral cognitive development. This theory maintains that a person's moral reasoning develops through an invariant sequence of six stages:
A person must pas through the preceding stage before moving on to a higher stage of reasoning. While there is a correlation between age and the stages of reasoning, individuals may become "frozen" at a certain stage. Kohlberg and his colleagues conducted research that suggested that students who participate regularly in classroom discussions of moral dilemmas are more likely to advance to higher stages by being exposed to such reasoning from other students higher stage analysis of the dilemmas. Since Kohlberg’s research concluded that only about 20 percent of the adult population ever reach level 5, he felt that schools could make an important contribution to fostering moral development by incorporating moral dilemmas into the curriculum. During the 1970’s, the Social Studies Curriculum Center at Carnegie-Mellon University took a national leadership role in creating classroom applications of Kohlberg’s theory of moral cognitive development.
Applying Kohlberg to Project CRITICAL’s Curriculum One of the original objectives of Project LEGAL was to advance student growth in the stages of moral reasoning. Although test data was unable to support this objective (unlike problem solving skills), the development and use of moral dilemmas in Project LEGAL continued. U.S. Supreme Court cases sometimes contain situations, which are appropriate for creating a good legal/moral dilemma. For years, a few of these dilemmas were used in Project LEGAL, and more have been created for Project CRITICAL. A good moral dilemma should have three characteristics: a real conflict for the central character; a number of moral issues for consideration; and it should produce differences of opinion as to the best action to be taken. The inherent nature of cases involving balancing an individual’s right with a societal law often meets these three criteria. Project CRITICAL has adapted some of its landmark case visuals into a two-part format, with the first part depicting the events leading up to the main character’s legal and moral dilemma (e.g., "Should Peter Zenger stop publishing articles against the colonial governor [avoiding prison or following his conscience]?" "Should George Reynolds [a Mormon in the 1870’s] forsake his religious beliefs and renounce his second wife in accordance with the new law against polygamy?" "Should Daniel Ellesberg release the top secret documents about Vietnam"?), and the second part presenting the resulting court case. Project CRITICAL’s use of Kohlberg moral dilemmas is in accordance with the guidelines of nationally renowned character educator, Thomas Lickona:
Using Supreme Court cases as a basis for constructing moral dilemmas ensures that students are analyzing problems involving two conflicting civic values. As Lickona points outs regarding Kohlberg’s approach: Helping teachers get inside the minds of their students is one of the major contributions of moral dilemmas. Once teachers are in touch with how students are thinking, they can begin to take the next step: helping them develop their moral reasoning toward greater maturity (1991, 248). Examples of lessons containing moral dilemmas can be found throughout the six units. The next section also contains information on teaching strategies for using moral dilemmas.
CRITICAL: In-service Training The teacher training program that resulted in the development of CRITICAL took place throughout the three-year USDE grant, from November 1996 through October 1999. At that opening session in New York City at Syracuse University’s Lubin House, this director held up two empty hands, pretending to hold the final CRITICAL publications. The group of 30 elementary and secondary teachers was told that our collaborative efforts over the next three years would produce curriculum materials for G/T students and teachers that, like Project LEGAL, would be worthy of national dissemination. The challenges were enormous. Our original participants, like those teachers who are replicating this project, were a very heterogeneous group. Some had a background in gifted education while others, especially at the secondary level, did not (although they taught G/T students). Secondary teachers, unlike their elementary colleagues, had taken graduate courses in American history, although most had limited knowledge of Supreme Court cases. Elementary teachers generally had a wider repertoire of teaching strategies, but secondary teachers had more experience in LRE. They also had varied backgrounds in curriculum writing and development. The ongoing in-service teacher training had to include and integrate:
This publication was the culmination of everyone’s efforts and participation in summer workshops, in-service days, and on-site visitations and observations over three years. Any curriculum development project requires such an arduous process. For those planning to use Project CRITICAL, in-service training is essential. Such a program needs to include workshops on all of the aforementioned elements. If your school district or region does not have access to trainers with such backgrounds, please contact Project LEGAL.
CRITICAL: Integrating Computer Applications Efforts to enact comprehensive school reform have included discussions and debates about such policies as lengthening the school day, year-round schooling, and block scheduling. Perhaps these are just cosmetic changes in comparison to the impact that the Internet is likely to produce as a means of drastically changing the roles of teachers and students in the educational process. In 1993, Project LEGAL developed CompuLEGAL, a HyperCard application of its case method for use with Macintosh computers. Project LEGAL established a website at http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal in 1995. One of the first additions was the creation of an Internet version of CompuLEGAL. "Students and teachers are finding the Internet crosses disciplines, allowing them to obtain more timely information and to communicate with others more effectively and efficiently" (Addessio, 1994). One of the significant accomplishments of Project CRITICAL has been the expansion of CompuLEGAL. Visuals of the fact patterns of over 60 landmark Supreme Court cases have been scanned and integrated into CompuLEGAL. It is now available to all schools with Internet access rather than formerly being limited to those who had access to Macintosh computers and the HyperCard software. CompuLEGAL allows students to analyze over 60 landmark Supreme Court cases on issues such as speech, press, religion, equal protection and due process. This weaving of multimedia resources enhances learning and increases student productivity (Mendrinos, 1997). CompuLEGAL can be used as a tutorial program or for small group cooperative learning, and can be integrated with LEGAL’s text materials, a state’s curriculum, and state standards for social studies. This eliminates problems of curriculum alignment (Komoski, 1986), targets of difficulty (Gardner, 1986), and software integration (Schiffman, 1986). Levels of fluency, knowledge, motivation, and interest are addressed individually; hence, inclusion of Project CRITICAL’s culturally and linguistically-diverse student populations of New York City is ensured in the learning process. Hypermedia provides support for skill acquisition in critical thinking and social interaction, attending to the various learning modalities (Palumbo, 1994). Project CRITICAL also created collaborations that allow students to debate legal issues on the Internet with students across the city or around the world (LEGAL has trained teachers in Hungary, Croatia, and the Virgin Islands). During the third year of Project CRITICAL, a new application was created titled Ask-A-LEGAL Eagle with the assistance of David Lankes, Associate Director, ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology at Syracuse University. Ask-A-LEGAL Eagle is a virtual reference desk which enables Project CRITICAL teachers and students (and others) to ask questions on-line related to legal issues, and numerous legal experts answer those questions in an ongoing volunteer effort. Originally developed for use by Project CRITICAL participants, the service has been growing rapidly and is now used by schools nationwide.
CRITICAL: Learning outcomes In 1996, the New York State Board of Regents approved the "Framework for Social Studies" which contains five standards with corresponding performance indicators; examples of how the standards relate directly to the objectives addressed by Project CRITICAL include: Students will use a variety of intellectual skills to demonstrate their understanding of major ideas, eras, themes, developments, and turning points in the history of the United States (Standard 1); Students will use a variety of intellectual skills to demonstrate their understanding of the necessity for establishing governments, the governmental system of the U.S. and other nations; the United States Constitution, the basic civic values of American constitutional democracy; and the roles, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship, including avenues of participation. (Standard 5).
The "intellectual skills" implies the need to attain higher order thinking skills. Project LEGAL achieved NYS (1979) and national validation (1982, 1992, 1996) for advancing students' problem solving/critical thinking skills, as well as their knowledge of constitutional issues. Its problem-solving model, contained in CompuLEGAL, enables teachers to infuse lessons on legal issues throughout the elementary and secondary American history curriculum (standard 1). The new Project CRITICAL introductory lessons present the needs for law, civic values, and the interrelationship between laws and values (standards 1,5). Throughout the year, students will analyze landmark Supreme Court cases contained in the new Project CRITICAL units (standards 1, 5). Regarding national significance and learning outcomes, Project CRITICAL addresses several National Education Goals: Goal 2: School Completion—improving achievement in social studies and language arts will increase graduation rates; Goal 3: Student Achievement and Citizenship— developing competency in English, civics and history and preparing students for responsible citizenship; Goal 4: Teacher Education and Professional Development are the project’s main objectives; Goal 7: Safe Schools—research shows that law-related education programs reduce delinquency and school discipline problems; and Goal 8: Parental Participation is a priority in Project CRITICAL. This director, James J. Carroll, Ph.D., as a nationally recognized leader in law-related and social studies education, contributed to the development of the National Standards for Civics and Government. Subsequently, Project LEGAL published "Matching Project LEGAL’s Resources with the National Standards for Civics and Government" which specifies how LEGAL’s strategies and materials address all of the objectives and sub-objectives of these national standards. The products and strategies developed by Project CRITICAL also address those standards. Project CRITICAL’s objective concerning learning outcomes is based on the two cognitive student objectives for which Project LEGAL achieved national validation in 1982, and revalidation in 1992 and 1996: 1. Students in Project LEGAL classrooms (grades 5, 8, 11) will make significantly greater gains (.05) in knowledge and comprehension of law-related curricula than students in traditional American history classrooms as measured by Project LEGAL’s criterion-referenced pre/posttests. 2. Students in Project LEGAL classrooms (grades 5, 8, 11) will make significantly greater gains (.05) in problem solving skills related to the functioning of the U.S. legal/judicial system than students in traditional American history classrooms as measured by Project LEGAL’s criterion-referenced pre/posttests. To provide a test of the effectiveness of the original Project LEGAL, as well as Project CRITICAL in meeting these two objectives, criterion referenced tests were locally developed (no nationally recognized standardized tests exist in the field of LRE). The Knowledge and Comprehension of Law (KCL) and Problem Solving in Law (PSL) tests used in the original validation studies were used for this study (only a couple items were modified for Project CRITICAL based on the new lesson units). KCL and PSL each consist of 15 criterion referenced items at grades 8 and 11, and 10 items each at grade 5. KCL measures knowledge of legal/judicial terms and processes, content that is contained in the NYS curriculum and in curricula in virtually every state. PSL items measure problem solving skills related to analyzing hypothetical legal situations. Examples include selecting the statement which contains the strongest argument for either the plaintiff or defendant, or choosing the best formulation of the issue question implied by the situation presented. Since the instruments were locally developed, content validity was deemed most appropriate. A sample of social studies teachers attested that each item measured the objective it purports to measure. Also, experts in the field of law--two attorneys who were former teachers--concluded that the tests address relevant law-related knowledge and skills, and measure the corresponding objectives. Regarding reliability, a split half reliability test was done on the computer using odd vs. even items for comparison. The split halves method showed moderate reliability for all tests (coefficients ranged from . 65 to .77). Samples from among the C groups were also administered the pre-tests approximately six weeks after initial testing. The Pearson Product Moment formula yielded higher coefficients, ranging from .72 to .86.; the test-retest results are generally regarded as a more appropriate measure for criterion referenced tests. Clearly, the coefficients were high enough to warrant conclusions regarding the performance of the groups tested. The design used for Project CRITICAL is very similar to the original validation study. Like the 1992 and 1996 revalidation studies, rather than having control groups, comparisons will be made to the data obtained from the original control groups. The KCL and PSL were administered in September 1998 as pretests and again in April, 1999 as post-tests (students do not know that the same test will be used again). Tests were locally scored on opscan machines or computers, and results--n, means, SD's--were sent to the director who applied t-tests to determine (1) any significant differences between T's and C's on the pre-tests (to establish that significant differences were lacking between groups in September) and (2) whether post-tests of T's were significantly higher (.05) than post-tests of C's. (NOTE: since this is being prepared for publication prior to April, 1999, final data and analyses are not yet available but may be obtained after July 1, 1999 by contacting the director). In addition to the quantitative test data, learning outcomes in Project CRITICAL are demonstrated through student portfolios. Portfolios are consistent with the perspectives of both Gardner and Renzulli, for, in accordance with MI theory, students are encouraged to develop portfolios that reflect a wide range of intelligences in their format and content, and they are also in accordance with Renzulli’s concept of involving students in creating long range, independent research and product development. Throughout Project CRITICAL’s in-service training, there were sessions on portfolio development. These sessions relied heavily on "MI Portfolios" contained in Thomas Armstrong’s Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom (1994).
How to Use the Curriculum Like the original Project LEGAL curriculum, the Project CRITICAL curriculum is intended to be infused into an elementary or secondary school’s existing American history courses. As stated above, the major changes from the traditional LEGAL curriculum include the replacement of the former ten-lesson introductory units and the individual teacher-prepared follow-up infusion lessons with a new introductory lesson at each of the three levels and two new eight-lesson units at each level. The new introductory lessons at the three grade levels "compact" lessons (see Renzulli section) one through three of the old introductory units into one lesson that includes all three objectives. These introductory lessons should be taught at the beginning of the school year immediately following the administration of the pre-tests. There are six new units—two for each grade level—that enable gifted students to examine issues in-depth as they evolved throughout our constitutional history. It should be noted, however, that any of the elementary lessons could be used with middle or high school students, and secondary lessons could easily be adapted for elementary level by making changes for readability. There is nothing about the topics that make them appropriate for a particular level (for example, if this curriculum had included reproductive rights that topic would have been suited only for the secondary levels). Rather, the three groups of teachers that participated in the development of Project CRITICAL mutually agreed on which two topics would be developed for their level. Then, in preparing student materials, readability was an important consideration, especially for the elementary level in preparing student handouts. The six units are: Elementary School Level:
Middle School Level:
High School Level:
Each unit contains eight lessons which are designed to enable gifted students to analyze broad issue questions which the unit, taken as a whole, addresses. For example, the first unit asks students to consider these issues:
Ideally, it is recommended that the units are taught as self-contained units so that student can focus on how rights such as speech, due process and equal protection have changed and evolved. On the other hand, since most American history courses are organized chronologically rather than thematically, teachers may have to determine places in the semester to infuse particular lessons at the appropriate point in the course’s chronology. Although this results in a somewhat disjointed presentation of the unit, it permits students to develop their portfolios throughout the entire year. Each lesson consists of a lesson plan and one or more student handouts. The lesson plans begin with the "topic," a statement or question that summarizes the content of the lesson. Next, the teacher is provided with "background" regarding the lesson, which usually includes information about the Supreme Court cases in the lesson; sometimes additional historical information is included, as well. The "objectives" reflect the primary goals of the lesson, and are by no means an exhaustive list. The "materials" usually refers to the particular student handouts needed for teaching that lesson. Future planning is essential, for handouts need to be reproduced in advance. The "time required" usually provides a range of the estimated number of days necessary for teaching that lesson, assuming a standard 45-minute class period per day. The "procedures" suggest a series of steps and methods for using the handouts to attain the objectives. Some of the procedures contain frequently used law-related education methods, such as the use of moot court simulations or legislative hearings, and these methods are presented in the next section. "Performance Assessment" presents suggestions on strategies that can be used to quickly determine whether students are attaining the main objectives in the lesson. "MI Activities for Further Enrichment" contain several examples of optional supplemental tasks that are arranged according to the original seven intelligences contained in Gardner’s Frames of Mind. Although time constraints preclude a teachers from implementing all of these activities for each lesson, they are included so that throughout the unit, the teacher can select a representative sample from among all of the MI activities.
Project CRITICAL Teaching Methods While each lesson plan specifies the procedures for teaching that lesson, there are several frequently used law-related methods that are presented in this section. The study of constitutional law as part of an American history course is very appropriate for fostering the development of problem solving skills. However, the nature of the content alone does not insure student growth in higher order thinking skills. In addition, teachers must use appropriate methods. The next section presents the following guidelines for teachers and students
Guidelines for Conducting Simultaneous Moot Court Hearings
A moot court or appeals case involves a panel of judges and two sets of opposing attorneys. It is patterned after a Supreme Court hearing. The court, or panel of judges, is asked to rule on a lower court's decision. No witnesses are called. The basic facts in a case are not disputed. This teaching method can be used in Project CRITICAL for a class to simultaneously study numerous cases related to the same issue during the same class period. A class of thirty students could conceivably analyze up to ten cases by dividing the class into ten groups of three students, with two acting as the opposing attorneys and the third student as the appeals court. More likely, the method might be used to study three to five cases. With three cases, each group of ten students contains a three-judge panel, two teams of three attorneys and an observer who records the process and summarizes the case, the arguments and the panel’s decision for the class. Procedures 1. Preparation: Select cases that raise questions relevant to the concept being studied. Prepare a "Fact Pattern" which includes a summary of essential evidence from the trial and the court decision to be appealed. Divide the class according to the number of cases as discussed above. One attorney team is designated as the "appealing litigant team" and will have the responsibility of arguing against the ruling of a lower court. The other team is designated as the "supporting litigant team" and will present arguments in favor of the lower court's decision. Each student should be given a copy of the "Student Instructions for Moot Court Hearings," and the "Fact Pattern" for that group and a Project LEGAL visual of the case if available. 2. Enactment: To conduct several simultaneous cases, the teacher must serve as timekeeper and require all the groups to proceed in unison. Set time limits for the teams to develop arguments (e.g., 8 min.) and present arguments (e.g., 8 min.) to the judge(s) in small groups. Hold up cards for all groups to see that warn of "One Minute Remaining" and "30 Seconds Remaining" for each time segment. While attorneys prepare, judge(s) may review the fact pattern and create potential questions for the attorneys. Eight (to ten) minutes for oral arguments for each side should be enough time so that the judge(s) may interrupt with questions during the presentations, as in a real appeals court process. The teacher needs to monitor the groups and provide assistance, particularly when students are developing arguments. When oral arguments are completed, the judge(s) briefly deliberate (either privately or in front of the small group) and vote on their decision. (See "Student Instructions" for other enactment procedures). 3. Debriefing: The presiding judge or observer from each group should provide a summary of their case, the arguments and the decision for the entire class. For each case, discuss the effectiveness of the arguments presented, the questions the judges raised, and the fairness of the decisions. Compare decisions with the Supreme Court’s actual decisions.
Student Instructions for Moot Court Hearings A moot court hearing is an appeals case. This is not a mock trial. A trial court has already decided the case. That verdict has been appealed to a higher court, such as the United States Supreme Court. Everyone should read the "Fact Pattern" carefully. The facts have been established in a trial court. No one may argue that any of those facts are false. You will be assigned the role of an attorney, judge or observer. Be sure to follow the time limits.
Attorneys: Discuss the case and the issues with your team. Write down your arguments. Sources of your arguments are: (1) precedent cases; (2) legal theories or court tests (e.g., the Lemon test, the strict scrutiny test, etc.); (3) principles in the Constitution and Bill of Rights; (4) the particular law or actions in the case that are being challenged as unconstitutional (e.g., "Is the law too vague?" or "Did the government official’s actions violate due process"). Select one or two team members to make the oral arguments to the judge(s). The judge(s) may interrupt any time with questions. Your team must respond immediately to these questions. The judges’ questions are part of your time limit. The "appealing attorney team" presents their argument first. Then, the "supporting litigant teams'" present. Judge(s): You should write down potential questions you may have for each attorney team. One student should act as the presiding judge. Announce the name of the case. Ask one of the appealing attorneys to begin. Judges may interrupt an attorney to ask a question. After the arguments for both the "appealing litigant" and "supporting litigant" teams have been heard by the court, the panel of judges should deliberate and reach a decision. Observers: You have perhaps the most important role. Take notes during the small group moot court. Write down the main arguments and the judge (s’)’s decision and reasoning. You will use these notes to report to the whole class. Be prepared to tell the class the facts of your case, the main arguments the attorneys gave, the judges’ decision, and their reasoning
Guidelines for Conducting a Legislative Hearing Legislative hearings are held by committees of the United States Congress and other legislative bodies to gather information upon which laws are being considered. These hearings are a basic function of legislative branches of government. Role playing a legislative hearing provides participants an opportunity to gain an increased understanding of the purposes and procedures of such hearings and the roles and responsibilities of committee members. Participants also gain experience in identifying and clarifying the ideas, interests, and values associated with the subject being discussed by the legislative hearing.
How to Proceed:
From two to five minutes for a witness's opening statement and from five to ten minutes for a legislator's questioning.
Guidelines for the Project CRITICAL Case Method The case method was first used by Professor Christopher Columbus Langdell at Harvard Law School in 1870. Since then, it developed into a standard method of instruction for teaching prospective lawyers legal concepts and legal reasoning. When law-related education began to emerge as an integral part of social studies education in the late 1960’s, the case method became a key teaching strategy for developing problem solving and critical thinking skills through the analysis of court cases.
The Main Elements of the Case Method According to Gerlach and Lamprecht (1975, p. 148), the essential ingredients in the case method are "lively cases, capable instructors, and involved students." The cases contained in Project CRITICAL are inherently "lively," for they involve resolving disputes over constitutional rights of the individual as balanced against one’s responsibilities toward society. It our intention that this manual for Project CRITICAL, combined with in-service training, will enable teachers to serve as "capable instructors" who can facilitate the analysis of court cases through the case method with "involved students," i.e., students who are provided an analytical framework through which they can freely argue their points of view on these conflicting civic values. Whether the case method is used in law school or in an elementary school classroom, the main parts of the case for student analysis are the same: the facts, issue, decision and reasoning. In law schools, students in a constitutional law course read the entire opinions of landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases and develop briefs which contain those four basic elements. In elementary and secondary law-related education classrooms, textbooks containing short paraphrased summaries of the fact pattern of a landmark case are usually used. Then, students are asked to answer questions about the four basic elements. It should be emphasized that the goal of Project CRITICAL and other law-related education programs that use the case method is not to develop students into "junior lawyers." However, educators such as Jerome Bruner have pointed out that content and skills can be taught to virtually any ability level if athe content and methods are adapted to meet the needs of the students. In so doing, students are becoming engaged learners, acquiring higher level problem solving and critical thinking skills. At the same time they are learning state mandated content in their elementary and secondary American history courses.
How Project CRITICAL Has Adapted the Case Method Generally, students in law school achieved an undergraduate degree with a high GPA, and have demonstrated they possess the academic and reasoning skills to meet the intellectual challenges of the case method. Although most Law-Related Education programs and textbooks lower the readability of the fact patterns of cases, Project CRITICAL has made other adaptions to enable students to use this approach. First, Project CRITICAL has created visuals of the fact patterns of over sixty landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases. Almost all of the cases in Project CRITICAL may be introduced with both a case visual and a written fact pattern. This is consistent with facilitating the development of spatial intelligence (see sections above on Gardner). Asking students for the "facts" and the "issue" are not simple tasks, for it requires understanding, analysis, application and synthesis to complete these tasks. Rather, one of the most important contributions of the original Project LEGAL introductory units was to provide a separate lesson on how to analyze the facts of a case (lesson 7) and how to formulate the issue question (lesson 8). In Project LEGAL (and now, Project CRITICAL), instead of asking students for the facts of the case, that task is broken down into its discrepant parts through a series of questions. To use Tinker v. Des Moines an illustration, the questions would be:
In other words, Project CRITICAL considers the major pertinent facts to consist of the actions, values and legal basis of both sides.
In Supreme Court cases, the issue question is the main problem that the Court has to decide. In Project CRITICAL, the issue question is formulated by a synthesis of the answers to the questions about the facts of the case. In other words, the issue question seeks to determine: Do the actions, values and legal basis of one side win out or prevail Over the actions, values, and legal basis of the other side? Students are provided with a format in which to apply the information from the facts to formulating the issue question as follows, using the example of the Tinker case:
Does the suspension of Tinkers for wearing armbands based on the 10th Amendment violate the
Tinkers’ right to freedom of speech based on the 1st and 14th Amendments?
In the preceding issue question, the blanks are completed by using information from the questions related to the facts. The format for Tinker can be used for any Supreme Court issue question involving a conflict between a governmental authority—the United States, a state, a public school district or police agency—and an individual or organization that feels its rights have been denied. The answer to the question is always a simple "yes" or "no." In addition to the "yes" or "no" answer to the issue question, the case method requires students to present their reasoning in support of their decision. One of the methods that Project CRITICAL uses is to provide students with two opinions, one of which paraphrases the Court’s majority opinion, and the other the minority or dissenting opinion. Students read each opinion, discuss the meaning of each, and decide which one they prefer. With guided instruction, the Project CRITICAL case method can be used successfully by any ability level.
Guidelines for Developing and Assessing Student Portfolios Each of the six units in Project CRITICAL may be used as a basis for the development of student portfolios (see Introductory Lessons). Portfolios can be defined as a collection of the selected work of students. They differ from folders that consist of random work. In some instances, portfolios include a student's best work. For many years portfolios were used by a number of professionals, most notably artists and models. More recently, they have been used in education as an assessment instrument. A number of characteristics make portfolios effective:
There is no single, specific way to have students develop Project CRITICAL portfolios. Portfolios will vary in Project CRITICAL according to the grade level of the students, policies that may already exist at particular school districts, and teacher and student preferences. However, there are some guidelines which ought to be followed in having students do a portfolio for Project CRITICAL: Address Unit Themes: Each of the six Project CRITICAL units was developed in accordance with two or three broad thematic questions. For example, the elementary school unit on religion poses the following questions:
These are extremely challenging questions, particularly for elementary students. Yet if they are introduced at the beginning of the unit in combination with the discussion of unit portfolios, one or more of these type of questions can be used to guide students in selecting particular handouts and further enrichment activities for their portfolios. Contain an Introduction, Body and Conclusion:
Formats: Formats can consist of folders, journals, boxes, videotapes, plays, web pages on the Internet, etc. From what has been stated above, it should be clear that Project CRITICAL has no particular format requirements. The decision on whether to require a standard format for all students lies with each teacher.
Teaching Students How to Prepare a Project CRITICAL Portfolio Objectives:After a discussion of the definition and contents of a portfolio (se above) and the relationship of Multiple Intelligences theory to the completion of a portfolio, students will be able to:
Portfolio Handouts.A "My Personal Portfolio," B "Assessing a Portfolio," C "What to Put in an MI Portfolio" Time Required:This initial lesson should take one period, but throughout the unit time must be allotted for discussion of portfolios and periodic review by the teacher. Procedure:In the initial lesson, students will be introduced to what a portfolio is, and how it can be useful as an instructional tool and as an assessment tool in the classroom. Students will then explore how their knowledge of multiple intelligences theory can make a portfolio an exciting new way to showcase unique talents and abilities. Introduce the concept of portfolios by asking students if they know what a portfolio is? Tell students that artists and models keep portfolios. Ask students the following questions:
Tell the class that every portfolio should have goals - what you hope to accomplish. In terms of a unit on student/youth due process rights, what would you want to accomplish by keeping a portfolio? Place the words "Portfolio on (fill in the name of the unit)" on the chalkboard. Also, write the two or three theme questions for the unit on the board. Have students brainstorm what their goals would be in keeping a portfolio regarding this unit and what they would include in a portfolio to accomplish these goals.
Ask students to indicate the items they would keep in the portfolio as follows:
Distribute Handout A, "My Personal Portfolio." Have students complete the exercise and then explain their answers to the following questions:
Distribute Handout B, "Assessing a Portfolio." Divide the class into several equal sized groups. The groups will discuss how the portfolios will be assessed and who will assess them (e.g. a team of students, the teacher etc.). After each group has completed this task, join together as a class. Tell students that assessment categories for portfolios should demonstrate whether goals have been accomplished, whether materials are well organized, whether materials are creative, whether the portfolio shows proof of growth and whether the portfolio shows feelings and values. The teacher should now develop a list of assessment categories for portfolios with the class. If the class has difficulty thinking of assessment categories, give students some ideas and then discuss whether they agree that these are the assessment categories that should be used. The class should now develop a rubric for at least one assessment category (e.g. "creativity.") A scale will be used to measure how well a portfolio displays this category (e.g. how well does the student show creativity.) The scale will have measurements of failure, adequate, good, and excellent. The class will determine what items in a portfolio make the portfolio fall within the measurement of failure, adequate, good, or excellent for a particular category. Students should copy this information from the chalkboard onto the Handout. Have students explain their answers to the following questions:
Have students explain their answers to the following questions.
Return to Handout A "My Personal Portfolio." How will your personal portfolio demonstrate Multiple Intelligences? Thomas Armstrong, an author and advocate of Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory, claims that most portfolios focus primarily on linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligences. In his view, incorporating multiple intelligences into the portfolio experience allows the inclusion of a greater variety of material. To this end, Armstrong has developed a portfolio checklist to determine if all the intelligences have been represented (see Handout C).
Handout A
My Personal Portfolio
Answer the following questions in the space provided. 1. What do you want to accomplish with your portfolio (must deal with the theme of student/youth due process rights? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
2. How will your portfolio look? Will it be a journal, folder or box etc? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
3. How will your portfolio be organized? Will it consist of only finished products, best work or be in chronological order etc? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
4. What will your portfolio include? Will it include projects, products, interviews, class notes, homework, research or group projects etc? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Handout B
Assessing A Portfolio
According to your group, how should the portfolios be assessed? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
According to your group, who should assess the portfolios? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________
Meet as a class and use this space to complete the next part of the activity.
Handout C
What to Put in an MI Portfolio (Part 1) Reconvene into your original groups. Below is a list of the seven intelligences. The group will decide what items should be placed in the portfolio to demonstrate each intelligence. The first item has already been supplied on the Handout. The group will determine what additional items are appropriate for each intelligence and list that item in the space provided. Students should be prepared to explain how each item the group selected shows a particular intelligence.
According to your group, what should you put in a MI portfolio; To document linguistic intelligence:
To document logical/mathematical intelligence:
To document spatial intelligence:
To document bodily/kinesthetic intelligence:
To document musical intelligence:
To document interpersonal intelligence:
To document intrapersonal intelligence:
Handout C
What to Put in an MI Portfolio (Part 2)
Students should now meet as a class and compare the group list with the list of items below.
To document linguistic intelligence:
To document logical-mathematical intelligence:
To document spatial intelligence:
To document bodily-kinesthetic intelligence:
To document musical intelligence:
To document interpersonal intelligence:
To document intrapersonal intelligence:
|