The first relates to my time working at the university in Augsburg. As I have mentioned previously, my main responsibility in Augsburg was to present two courses:
- An introduction to American law, in English, for German law students who will be exchange students in the United States (8 hours, spread over 4 course sessions)
- A training course in the Westlaw database, in German, for German law students and research assistants (approximately 90 minutes)
While I was in Augsburg, I was also asked to present on the HeinOnline legal database, for which the law library had acquired a trial subscription. I was mainly asked to provide information about the most important libraries within the database, and to compare Hein's contents with those resources available through Westlaw. I also did this presentation in German.
Overall, these courses and presentations were fairly successful. I did find, however, that the English-language sessions were, at two hours each, too long, even though I gave them breaks. I would have preferred to have six course sessions of 90 minutes each (two 40-minutes halves with a 10-minute break). I think it's just too difficult to pay attention for that long, especially if the lecture is delivered in a foreign language. I also would have made the class sessions more interactive, including a research exercise that the students could do in groups, rather than straight lecture.
In addition, by having six sessions instead of four, I could have delivered the information in smaller portions, which I think would have lent itself to better organization than I was able to manage. As it was - the four sessions were (1) introduction to American common law and legal language, (2) case law research, (3) constitutional law research and analysis, and (4) statutory research. I think it would have gone over better had I been able to break this down into smaller sections.
My other main issue was that I could never get the overhead projector to work. This was very embarrassing for me - it almost became a joke with everyone ("Will she be able to manage it this time?").
I did give the students reading assignments (cases, book chapters, and newspaper articles), and many of them did the reading. I also offered them the opportunity to complete a short case brief and an exam, which I reviewed and sent back to them with comments. However, although the course was mandatory for students who will be studying in the United States next year, I did not issue grades, so I could not make the assignments or exam mandatory.
The students were very appreciative of the Westlaw training. I had given a Westlaw training already, for law librarians, at the Bavarian State Library School in Munich. That was a 5-hour seminar, in which I not only covered several aspects of Westlaw research, but also provided an introduction to American law and legal principles that was appropriate for law librarians.
However, I decided early on that the law students needed training that was more interactive than the training I did for the law librarians, and that specifically showed them how to use Westlaw for their research. I decided, therefore, to lead them through a general research project using the various Westlaw resources, using punitive damages at the theme for the project. Not only is this a concept that is very important in American law but not in German law, but many of the law students at Augsburg are engaged in a combined study of business and law, and I thought this would be an interesting topic for them.
The best success story of my work in Augsburg was that one of the students in the introductory course has decided that she is going to analyze a case and statute that we talked about in our class (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act) for some of her work in one of her German law classes. This makes me feel that what I did in Augsburg was worthwhile and helpful to the students, and that all my hard work in preparing the lessons paid off.
No comments:
Post a Comment