In last week’s post, I shared some best practices for making your small group learning experiences as productive as possible. In this post I share five well-established small group structures. We know that variety in teaching methods enhances learning, and, like me, you may be looking for something more than think-pair-share.
Write-Pair-Share. This technique starts by the professor asking the students to respond in writing to a question or problem. The problem can be a law school hypothetical, a question about synthesizing a line of cases, or a preventative law exercise (e.g., How could a lawyer have re-drafted this contract to avoid this dispute?). After each student tries to analyze the problem on their own, pair the students and have them compare their analyses and try to reach a consensus. Finally, have the entire group discuss and try to reconcile the pairs’ analyses. One particular advantage of this technique is that the writing part can be assigned as part of your students’ class preparation.
Think-Pair (why)-Share. As detailed in one of my other posts this week, an Edutopia article proposes a variation on think-pair-share. Rather than both students thinking independently and comparing answers, the two students are assigned different roles. One student shares her analysis of an issue, and the other student responds (five times in a row), with a one-word answer, “Why?” This approach is particularly effective for students in their first or second semester and are struggling to explain their reasoning when they are doing legal analysis.
Pass the Problem. Distribute a problem to the students. Have one student create an outline of the analysis of the problem and then have all other members of the group critique it. Then, the next student can fully analyze the first issue, and, afterwards, the group can critique the analysis of that issue. Continue until the group has fully analyzed the problem. This approach works well with law school hypotheticals. It also can be done entirely electronically with commuting students, and it ensures that every student contributes and gets feedback on her analysis. Finally, if the professor wishes to provide feedback as well, the professor can provide feedback to the students by marking the group’s final answer.
Team-Pair-Solo. Assign students a challenging problem or synthesis exercise to work on as a group. Then, assign a second problem and have the students work on the problem in pairs. Finally, assign students a third problem to analyze on their own. This technique helps students tackle and succeed at problems which initially are beyond their ability. By allowing students to work on problems they could not effectively analyze on their own, first as a team and then with a partner, they progress and, eventually, are able to do alone that which at first they could do only with help. This technique is particularly useful for particularly challenging legal analysis tasks.
Jigsaw. Divide students into 4 person jigsaw groups and divide the lesson into 4 segments. Assign one person in each jigsaw group to each segment. For example, if you want students to learn a four-element rule, assign each student to learn one element and make sure students have direct access to information about their own element. Have students learn about their element as part of their class preparation. In class, form temporary “expert groups” by having one student from each jigsaw group join other students assigned to the same segment. Give students in these expert groups time to discuss the main points of their element and to prepare the presentation they will make to their jigsaw group. Bring the students back into their jigsaw groups. Ask each student to present her or his segment to the group. Encourage others in the group to ask questions for clarification. This technique is effective for learning basic doctrine.
