The Integrated Curriculum of the Future: Eliminating a Hidden Curriculum to Unveil a New Era of Collaboration, Practical Training, and Interdisciplinary Learning

C. Brown
{"title":"The Integrated Curriculum of the Future: Eliminating a Hidden Curriculum to Unveil a New Era of Collaboration, Practical Training, and Interdisciplinary Learning","authors":"C. Brown","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2662579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article seeks to challenge traditional methods of assessment used in U.S. law schools, specifically the final exam format and the grade and rank system. Such methods breed competition and elitism that have plagued the legal profession long enough. Instead, future curricula should require assessment based on large-scale collaboration, interdisciplinary techniques, and learned interpersonal skills. This shift in assessment should include fostering student development toward a post-conventional moral schema necessary to enrich our profession. The challenge is how rapidly faculties are able to transform curricula to include such initiatives and showcase the strength of such design. This change alone may cause entrenchment; however, the question is not whether faculties desire to sit and contemplate the best path for integrating skills. Rather, the larger momentum requires faculties to take steps toward integrated curricula. Each school will ultimately choose a path unique to its culture, resources, and the outcomes desired by its faculty. This paper visualizes one path for curricular integration but recognizes the many possible successes of other avenues.","PeriodicalId":330356,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2662579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article seeks to challenge traditional methods of assessment used in U.S. law schools, specifically the final exam format and the grade and rank system. Such methods breed competition and elitism that have plagued the legal profession long enough. Instead, future curricula should require assessment based on large-scale collaboration, interdisciplinary techniques, and learned interpersonal skills. This shift in assessment should include fostering student development toward a post-conventional moral schema necessary to enrich our profession. The challenge is how rapidly faculties are able to transform curricula to include such initiatives and showcase the strength of such design. This change alone may cause entrenchment; however, the question is not whether faculties desire to sit and contemplate the best path for integrating skills. Rather, the larger momentum requires faculties to take steps toward integrated curricula. Each school will ultimately choose a path unique to its culture, resources, and the outcomes desired by its faculty. This paper visualizes one path for curricular integration but recognizes the many possible successes of other avenues.
未来的综合课程:消除隐性课程,开启协作、实践训练和跨学科学习的新时代
本文旨在挑战美国法学院使用的传统评估方法,特别是期末考试形式和等级和排名系统。这种方法滋生了竞争和精英主义,长期以来一直困扰着法律界。相反,未来的课程应该要求基于大规模合作、跨学科技术和学会的人际交往能力的评估。这种评估的转变应该包括促进学生向后传统道德模式发展,这是丰富我们职业所必需的。面临的挑战是,学院能够以多快的速度改变课程,使其包括这些举措,并展示此类设计的优势。这种变化本身就可能导致堑壕;然而,问题不在于学院是否愿意坐下来思考整合技能的最佳途径。相反,更大的势头要求院系采取措施整合课程。每所学校最终都会根据其文化、资源和教师期望的结果选择一条独特的道路。本文设想了课程整合的一种途径,但也认识到其他途径可能取得的许多成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信