1 The programs by Professors Lynn, Wills, and McClure have not been published. Copies of these programs can be obtained by writing to their authors.Google Scholar

2 See Kelso, Charles D., Behavioral Psychology: Springboard for Imaginative Legal Educators, 45 Den. L.J. 313 (1968) [hereinafter cited as Behavioral Psychology]; his Programming Shows Promise for Training Lawyers: A Report on an Experiment, 14 J. Legal Educ. 243 (1961); and his Science and Our Teaching Methods: Harmony or Discord? 13 J. Legal Educ. 183 (1960).Google Scholar

3 See appendix A for illustrative excerpts from Kelso's book.Google Scholar

4 Kelso specifically acknowledges his adherence to Skinner's principles in the preface to his programmed text. See Kelso, Charles D., Programmed Introduction to the Study of Law, Part I: Case Skills, Booklet, at iii (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1965).Google Scholar

5 Keeton, Robert, Programmed Problems in Insurance Law (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972).Google Scholar

6 See Crowder, Norman, Automatic Tutoring by Intrinsic Programming, in Lumsdaine, A. & Glaser, R., eds., Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning: A Source Book (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, Department of Audiovisual Instruction, 1960).Google Scholar

7 See appendix B for excerpts that illustrate Keeton's branching technique.Google Scholar

8 Kimball, Edward, Problems in Evidence (unpublished ms. 1977). West Publishing Company is planning to publish Kimball's workbook in 1978. Also, Professor Kimball has recently submitted a manuscript describing classroom experiments involving his workbook to the Journal of Legal Education for publication. Telephone conversation with Edward L. Kimball, Mar. 14, 1978.Google Scholar

9 See McKeachie, Wilbert J., Instructional Psychology, 25 Ann. Rev. Psych. 183, 186 (1974).Google Scholar

10 See id. at 186.Google Scholar

11 See Sassenrath, Julius, Effects of Delay of Feedback and Length of Postfeedback Interval on Retention of Prose Material, 9 Psych. Schools 194–97 (1972); Persis Sturgis, Information Delay and Retention: Effect of Information in Feedback and Tests, 63 J. Educ. Psych. 32–43 (1972); Richard Anderson, Raymond Kulhavy, & Thomas Andre, Feedback Procedures in Programmed Instruction, 62 J. Educ. Psych. 148–56 (1971).3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 See Anderson et al, supra note 11.Google Scholar

13 See Raymond Kulhavy & Richard Anderson, Delay-Retention Effect with Multiple-Choice Tests, 63 J. Educ. Psych. 505-12 (1972); Walker, E., Reinforcement-the One Ring, in Tapp, J. L., Reinforcement and Behavior (New York: Academic Press, 1969); Estes, W. K., Reinforcement in Human Behavior, 60 Am. Scientist 723-29 (1972).Google Scholar

14 See McKeachie, supra note 9, at 183.Google Scholar

15 In the 1960s, many of the authors of programmed learning materials were influenced by the operant conditioning theories of behavioral psychology. Using the stimulus-response-reinforcement paradigm as the model of the human learning process, they tended to emphasize the importance of immediate reinforcement and avoidance of errors. In this decade, increased numbers of instructional researchers have expanded the focus of their efforts to include the cognitive processes associated with teaching and learning. In part, perhaps as a response to the uncertainty that seemed to result from the behaviorally oriented research of the 1960s, more attention was directed toward the processes of acquisition, memory, and problem solving involved in complex, higher-order human behavior. To be sure, Bruner and Ausubel had argued for consideration of cognitively oriented views early in the 1960s, but their arguments had the greatest influence on the work of other researchers during the 1970s. See Bruner, Jerome, Toward a Theory of Instruction (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966); David Ausubel, The Psychology of Meaningful Verbal Learning (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1963). Clearly, most current instructional research reflects a concern for how and under what conditions the learner is processing the information to be learned, what and how the information learned is retained in memory, and how the information is used in later performances; that is, attention has been focused on the cognitive rather than the exclusively behavioral aspects of teaching and learning.Google Scholar

16 See McKeachie, supra note 9, at 187.Google Scholar

17 See Kulhavy, Raymond, Feedback in Written Instruction, 47 Rev. Educ. Res. 211-32 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 See McKeachie, supra note 9, at 187.Google Scholar

19 A demonstration of law-related CAI took place at the AALS conventions in 1965 and 1966 (see Kelso, Behavioral Psychology, supra note 2, at 333), but this material was never used in law school instruction. Subsequently the 1968 Committee on Teaching Methods of the AALS set out to create the first full-fledged CAI exercise on law. The result was an experimental civil procedure exercise by Arthur Miller, Layman Allen, and Prudence Abram. This exercise was demonstrated at a subsequent meeting of the AALS Teaching Methods section, and it is now available on the PLATO system of the University of Illinois.Google Scholar

20 See Peter Maggs & Thomas Morgan, Computer-Based Legal Education at the University of Illinois: A Report of Two Years' Experience, 27 J. Legal Educ. 138, 144-52 (1975).Google Scholar

21 A current list of the exercises available on the PLATO system may be obtained from Professor Peter B. Maggs, University of Illinois College of Law (Champaign).Google Scholar

22 A current list of the exercises available on the University of Minnesota computer may be obtained from Roger Park.Google Scholar

23 Kecton, Robert E., Child Injury-Torts (UMCC 1977).Google Scholar

At several points in this article (as here), we describe or quote from material that is in a computer's memory bank and that has not otherwise been published. In doing so, we will refer to the name of the computer exercise (here, “Child Injury-Torts”) and the location of a computer in which the exercise is stored. Citations to UMCC refer to the University of Minnesota Computer Center; citations to PLATO-Illinois refer to the PLATO computer system at the University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Computer exercises are constandy being revised, so some of the language quoted from particular exercises may have been changed before or after the publication of this article. Except where otherwise noted, references to computer exercises refer to the exercises as they were in the fall of 1977.Google Scholar

24 Park, Roger, Evidence (McCormick Version) (UMCC 1978).Google Scholar

25 See Park, Roger, Computer-Aided Exercises on Civil Procedure 115 (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1976)Google Scholar

26 Keeton, Robert E., Exercise on the Use of Intent in the Law of Torts (UMCC 1977).Google Scholar

27 Park, Roger, Jurisdiction and Venue (UMCC 1977).Google Scholar

28 See B. F. Skinner, Why We Need Teaching Machines, 31 Harv. Educ. Rev. 377, 394 (1961), reprinted in A. de Grazia & D. Sohn, Programs, Teachers, and Machines 61 (Bantam ed. 1964).Google Scholar

29 See McKeachie, supra note 9, at 186.Google Scholar

30 Morgan, Thomas D., Future Interests (PLATO-Illinois 1977).Google Scholar

31 See Park, Roger, Evidence (Casebook Version) (UMCC 1978); and his Evidence, supra note 24.Google Scholar

32 Harbaugh, Joseph D., Simulation on Lawyer Decision-Making (PLATO-Illinois 1977).Google Scholar

33 See Keeton, Robert E., Computer-Aided and Workbook Exercises on Tort Law (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1976). This book instructs the student to use the workbook for some problems (usually those that require narrative answers) and the computer for others. It is a carefully constructed attempt to take advantage of the strong points of each medium.Google Scholar

34 See Keeton, Robert E., Computer-Generated Intent Exercises (UMCC 1977); Morgan, supra note 30. Other exercises using the random-generation capacity include Jane Kelso & Charles Kelso, Counselling Programs (PLATO-lllinois 1977), and Peter B. Maggs, Offer and Acceptance-Problem of Communication (PLATO-Illinois 1977).Google Scholar

35 See Maggs & Morgan, supra note 20, at 142.Google Scholar

36 This exercise is tentatively entitled The Case of Martin and Long. It is now being programmed on the University of Minnesota computer.Google Scholar

37 See Maggs & Morgan, supra note 20, at 142, 143.Google Scholar

38 Two exercises by Charles Kelso make use of this capacity. See his Lawyer Ethics (PLATOIIlinois 1977) and his Effective Use of Feedback in the Classroom (PLATO-Illinois 1977).Google Scholar

39 The present authors are among those who are guilty of producing such material. In 1974, Park wrote an exercise that was primarily a drill in black-letter law, and he was aided and abetted in this endeavor by Burris. The current version of this exercise is Roger Park, Drill on Code of Professional Responsibility (UMCC 1978).Google Scholar

40 For example, the question whether a specific act of misconduct is admissible against a criminal defendant may require simultaneous consideration of Federal Rules of Evidence 403, 404, 405, 406, 608, and 609 as well as case law construing those rules.Google Scholar

41 See Frank, Jerome, Law and the Modern Mind 120 (New York-. Brentano's, 1930).Google Scholar

42 “We must know where logic and philosophy lead even though we may determine to abandon them for other guides. The times will be many when we can do no better than follow where they point.” Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 38 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1921).Google Scholar

43 Morgan, supra note 30; Maggs, supra note 34.Google Scholar

44 See the instructions on answering questions in Keeton, supra note 33, at v.Google Scholar

45 See Park, , supra note 25, at 72.Google Scholar

46 Park, Roger, Objection! (UMCC 1978).Google Scholar

47 See Maggs & Morgan, supra note 20, at 148, 149.Google Scholar

48 See Henn, Harry G. & Platt, Robert C., Computer-Assisted Law Instruction: Clinical Education's Bionic Sibling, 28 J. Legal Educ. 423, 435, 436 (1977).Google Scholar

49 Questionnaires were distributed to all students using the computer-based exercises at nine law schools as part of a pilot study conducted jointly by EDUCOM and the University of Minnesota's Consulting Group on Instructional Design. Tables showing the results of the analyses of the data from the 799 questionnaires returned are available from the Consulting Group on Instructional Design.Google Scholar

50 Park, Roger, Evidence (Casebook Version) (UMCC 1977); his Drafting the Complaint (UMCC 1977); and his Demurrers and Judgment on the Pleadings (UMCC 1977).Google Scholar

51 It should be pointed out that these data were collected as part of a formative, rather than summative, evaluation study of the exercises on the EDUCOM Network. That is, the data were collected as feedback to the instructors and authors to aid in revising the design of the courses and programs.Google Scholar

52 See Maggs & Morgan, supra note 20, at 150-51. Similar results were obtained in an unpublished study involving the students in Professor Park's civil procedure course during November 1974. Tables showing the analyses of the data collected in an evaluation questionnaire are available from the Consulting Group on Instructional Design.Google Scholar

53 Studies of student ratings of various resources for learning were carried out by the Consulting Group on Instructional Design in a number of courses at the University of Minnesota in beginning German, calculus, and art history during the period from 1972 through 1977. Analyses of the data from these studies are available from the Consulting Group on Instructional Design.Google Scholar

54 See Maggs & Morgan, supra note 20, at 147; Henn & Platt, supra note 48, at 434, 435.Google Scholar

55 See Maggs & Morgan, supra note 20, at 147.Google Scholar

56 See Henn & Platt, supra note 48, at 434, 435.Google Scholar

57 Recent statements of a number of experimental psychologists and educational researchers evaluating the fruitfulness of the social scientists' pursuit of laws of behavior over the past 30 years point out the discovery of unforeseen complex interactions among variables involving the individual and situation. See Jenkins, James, Why It Is Hard to Move from the Laboratory to the Classroom: A Four-Pointed Problem, paper presented at the American Psychological Association annual convention, San Francisco, Sept. 1977 (manuscript available from the Consulting Group on Instructional Design); Lee Cronbach, Beyond the Two Disciplines of Scientific Psychology, 30 Am. Psychologist 116-27 (1975)-, Wilbert McKeachie, The Decline and Fall of the Laws of Learning, 3 Educ. Researcher 7-11 (1974); Russell Burris, The “Field Plot” Model for Instructional Research in Higher Education, 10 Educ. Psychologist 107-11 (1973).Google Scholar

58 See Jenkins, , supra note 57; Cronbach, supra note 57; McKeachie, supra note 57; Burris, supra note 57.Google Scholar

Permission to reprint from A Programmed Introduction to the Study of Law, Part I: Case Skills, by Charles D. Kelso, copyright 1965 by the Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., granted by the publisher. All rights reserved.Google Scholar

59 Telephone conversation with Charles D. Kelso, Oct. 11, 1977.Google Scholar

60 See Kelso, , supra note 4, at iii; telephone interview with Charles Kelso, October 11, 1977.Google Scholar