Allison Martin, Clinical Professor of Law at IU McKinney
Introduction
This story is about my personal journey in creating a two-credit, asynchronous Conflict of Laws course. My focus is more on how building an asynchronous course is a bit more challenging than prepping for an in-person[1] course. The following are highlights of those challenges during my ten-month journey into the deep end of the asynchronous pool. I hope that my reflections will help prepare you should you ever find yourself standing at the same pool’s edge. It was wonderfully difficult, joyfully creative, and professionally rewarding. Let’s go back.
I. Opportunity Knocks . . . Twice
A. The Tap
Like many of us, I was tapped by administration to teach a new doctrinal course. This time around, the course was Conflict of Laws, a course that I loved way back in my law school days. Indiana had recently adopted the Uniform Bar Examination. Although Conflict of Laws issues are not tested as “stand-alone questions,” they are fair game when embedded within other Multistate Essay Exam topic areas.[2][MM1] The administration wanted to assure coverage by residential faculty for this especially now important area of law. The tap came mere moments after casually confessing my love at an unrelated meeting.
B. The Asynchronous Online Course Opportunity
Perhaps unlike many of us, however, at the same time, I was informed of the opportunity to build this course as an asynchronous online course. Asynchronous means “time-shifted.” In asynchronous courses, students and faculty are not together at the same time. Instead, faculty guide students through the course using an online learning management system, such as Canvas.[3] In contrast, synchronous online courses are those in which the faculty and students meet at the same time through some type of video conferencing platform, such as Zoom.[4]
Indiana University is a leader in online education. In 2012, it announced “IU Online,” a major strategic initiative for quality online education, which included funding to hire additional instructional designers.[5] A designer works closely with the faculty member to help with online pedagogy, technical expertise, and project management.[6] Importantly, they help to translate in-person teaching to asynchronous teaching. For example, although I might lecture for an hour in my physical classroom, asynchronous online teaching, if done well, involves far more than simply uploading a one-hour lecture. Our faculty members have been happy beneficiaries of these instructional designers.[7] Even if your university does not offer instructional designers, check out your university’s teaching and learning center; it can provide valuable assistance.
As luck would have it, this opportunity to build an asynchronous course came with a designated Online Instructional Designer from Indiana University’s eLearning Design and Services.[8]
- The Journey Begins
These two opportunities presented themselves in February 2021, and, as they say, the rest is history. Within two weeks, the faculty academic affairs committee had approved my teaching an asynchronous Conflict of Laws course in Fall 2021. Voila!
II. The Online Course Proposal Form
Years back, when tapped to teach in-person Professional Responsibility and Employment Law courses, I simply agreed and, with faculty approval, went about my business of creating the course. Unlike teaching in-person courses, however, teaching an online course typically requires a more rigorous type of review and approval to ensure that it complies with best practices and ABA distance and online education standards.[9] At my school, I was required to complete our Online Course Proposal Form[10] and submit it to the academic affairs committee for approval who, in turn, presented it to the faculty for approval.
Our law school form is not for the faint of heart. It requires the following information: course title; online interactivity category (e.g., online all, distance-hybrid, etc.); type of students eligible to take the course; prerequisites; faculty member’s prior online experience, if any; course description and materials; assessments mapped to learning outcomes; grade structure; extent of any instructional design assistance; how the online course will be conducted; how the course design ensures that it meets specific ABA standards; classroom policies; and syllabus.
Because of these required details up front, the course build had to begin at this early stage, which, for me, was about six months before I taught my first class. Because I have taught two other asynchronous courses, I was able to complete the form in approximately one week. I was already familiar with the interactivity category, assessment tools, general learning outcomes, the grade structure, and online classroom policies.
For me, the hardest part was the syllabus because Conflicts was a new prep. Even if one is familiar with the course materials, though, if one has never taught an asynchronous course, the form requirements, especially those related to assessments mapped to learning outcomes,[11] grade structure,[12] and meeting ABA Standard 310,[13] will likely take longer.
In particular, providing evidence to meet ABA Standard 310 was challenging for me. Standard 310 requires a total of 750 minutes (50 minutes times 15 weeks) of instruction and 1800 minutes (120 minutes times 15 weeks) of out-of-class work per credit hour awarded.[14] I had never before dissected course minutes. In the in-person world, for a two-credit course, one would assign appropriate reading and assignments, and students would come to the classroom for two hours a week. In the asynchronous world, however, counting time is more complicated.[15] The students are never in the physical classroom. Ultimately, I counted the time to complete reading, quizzes, writing assignments, discussion boards, videos, synchronous office hours, and the final exam. It took more time and math skills than one might anticipate.[16]
III. Relearn, Create, Build, Release, Repeat
After completing the form and receiving approval, I quickly discovered that my task of building an asynchronous course had five stages: (1) relearn the subject matter; (2) create course materials; (3) build the course site with those materials; (4) release the content to the students; and (5) repeat.
A. Relearning Conflict of Laws
The real joy began with relearning Conflict of Laws.[17] My love for the area was reaffirmed. This stage would have been the same regardless of whether I taught in-person or asynchronously.
What surprised me, however, was how Conflict of Laws seemed perfectly suited for an asynchronous course. My focus was mostly on choice of law. The overarching issue typically remains the same: whose law applies? From there, we examined different approaches to solving that issue. The subject matter, thus, can be presented in a somewhat linear way as we march through the different approaches to choice of law. The area also has a good amount of black letter law along with many cases and leaves plenty of room for application through hypotheticals and problem sets.[18] The subject matter just seemed to flow well in the asynchronous world.
B. Creating Course Materials
Creating course materials for an asynchronous course is a bit more daunting than for in-person courses. For starters, for each week’s material, you must create multiple lectures, not just one. Consistent with best practices, the videos were no longer than 20 minutes each,[19] often “chunking” them by topic or cases.[20] After creating the videos, I created that week’s quizzes, which were intended to test whether they were reading, watching, and understanding; I had not before created quizzes for my in-person courses, though I might now. Then, after creating the quizzes, I created hypotheticals for that week’s material. At the end of each unit of study, I also created problem sets.
Because the materials needed to be built into the Canvas course, they needed to be created long before releasing them to the students. Gone were the last-minute preps completed moments before stepping into the classroom. Notably, some of the course build could be done independently, such as course graphics, banners, and the skeletal structure. Most of it, however, could not happen until after I had created the course materials.
To further complicate timing, I had about six months to create as much material as I could before the course began. Meanwhile, my teaching and service loads remained the same, even teaching an overload in both the summer and fall semesters. Moreover, even if one already knows the subject matter, building an asynchronous course simply takes an enormous amount of time.[21] By mid-August, I had created and built out six weeks of the course. Though pleased to have gotten that far, I now had the daunting task of teaching the course while relearning, creating, building, and releasing, which was less than ideal.
Having anticipated early on that I would not be able to complete all of the course materials by mid-August, I made an important adjustment to my videos. Instead of using our professional campus studio, as I had done for two prior asynchronous courses, I used my home “studio,” which doubles as a guest bedroom. There was just no way to find time to go back and forth to the studio, especially after fall classes began. But I still wanted to be consistent and professional.
My background for every video was the same: simple and clean. I chose not to use any green screen or zoom options, which often appear artificial to me. Similarly, I did not use a teleprompter, which is more natural for me. To enhance video consistency and professionalism, for every lecture video, I chose the same PowerPoint background, design, and jazzy tune. The background was simple; the design for the first PowerPoint slide showed a chess match, which I thought was appropriate for a Conflicts course. Because jazz makes me happy, I chose the same jazzy introductory tune to begin every video.
I also incorporated a few guest lectures from a Conflict of Laws expert.[22] He had already created excellent videos in Panopto,[23] a video platform, related to forum shopping and the Erie doctrine. It was easy to link to them in Canvas. The students enjoyed the guest lectures as both informative and a welcomed break from listening to me. They saved me some time to boot. Everyone benefited.
C. Building the Course Site with My Materials[KR2]
As mentioned earlier, I was fortunate to work one-on-one with an instructional designer. We met on Zoom for one hour every week from March through December 2021. She had no knowledge of Conflict of Laws, although she surely does now.
While both of us worked on uploading material on Canvas, her role was critical when it came to deciding the best vehicle for offering the material in the asynchronous world. We saved those discussions for our weekly meetings, which often consisted of my explaining what I would want to do in the physical classroom and her translating that into the asynchronous world. Here are two examples of our successful collaboration while trying to build the course site with my materials.
1. Discussion Boards with Powtoons
Early in the process, I explained to her how I would have taught the different approaches to choice of law in the classroom. Hypotheticals were particularly important to require students to identify issues and analyze different fact patterns. If I were standing in the classroom, I would ask hypotheticals in many ways, including calling on individual students or organizing student groups to discuss and report back to the class. How could I recreate this learning experience in the asynchronous world?
After brainstorming, my designer and I decided to employ discussion boards[24] and, for more engagement and fun, to make hypotheticals come to life using “Powtoon, the visual communication platform.”[25] It allows one to “create professional and fully customizable videos your audience will love”; we chose to create animated videos.[26] Powtoon also interfaces with Canvas, making it an easy platform choice.
The discussion boards were designed so that students must post an answer before seeing other students’ responses, which is similar to calling on individual students.[27] I limited responses to 50-150 words and graded the assignment as complete/incomplete. After posting, students could then see other students’ posts and were required to comment on at least one other student’s post, which is similar to what would have been the in-class group work. They were allowed to “like” posts, too, meaning that they read and liked the student’s post.
Each hypothetical was uploaded on a discussion board. The designer then created a short Powtoon video to animate in a somewhat comical way whatever tort, contract, or property dispute was at issue. The Powtoon videos were typically less than 30 seconds. They had music, too, and the written hypothetical was reproduced within the video. We had so much fun with this tool that we often ended each weekly meeting watching a new Powtoon video.
One important note about discussion boards and posts. Providing a sample discussion board and sample post up front helps students understand your expectations.[28] I provided these samples in the “Resources for this Course” module at the beginning of the course and linked to it within each discussion board.
2. Optional Q&A Discussion Boards
With any new course prep, I always worry that I might not be as clear as I am with the subject matter that I’ve taught for years. And mistakes can be made, especially the first time around. These concerns were amplified because teaching in the asynchronous world does not allow me to see my students’ faces, which often inform me if they understand or if something is amiss. After another brainstorming session, my designer and I decided to create an optional Q&A discussion board at the end of each weekly module.
Students were invited to post questions; I promised to respond within 48 hours, but typically responded sooner. Even if students did not post on the board, they were encouraged to check back periodically during the week to see other posts.
The Q&A boards worked well. Students used them to help clarify course materials. On a few occasions, they used them to point out a typo, which one must expect when presenting an asynchronous course for the first time. Alternatively, instead of using the Q&A board, some more reticent students emailed me privately with questions. Although my response to them was private, I also posted their questions anonymously on the Q&A board with my response, allowing all students to benefit.
D. Releasing
Release dates are relatively simple in the in-person world. We control the release of course materials with our syllabi and class meetings. When they come to class on Monday, for example, we discuss Topic X.
In contrast, in the asynchronous world, students are able to work at their own pace to a certain extent, which students really appreciate. I’ve learned from my other asynchronous course that students care about the timing of content release. Students with demanding schedules often tend to be the same students who enroll in asynchronous courses. Because of their schedules, they prefer to be able to work ahead, if needed. Consistency from week to week is also important to them.
As a result, I needed to decide from the very beginning when to release each week’s course module containing the content. I settled on three full days before the next week’s module technically began. For example, Week 2 ran from Monday, 8/23, to Sunday, 8/29, at 11:59 p.m. The course content was, thus, made available to students at 12:00 a.m. on Friday, 8/20. This timing provided an extra weekend for students to complete the weekly module, which they appreciated.[29] Of course, it also meant that my weekly modules had to be ready no later than each Thursday. Toward the end of the semester, it was sometimes a real push.
E. Repeating
I confess that the semester was a bit of a grind. I created the course week by week. Even though I started the semester with six weeks under my belt, keeping up with the new course materials and building while teaching that particular week’s module required me to continually refresh myself with the materials at hand, especially since this course was a new prep. After all, some of the earlier material (Weeks 1-6, for example), I had created months beforehand. Notably, when I say “teaching” a particular week’s module, although the video lectures were complete, I was still teaching by responding to questions, responding to discussion board posts, and grading. Even a well-designed asynchronous course does not run itself; interaction is critical.[30]
IV. Assessment and Grade Scheme
For those who love grading only a final exam, the asynchronous world may not be ideal. Assessment typically occurs throughout the course to ensure student engagement.[31] As a result, a final exam may not be worth 100% of the grade.
Whatever grade scheme the professor prefers, it must somehow accommodate formative assessments throughout the course. A colleague counts formative assessments as attendance, and her final exam is still worth 100%. In contrast, I chose the following grade scheme: 15% for discussion boards; 10% for problem sets; 20% for quizzes; and 55% for the final exam. For the formative assessments, students had to complete discussion boards and quizzes every week; the problem sets were used as capstones to end a particular unit of study.
As for the final exam, unfortunately, I will never again be able to use my Fall 2021 exam. At my law school, students enrolled in asynchronous courses have a reasonable expectation that the exam will be delivered online. If I choose to require students to come to the building to take the final exam, I must make that policy clear from the beginning to provide adequate notice. Unfortunately, I did not make this policy clear; in fact, I had naively assured an out-of-town student before class began that the exam would be online. Only later did I realize that if my final exam is online, there are no mechanisms to ensure security other than the honor code. Next time around, I will reconsider.
Formative assessments throughout the course worked well. To help with the grading volume, the discussion boards were graded as complete/incomplete. SpeedGrader[32] is a good Canvas tool for helping with this grading. It allows you to move from post to post and grade as you go; the grade is automatically uploaded into the gradebook. In addition to providing brief comments on each post, I posted a sample answer on the discussion board after the deadline.[33] As for quizzes, Canvas automatically grades and uploads those grades into the gradebook, which is a valuable time saver.
Most of my problem sets were graded by points; a grading rubric for each set was provided to students beforehand.[34] After each deadline, I posted an announcement with a video answer to the problem set. I also made individual comments on each one. Group work was also a time saver.
A few words to the wise about online group work. If you require it, I learned that Google Docs[35] is a great tool. Students are familiar with it. It does not require them to meet at the same time. Instead, it allows them to view, edit, or comment on documents, and their changes are identified and saved automatically. Google Docs also allows me to see which students participated, which helps me to determine if students are meaningfully participating.
In addition, through the years, I’ve learned that law students are generally not fans of group work. As a result, I added language to help them understand why I was asking them to work in groups: “Working in groups will give you the opportunity to have richer discussions and justification for your answers. Talk it out. Include these discussions in your Google Doc.” In addition, I had been forewarned by a colleague[36] to give online students more time to complete group assignments than individual ones because of students’ varying schedules. Heeding this advice, I also set recommended benchmarks to try to keep the groups on task, though I did not oversee the completion of each benchmark. The students seemed to work well in groups.
Lastly, I incorporated a peer review assignment in which each student wrote an answer to a hypothetical one week and then reviewed another student’s writing the following week.[37] Before students reviewed their peers, they were required to watch my video explaining the answer. Again, I provided a grading rubric to guide the students’ reviews.[38] The peer reviews, themselves, were graded as complete/incomplete. But student reviewers provided valuable feedback in the comment box on SpeedGrader. Deadlines for completion over the two-week period helped for clarity and to keep them on task.
Conclusion
What a journey! I learned so much about asynchronous education and certainly brushed up on my Conflicts knowledge in the process.
But what about my students? Because Indiana University has been a leader in online education, many of our law students have taken multiple asynchronous law courses, created and taught by outstanding faculty members, making our students experienced and shrewd online consumers.
To my delight, the student evaluations were overwhelmingly positive. One student commented, “While purely online courses can sometimes feel less personal/engaging than in-person classes, this was simply not the case with Professor Martin. I absolutely loved her lecture videos and found them to be very insightful and helpful.” Other comments included how the course was “logically structured,” how much the student “enjoyed [my] demeanor,” and how I made the “material interesting.”
After looking back, I must say that if you ever find yourself standing at the edge of that asynchronous pool, like I was back in February 2021, I highly recommend that you dive in headfirst. Hopefully, these lessons will help you swim more proficiently.
[1] I am defining “in-person” to mean inside the physical classroom with students.
[2] See https://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=%2Fdmsdocument%2F227 (subject matter outline) (last visited Mar. 17, 2022). There is a next generation uniform bar exam coming in five years or so. “In January 2021, the NCBE Board of Trustees approved the Testing Task Force’s recommendations to ensure that the next generation of the bar exam continues to test the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for competent entry-level legal practice in a changing profession.” NextGen, NextGen Bar Exam Content Scope and Sample Questions, Nat’l Conf. of Bar Exam’rs, https://nextgenbarexam.ncbex.org/ (last visited Mar. 17, 2022). These recommendations exclude Conflict of Laws issues on the exam.
[3] Canvas, https://www.instructure.com/canvas (last visited Mar. 28, 2022). My law school uses Canvas as its online learning management system.
[4] Zoom, https://zoom.us/ (last visited Mar. 28, 2022). My law school uses Zoom as a video conferencing platform.
[5] IU News Room, Indiana University announces IU Online, a Major New Online Education Initiative, Ind. Univ. (Sept. 5, 2012), https://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/23061.html.
[6] My colleague, Professor Max Huffman, estimates that designers are 30% technical expert, 30% pedagogical expert, and 40% project manager.
[7] Yvonne Dutton & Seema Mohapatra, COVID-19 and Law Teaching: Guidance on Developing an Asynchronous Online Course for Law Students, 65 St. Louis U. L.J. 471, 489–90 (Spring 2021) (both authors also benefited from instructional design consultants). For a complete description of IU McKinney’s online teaching journey, including our faculty’s use of instructional designers, see Max Huffman, Online Learning Grows Up-And Heads to Law School, 49 Ind. L. Rev. 57, 70–75 (2015).
[8] An enormous thank you to Erin Tock, my instructional designer.
[9] ABA Standard 306 in 2019-2020 provided that “credit [for distance education] shall be awarded only if the academic content, the method of course delivery, and the method of evaluating student performance are approved as part of the school’s regular curriculum approval process.” ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Am. Bar Ass’n 19 (Nov. 2019), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/standards/2019-2020/2019-2020-aba-standards-and-rules-of-procedure.pdf. Although the ABA reserved and deleted Standard 306 in 2020-2021 in response to the pandemic, it is currently contemplating a new version, focusing on “regular and substantive interaction between students and faculty teaching the course.” Standards and Rule Amendments Approved by the Council at its February 2022 Meeting, Am. Bar Ass’n 1 (Feb. 2022), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/feb22/22-feb-standards-rules-amendments.pdf. Presumably, a school’s regular curriculum approval process would still be necessary to review the contemplated interaction. Further, my law school policies require that faculty approve a course as a distance education course before being allowed to teach it.
[10] See Appendix A. This form was created by Professor Max Huffman, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney’s Director of Online Learning. Thank you, Max, for allowing me to share it.
[11] To learn more about bespoke (or backward) design and a template, which is used to help set learning objectives and match them with assessments, see Max Huffman, Online Learning Grows Up-And Heads to Law School, 49 Ind. L. Rev. 57, 74–75 (2015).
[12] See discussion infra, Section V.
[13] American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Am. Bar Ass’n, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/standards/2021-2022/2021-2022-aba-standards-and-rules-of-procedure.pdf (last visited Mar. 19, 2022) [hereinafter ABA Standards].
[14] Id.
[15] Huffman, supra note 7, at 68 (noting that counting minutes of instruction is more complicated for asynchronous courses). Professor Huffman stated,
“Asynchronous online courses are not amenable to a [in-person] simple calculation. [T]he techniques for asynchronous teaching involve less pure content dissemination and more attention to course design. Equating class time with particular design elements is a process that belies the bespoke nature of the design process.” Id.
[16] Id. (noting that counting minutes of instruction is more complicated for asynchronous courses).
[17] Thank you to the two greatest mentors of all time, James Pfander, Owen L. Coon Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, and Professor Carol Andrews, retired Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law, for generously sharing course materials with me.
[18] Dutton & Mohapatra, supra note 7, at 489 (“[W]e have colleagues who have taught large “black letter law” courses such as Trusts and Estates and Professional Responsibility very successfully using the asynchronous format.”); Yvonne Dutton, Margaret Ryznar, & Kayleigh Long, Assessing Online Learning in Law Schools: Students Say Online Classes Deliver, 96 Denv. L. Rev. 493, 524 (Spring 2019) (quoting a student: “[W]hat I have enjoyed about online classes is that most of them have some sort of application portion for each lesson.”); Kenneth R. Swift, The Seven Principles for Good Practice in [Asynchronous Online] Legal Education, 44 Mitchell Hamline L. Rev. 105, 125–26 (2018) (determining that case method in online learning works well, though different from Socratic method).
[19] Dutton & Mohapatra, supra note 7, at 494 (explaining that consistent with best practices, videos should be “no longer than 10-20 minutes”).
[20] Id. (chunking of videos “eases the cognitive load on students,” “tends to promote learning,” and allows students to “more easily locate any material that they may wish to review in more detail, without having to search for that material in a long lecture”); Dutton, Ryznar, & Long, supra note 18, at 526–57 (from the students’ perspective, “’chunking’ the videos makes it easier for [them] to do their work—they can watch short, focused videos on specific topics”).
[21] Dutton & Mohapatra, supra note 7, at 490 (estimating that “designing a high-quality asynchronous online course . . . requires at least six-months of steady work” or “between 200-300 hours of work”). Notably, this estimation does not include time spent prepping a new course.
[22] James E. Pfander, Owen L. Coon Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. Fittingly, Professor Pfander taught me Conflicts back in my law school days at University of Illinois College of Law, inspiring my love for the subject matter.
[23] Panopto, https://www.panopto.com/ (last visited Mar. 18, 2022). Panopto is a video platform that easily interfaces with Canvas and other Learning Management Systems.
[24] Huffman, supra note 7, at 77–82 (explaining how “asynchronous online discussion boards are highly effective” and excellent tools to incorporate “student-to-student engagement”).
[25] Powtoon, https://www.powtoon.com (last visited Mar. 18, 2022).
[26] Create Your Own Animated Videos with Powtoon, Powtoon, https://www.powtoon.com/create/animated-videos (last visited Mar. 18, 2022).
[27] See Swift, supra note 18, at 125–26 (finding that although not quite a socratic dialogue because a student is not put on the spot, his asynchronous case method is an important form of active learning and removes the “lack of attention” factor); Huffman, supra note 7, at 78 (“By removing the time constraints on student responses, asynchronous online teaching undermines the Socratic dialogue exercise entirely”; however, the author later points to discussion boards as opportunities for interactive learning and participation by otherwise reticent students in the classroom). Because students have time to contemplate before posting, their comments may be more fully considered and therefore more thoughtful.” Id. I also note that in my in-person doctrinal courses, students know which day they will be “on call,” removing the truly socratic-method surprise and allowing them an opportunity to contemplate the material ahead of class.
[28] Dutton & Mohapatra, supra note 7, at 492–93 (according to student focus groups, students appreciate “clear signals from the professor about what was expected of them and when it was expected”).
[29] See id. at 493 (explaining that they opened their course modules two weeks in advance to allow students to work ahead and see information about upcoming weeks). Now that my course has been created, I will consider opening it two weeks in advance in the future.
[30] Proposed ABA Standard 306 provides even more details about the type of required interactions, both regular and substantive, in distance education courses. (last visited March 28, 2022).
[31] ABA’s Standard 314 requires “both formative and summative assessment methods.” ABA Standards, supra note 13, at 24. With respect to asynchronous courses, specifically, see Margaret Ryznar, Assessing Law Students, 51 Ind. L. Rev. 447, 449 (2018) (explaining how “closely linked” law student assessment and online asynchronous education are); Margaret Ryznar and Yvonne Dutton, Lighting a Fire: The Power of Intrinsic Motivation in Online Teaching, 70 Syracuse L. Rev. 73, (2020) (summarizing results of their study about students in asynchronous courses finding that students liked weekly formative assessments to keep them on track with course material and get regular feedback”).
[32] What is SpeedGrader?, Instructure, https://community.canvaslms.com/t5/Canvas-Basics-Guide/What-is-SpeedGrader/ta-p/13 (last visited on Mar. 18, 2022).
[33] Dutton & Mohapatra, supra note 7, at 486–87 (describing the use of samples for student self-assessment and peer assessment).
[34] Id. at 499 (discussing the use of grade rubrics); Huffman, supra note 7, at 80–81 (explaining that grade rubrics provide “some objectivity to the grading and helps to set student expectations”).
[35] Google Docs, https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/ (last visited on Mar. 18, 2022).
[36] Thank you, Professor Yvonne Dutton, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.
[37] Swift, supra note 18, at 134 (discussing “proven group learning techniques,” such as peer reviews); Huffman, supra note 7, at 77 incorporating “student-to-student engagement through . . . peer reviews of classmates’ work”).
[38] Dutton & Mohapatra, supra note 7, at 487 (pointing out that using rubrics in peer review exercises helps students focus on “certain components of the submission”).
Indiana Law Review 