Welcome to the latest edition of NASJE News! Special thanks go to the new co-editors, Jo Deyo and John Newell. They, along with the members of the newsletter committee, will follow the trail of excellence that Phil Schopick blazed for many years. The committee has a long history of keeping NASJE members informed of issues and trends that affect our profession. I have no doubt in the coming year, they will add to that legacy.
NASJE President Marty Sullivan
In the coming weeks, your regional directors will be announcing various webcasts, conference calls, and perhaps a mid-year meeting in one or two regions. Their goal is to give you tips, tools, resources, and a place for discussion to help make your job easier and more fulfilling. You also will be hearing from various committees soon that continue to work toward our goal of year-round membership education. I urge all newer NASJE members to get involved as much as possible. The NASJE network is truly a giving one.
Christy Tull and the Curriculum Committee continue to do an outstanding job developing and promoting the model curriculum project. NASJE is deeply grateful for the financial support provided by SJI for this important work. NASJE members who attended the annual conference in Boston have received a copy of the second installment of the Curriculum design. For members unable to attend the conference, a copy will be mailed to you soon. It will also be available for download on our NASJE members only portion of the website.
I’m proud to announce the creation of the Fairness and Diversity Education Core Competency Ad Hoc Committee. This committee of truly remarkable individuals will be led by Joseph Sawyer. I have asked the committee to develop a model curriculum for a twelfth NASJE core competency area on the issue of access, fairness, and diversity issues. Hopefully, this twelfth core competency can be unveiled at our upcoming 2013 annual conference, which will be held in my home city of Little Rock, Arkansas.
The Fundraising Committee was overwhelmed by the show of support for our newly announced Endowment Fund. We received a great number of contributions and pledges from our membership at the annual conference in Boston. Expect to hear more from the Fundraising Committee soon.
It is important to stress that NASJE is an all-volunteer organization. We depend and rely on each other to come up with creative solutions to common problems. It is remarkable the amount of work done by the various committees which keeps NASJE at the cutting edge of judicial branch education issues. For all of you, I am thankful and humbled to serve as your president for the coming year.
In November 2011, the NASJE News “Cutting Edge” section highlighted the launch of the Mental Competency – Best Practices Model website (www.mentalcompetency.org) by the National Judicial College (NJC) through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Since November of 2011, the NJC has conducted three two-hour webcasts addressing a variety of mental competency issues. Recordings of these webcasts are available for free at Mental Competency – Best Practices Model website as well as at http://www.judges.org/webcasts/recorded/index.html.
Recently, the Mental Competency Blog on the Mental Competency – Best Practices Model website (http://www.mentalcompetency.org/blog/) has been going strong, providing a valuable and dynamic resource in mental competency issues. Additionally, the NJC has launched a Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/MentalCompetency) and a Twitter account (http://twitter.com/MentalComp) for the Mental Competency – Best Practices Model.
For further information, visit the website at www.mentalcompetency.org, or contact the National Judicial College at (800) 25-JUDGE, or e-mail at competency@judges.org.
In June of 2009, employees of the Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts gathered to hear the news about state budget cuts. Within minutes, State Administrator for the Courts Jeff Hall relayed that the money for the Presiding Judges conference had been eliminated from the budget. The Washington Court Education Services team had to figure out how to provide appropriate learning opportunities for this important group. The answer came a few months later when the State Justice Institute provided a grant of $25,000 to fund a test of a blended learning model for the courts. This grant took advantage of resources already on hand at the Washington AOC: Skilled educators, well-established processes, and the newly acquired web-conferencing system Adobe Connect Pro and associated eLearning software Adobe Presenter to help solve the problem of diminishing budgets.
In this article, you will find a definition of blended learning, a description of the grant project, an outline of web-based learning capabilities used, and lessons learned for future blended learning projects.
What constitutes blended learning? According to the Sloan Consortium, blended learning consists of courses or programs in which 30%-79% of the learning is offered online while the rest is face-to-face (Allen, Seaman, and Garrett, p. 5). To test a blended model for our courts, we envisioned three blended learning series consisting of 2-3 electronic learning modules and one single or part day face-to-face module. Using this model, travel could be limited to one day for most participants, hotel and meal costs could be drastically limited, topics could still be dealt with in some depth, while still providing some time for networking and collegiality.
The Education Team proposed the creation of three (later increased to four) iterations of a blended learning model. For the electronic learning modules we combined either webinars, which are live (synchronous) instructor led sessions, or self-paced eLearning (asynchronous) sessions, followed by a face-to-face session conceived of as a capstone event. Important to the plan was the idea that all sessions needed to be interrelated and interactive, with ideas and concepts building on the ones previously taught. The face-to-face session was designed to allow the opportunity to synthesize, analyze, and evaluate the learning from the web-based events to create a tangible product learners could use. We used the word “product” very loosely to mean anything from action plans, forms, bench cards, and checklists to skills acquisition through role plays, discussion groups, coaching and the like. We wanted our face-to-face events to be used to enhance education in ways that are difficult to reproduce in web-based sessions.
We designed our first iteration of the model for the presiding judges and their court administrators. With budget development as the topic, we presented two live webinars that talked about leadership, relationships, and processes both within and outside of the courts. We recorded the webinars for future viewing by those unable to attend the live event. The self-paced module consisted of a nuts and bolts approach to budget controls and performance monitoring, complete with exercises for practice. The last event, a face-to-face symposium, brought together judges and administrators to share concerns and ideas with elected and appointed officials from the executive and legislative branches of Washington State and local government.
The second iteration, for courthouse facilitators, had a similar design, although the three electronic modules were more sequential than in the budget series. The facilitators learned and practiced techniques on the topic of Temperaments and Dealing with Difficult People.
In the third iteration, we combined several traditional teaching methods with electronic learning modalities. With Search and Seizure as the topic, participants completed a reading and self-test, answered discussion questions, considered hypothicals and participated in a live discussion via web-conference for each of four learning modules. Learners accessed all parts of the series through an Adobe Connect curriculum which served as an online “one-stop” shop.
Developing and teaching in the blended model proved to be so cost-effective that we were able to apply to SJI to continue the model testing with grant funds so far unused. Our fourth iteration is underway, and considers the topic Procedural Fairness. It is organized quite differently, and involves reading an article and completing a web-based court self-assessment, attending a live conference session with national speaker Judge Kevin Burke, participating in a webinar with Washington judges as facilitators, and completing the self-assessment a second time to gauge improvement. As can be seen from the contents of the learning series, the modalities used to present learning modules evolved with practice, and the order different modalities occurred varied as time went on.
This evolution occurred for several reasons. First of all, we learned as we practiced and tested to add different methods to our repertoire. Thus, by round three, we had added readings, self-tests and discussion groups to the web-sessions, and used those sessions like a classroom discussion instead of a lecture. By round four, we added a web-based self-assessment designed to be completed twice and to function as a self pre-test and post-test for individual judges or courts.
Thus, we arrive at lesson number one for creating blended learning: choose the modality to suit the learning objectives, not the other way around. Always choose the most effective means to teach your learning objectives. If, for example, the material requires working with content, not people, a self-paced module might be perfect. If your audience needs to access the information at their own pace, or at any time, self-paced is a good choice. If coaching is involved, face-to-face may be best. Wikis, threaded discussions, blogs and many other tools can be used. The possibilities are many, but the modality used should fit your learning objectives.
Lesson number two: Whichever modality is chosen the learning needs to be interactive. As defined in Michael Allen’s Guide to e-Learning, instructional interactivity is “interaction that actively stimulates the learner’s mind to do those things that improve ability and readiness to perform effectively” (Allen, p. 94). This can be particularly challenging with self-paced learning, where there isn’t a live instructor. In a self-paced design, a read and click module will likely put learners to sleep. Strive to create modules where learners have to make decisions and choices through scenario based learning or simulations. For webinars, a talking head will drive learners directly to their email or other work. Create opportunities for interaction through polling, status checks, the chat pod, and in smaller sessions, by opening the microphone to audience members. Experts advise an interaction anywhere from every 3-5 minutes to every 6-7 minutes (Hofmann, p. 12).
In addition to interactivity, ensure all the elements of your blend are coordinated. This is lesson number three. If for example you require a self-paced lesson prior to learners attending a classroom event, devise a way to make sure they have completed the module on time. Do not teach over again something you expect learners to know before they arrive in your classroom. You will frustrate those who did the work ahead of time, enable those who don’t, and waste valuable teaching time in unneeded review. By the same token, allow learners to skip parts of a series they already know (Allen, p. 88). For example, if a judge has worked extensively on a particular kind of case, why should she have to read the case again to advance through your curriculum? A quiz could work as a “test-out” and allow the learner to move on.
Lesson four, make sure the technology works. Quizzes, pre-work, webinars, job aids, whatever your modality, it should function the way you expect it to. Things that function well at a central location with powerful servers and excellent internet capabilities do not necessarily work in a remote location. For example, we stopped using webcams in our webinars because while audio usually works fine, video takes a lot of bandwidth and can be problematic. Screen resolution and older software can also be issues. Sometimes it is the computer user who is the problem. Be flexible, try modules on computers away from your system, and test, test, test. That said, don’t be afraid to make use of technology because it might not work. If you do your homework, you will likely find a solution and be successful.
Lesson five also has to do with success, and the lesson is be patient! You will find resistance to learning online among your clients. Gradually increase your offerings, teaching their use and publicizing them carefully. Guide your learners to accept that online learning can be just as effective as face-to-face learning by producing excellent learning modules in appropriate modalities. It will take time. We have found more judges are beginning to participate in webinars and there is greater acceptance of web-conferencing for meetings. Our court staffers often prefer self-paced modules because they can do them at their own pace when they have time. You won’t persuade everyone right away, but with time, solid learning opportunities, interactive modules, and well-coordinated events, you will eventually build your audience.
You not only have to convince your audience, you also have to convince your faculty. Lesson six is train your faculty for their new role. For a self-paced module, they may fill the role of subject-matter expert while you do instructional design, while for a webinar, they should act more like a facilitator than a talking head. In a December 2010 Adobe event, trainer Ken Molay of Webinar Success provides valuable insights about presenting webinars in a recording called “Training Webinars 101”. A more advanced lesson on facilitating webinars comes from author Cynthia Clay in “Great Webinars: Crossing the Chasm to High-Performance Virtual Delivery”, sponsored by the eLearning Guild and recorded February 2, 2012. Consider asking your faculty facilitators to watch Mr. Molay’s presentation first, and as they build confidence, move them to Ms. Clay’s presentation. Follow the blogs from various eLearning publications to improve your skills and your faculty’s skills in this domain.
Lesson seven is money talks, and as long as you have a web-conferencing system and eLearning development software, it can be cheaper to produce a blended learning event, or any online event, than face-to-face training. Given the choice between no training and eLearning due to lack of funding, our audience chose eLearning. We limited travel time and expense by holding our face-to-face events in locations easily accessible to large numbers of learners. In addition to fewer travel expenses, our webinars and self-paced events limit time away from the office and make learning more accessible.
It is not easy to persuade judicial branch clients of the value of these new ways of learning. It takes research, planning, testing, coordination, and a new skill set to successfully put together blended learning events, or any online learning event. It might provide perspective if you keep these numbers in mind as you tackle the topic: approximately 5.6 million U.S. college and university students enrolled in one or more online courses in the fall of 2009, reflecting a 21% increase in online enrollment compared to only a 2% increase in overall student population in the same period (Allen and Seaman, p. 8). College and university administrators predict continued growth in this sector. These students represent our future court employees, lawyers, judges, and educators. Soon, I believe we will find our learners demanding online learning opportunities from us.
Is blended learning always the best solution? No, not always, but appropriately planned and implemented, it can be the best approach in many situations.
References
1. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., and Garrett, R. (2007) Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Education in the United States, Sloan Consortium.
2. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J. (2010). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States 2010, Babson Survey Research Group.
3. Allen, M. (2008). Guide to e-Learning, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Hofmann, J., (2011). “Top 10 Challenges of Blended Learning,” Training Magazine p. 10-12.
***** Nancy F. Smith joined the team at the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in September 2008 as a Court Education Professional. She has worked in education for most of her career, including 14 years as a teacher at the community college and secondary levels in Tucson, Arizona. Prior to moving to the AOC, she assisted the Deans of Curriculum at the Evergreen State College in Olympia planning and producing the curriculum for Evergreen’s full-time programs. In a past life, she spent four years as an Army Intelligence Officer.
At the AOC, Ms. Smith supports the Appellate Judges, County Clerks, Presiding Judges and District and Municipal Court Judges Education Committees. In addition, she enjoys running the Institute for New Court Employees in the fall. In June of 2010, Ms. Smith completed a certificate in Electronic Learning Design and Development at the University of Washington. She has organized a variety of webinar and self-paced learning modules for different groups supported by the AOC. In 2009, Ms. Smith was awarded a grant from the State Justice Institute to establish a model for blended learning (combining e-learning with face-to-face learning) for Washington Courts.
Ms. Smith has broad experience in multi-cultural education, and has traveled widely in the United States and abroad. A French linguist, she earned her bachelor’s degree from the College of William and Mary in Virginia, and her master’s in French Language and Literature from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Brussels, Belgium. She is a certified community college and secondary teacher. She also studied Spanish at the University of Arizona.
For many years, The National Judicial College (NJC) has heard from judges about the unavailability of education for judges who have been recently elected or appointed. These judges often take the bench without any formal education other than a briefing from their future court clerks. To remedy this gap in education, the NJC created an online, self-study course for newly elected or appointed general jurisdiction judges to educate them about their new role.
The course will take a judge between seven and nine hours to complete, and it includes readings, and interactive quizzes, videos and case studies. The NJC advertised the free course to chief justices, state court administrators and state judicial educators. The NJC created the course with funding from the State Justice Institute (SJI) and NJC’s Pillars of Justice Fund. The course consists of a Welcome to the Course, Modules 1-4, Acknowledgments, and Help/Resources.
Welcome to the Course provides introductory information about the course. It also includes a short video from one of the developers. The four modules are:
Transition from the bar to the bench;
In the courtroom: explores the role of a judge in the courtroom and what new judges can expect;
Behind the scenes: explores the work that a judge does in chambers that even trial lawyers wouldn’t necessarily be aware of; and
The judge, the court, the community: explores what judges should (and should not) do in relating to their communities.
Help/Resources provides contact information in the event that the participant has difficulty navigating the site. Finally, Acknowledgments contains the names and photos of the curriculum developers and the course architects.
After reviewing the materials in Module One (Transition from Bar to Bench) and taking the accompanying self-tests, judges should be able to:
define “principled decision making”;
differentiate between those community, political, business and financial activities that they are allowed to attend and those they are not;
summarize their responsibilities for winding up a law practice (if relevant);
describe those cases in which they must disqualify themselves or otherwise note on the record the associations they had with previous clients or organizations;
recite the importance of a fair and impartial court system and the rationale behind judicial independence;
identify the types of mental health issues faced by judges, new and experienced, and describe potential solutions;
state the impact that isolation has on some judges and describe possible options for alleviating it; and
define the positive aspects of being a judge.
After reviewing the materials and taking the self-tests in Module Two (In the Courtroom), the judges should be able to:
describe their contempt powers with an understanding that contempt is only to be used as a last resort;
define the elements for making a successful record for appellate purposes;
outline ways to avoid wasting time at trial;
identify best practices for providing access to self-represented litigants;
explain the importance of “procedural fairness”; and
summarize the role of judicial discretion and ways it can be exercised appropriately.
After reviewing the materials and taking the self-tests in Module Three (Behind the Scenes), the judges should be able to:
define more clearly the judge’s appropriate role in encouraging settlements;
describe the judge’s role in caseflow management;
determine whether judges in their jurisdictions have a role in employment issues;
identify the elements of effective judicial opinion writing;
summarize the necessary components for an effective court interpreter program; and
state the criteria that judges should consider in sentencing.
After reviewing the materials, videos and taking the self-tests in Module Four (The Judge, the Court, the Community), the judges should be able to:
define when judges may speak publicly about the justice system without jeopardizing fairness in cases before them;
describe methods for dealing with the media with the ultimate goal of educating the public about the courts;
identify ways to appropriately respond to criticism; and
summarize methods for ensuring the safety of themselves and their families.
The NJC will make the course available on a monthly basis throughout 2012 to newly elected or appointed trial court judges. Judges will have five weeks to complete the course. If they are unable to do so, they may sign up again to complete it. Upon completion, judges will receive a tuition reduction on a course at the NJC and a small gift. The NJC has sent invitations to all chief justices with copies to the state court administrators and state judicial educators about the availability of the course.
The content is not specific to a state or jurisdiction. The course suggests to the judges that they should check their own state laws where relevant. [Much of the content addresses the practical aspects of being a judge.] While NJC designed the course for trial judges, limited jurisdiction judges would receive benefit from it and are welcome to take it. Likewise, judicial educators who wish to review the course are welcome to do so. They simply need to contact NJC’s registrar at 775.784.6747 or send an email to registrar@judges.org.
NJC will offer the course on a continuous basis so that judges who are appointed or elected can enter the course as soon as they wish. The course is available now for judges. NJC originally advertised its availability on June 22nd.
This is the first of two articles about NJC’s online course “Taking the Bench.” The second article will describe development of the course and is planned for the Fall 2012 Issue of the NASJE News.
*** William J. Brunson is director of special projects for The National Judicial College (NJC). In this position, he performs business development, conducts faculty development workshops, manages international programs, and oversees numerous grant projects primarily related to curriculum development for judges. Prior to this position, he served as the College’s academic director for more than three years and assistant academic director for more than four years. He also served as a program attorney for four years and as a program coordinator in 1992. He served as NASJE’s president in 2004-2005 and continues his involvement in the association. He is the co-author or co-editor of numerous curricula and publications. He has educated faculty both nationally and internationally on adult education principles and practice (also known as train-the-trainer) and curriculum development. Mr. Brunson joined the faculty of NJC in 1997.
“The law deals fundamentally with human behavior. It deals with choices people make – to do right or wrong, to lie or tell the truth. It deals with perceptions and memories – what color shirt was the mugger wearing? It deals with decision making – should I vote guilty or not guilty?” [Wargo, E. (2011). From the lab to the courtroom: How psychological scientists are having an impact on the legal system. Observer, 24(9), 10–14(33).]
Note: This is an interactive article. You can click on the highlighted links for resources illustrating or discussing each concept.
Our brains are remarkably efficient. But what price do we pay for efficiency? Sometimes our brains can lead us terribly astray despite our best intentions—and this can have very real implications for the justice system.
Consider issues related to perception and memory. Cognitive psychologists have demonstrated repeatedly that we do not necessarily accurately perceive our world, that we can be so focused on tasks that we miss things right in front of us, and that our memories are more malleable than we think. Perception and memory play a huge role in the justice system—such as understanding the credibility of eyewitness testimony. Specifically, the number one reason innocent people are wrongfully convicted is eyewitness evidence. Perception and memory errors also have implications for non-criminal cases. For example, the suggestibility of memory has real implications for interviewing children in dependency cases, as well as assessing the viability of historical accounts of parties in divorce proceedings. Overall, when it comes to perception and memory, human beings think they notice more than they do, believe they remember more accurately than they do, and underestimate the role of stress and cognitive load in how they interpret the world around them.
Of course, behavior and decisions are not just influenced by how our brain acquires and retrieves information. Humans are very social animals by nature, and our behavior is often shaped by others. Several classic social psychological studies such as the Milgram experiments, the Stanford Prison experiment, and the Asch experiments demonstrate the power of authority, roles, and conformity in shaping human behavior—with very sobering implications for understanding real world events (e.g., Abu Ghraib). As with perception and memory, social influence dynamics also have real implications for the justice system. Specifically, the number two reason innocent people go to jail is false confession. Again, there are implications for non-criminal cases. For example, these lines of research can inform how to best design youth detention programs, as well as help us to better understand behavior in abusive relationships. Central to application to the law, psychological science shows us that human beings are susceptible to engaging in extreme behavior in the presence of authority, are susceptible to adopting behavior consistent with a given role, and are social animals that take cures from others about how they should behave. (In fact, humans are so interconnected that when a person is socially ostracized for even a brief period of time, the part of the brain that detects physical pain is activated.)
In addition to perception, memory, and social influence, bias also can influence our decisions. Bias can be explicit (i.e., we are aware of our preference) or implicit (i.e., we are not aware of our preference). Many justice system professionals are increasingly familiar with the work social scientists are doing to better understand stereotypes, automatic processing of information, and implicit bias (e.g., see Project Implicit). There are, however, many other types of biases: Wikipedia alone lists over 300 types of cognitive biases and fallacies. One example is the just-world hypothesis, which is the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just, causing them to rationalize an otherwise inexplicable injustice as deserved by the victim.
Another less known—but intriguing—bias is implicit egotism [See Pelham, B. W., Mirenberg, M. C., Jones, J. T. (2002). Why Susie sells seashells by the seashore: Implicit egotism and major life decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 469-487.] For example, research suggests we like our first and last initials better than other letters (a bias documented in at least 14 countries and termed the name letter effect). Research suggests implicit egotism can even influence behavior. In the 2000 presidential campaign, for example, people whose last names began with B and G were more likely to contribute to the election funds of Bush and Gore, respectively. Our names also seem to influence our decision where to live (e.g., statistically disproportionate number of residents named Mildred live in Milwaukee) and what we do for a living (e.g., statistically disproportionate number of lawyers are named Larry).
Although not as sophisticated as these studies in terms of analyses, the NCJFCJ research staff examined the initials of all judicial members of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The single most common first initial of judges was J at nearly 47% more common than the next most common initial M. Applying bias research to the law, we have learned that decisions can be influenced in many different ways. For example, social science suggests irrelevant information—such as priming legal professional with a random number—can influence the length of “sentences” they assign to criminals (i.e., anchoring heuristic). Implications for non-criminal cases include decisions regarding whether or not to place a child in foster care, as well as the amount of damages awarded in malpractice or personal injury cases. Overall, human beings are not as aware or in control of their thoughts and behaviors as they like to think, do have many types of biases, and are attracted to things that we identify as part of our self.
In conclusion, psychological science has much to offer the justice system. Perception, memory, social influence, and bias all play a role in how actors in the system acquire, retain, retrieve, and act on information. Psychological science not only illuminates these and other social cognitive processes, but can provide insight on how to best adjust practice to limit unintended consequences of our decisions. Although outlining potential preventive strategies is for another article, an important first step that I hope to have accomplished here is to further develop awareness that we are, after all, only human… very, very human.
**** Shawn C. Marsh, PhD, is the Director of the Juvenile and Family Law Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Dr. Marsh is a social psychologist with research and teaching interests in trauma, adolescent development, resiliency, and social cognition.
Before I entered the field of judicial education a little less than a year ago, I spent the previous twenty years as a college professor. Teaching was something I had to learn on my own, through trial and error. I would have profited enormously from guidelines and suggestions of the type provided in these materials.
My lack of experience and expertise in this field was made painfully obvious as I embarked upon this endeavor. As I started reading the materials, my first reaction was that examples should be provided. I then discovered that excellent examples were provided. I considered the examples and determined that they would be even better if they were expanded upon with the introduction of each new topic. I then discovered that this Curriculum Design did precisely that.
It was at this point that I faced the humbling realization that I probably have nothing earth-shattering to add at this early point in my judicial education career. Thus, most of my observations will come in the form of praising what is presented, rather than suggesting what needs to be added.
I will have to say that the entry-level content was more meaningful to a relative newcomer such as myself. In fact, I wish I would have been provided this assignment nine months ago, because reading the curriculum resource provided an excellent understanding of the foundational aspects of judicial education. I am probably the perfect audience to attest to their value for new members of the profession.
One of the elements that I appreciated was the manner in which the preferred model was presented. Rather than simply state, “We the experts have concluded that this is the way it should be done,” I liked how the preferred model was presented in the context of other approaches. At first, I questioned the presentation of the other ideas that would be discounted, but their presence enhances the credibility of the preferred model.
Another element I liked about the materials was their comprehensiveness, covering every stage of the process, from the point at which an idea is being considered to the development of a program and culminating in the ways to evaluate the success of the program. This step-by-step examination is a resource that is worth its weight in gold.
Yet another aspect of the materials I liked was that it did not utilize a “one size fits all” approach. It presents options and allows judicial educators to make the call about which approach works best.
I like the way the material is presented, a fantastic combination of principles, concepts, examples, and helpful hints. Whether it is an examination of the pros and cons of different teaching methodologies and course structure or a presentation of charts dealing with learning objectives, resources and participant activities, these materials offer a multitude of relevant insights.
A number of crises in courthouses throughout Missouri in recent months has demonstrated the need for clerks in supervisory positions to receive more effective training. It has fallen on me to design this course. The ultimate compliment I can pay to the NASJE materials is that I will rely upon them extensively in creating this course.
The experienced-level material was more difficult for a number of reasons.
First of all, there is the obvious factor that this material deals with a level of complexity that my program has yet to achieve. Not only am I new to the field, we as a judicial education department are facing the “political issues” mentioned in the materials and battling with judges over the direction of education.
Thus, some aspects of these materials, such as learning domains and schema models, seemed beyond my level of expertise at this point. On the other hand, there were any number of subjects covered in this material that seemed very useful, including the example of the instructional design associated with the Ethics course. In addition, the activities associated with the hypothetical input from the state court administrator were very enlightening, putting the reader in the position of having to use the material that had been presented.
*** Anthony Simones has been the Manager of Judicial Education in Missouri for almost a year. Holding a JD and PhD from the University of Tennessee, Dr. Simones has been a professor of government, law and criminal justice at Missouri State University, Columbia College, and Dalton State College. He is the recipient of the Missouri Governor’s Award for Teaching Excellence and is a three-time nominee for the Carnegie Foundation’s United States Professor of the Year.
In February, 2012, the NASJE board established the Karen Thorson Award to honor a NASJE member who has made a significant contribution to both NASJE and judicial branch education nationally.
The first recipient of the Karen Thorson Award is former NASJE President Karen Thorson. During Karen’s career, she advanced the profession of judicial branch education to higher levels of excellence. She formerly served as the director of judicial branch education in Arizona and then California. She enlarged NASJE by encouraging inclusion of all judicial educators and was instrumental in the adoption of the NASJE Core Competencies. Karen continues to impact and improve judicial branch education through her service on the Curriculum Committee.
The award was presented to Karen during our annual business meeting on August 3 in Boston.
The past year has seen the NASJE News continue to be a publication that contributes substantially to our profession. We have continued to add new areas of focus for articles and continue to invite new people to manage the sections of our issues. The improved web-based format continues to be well received.
The newsletter would not have been possible this year without the hard work, great ideas, and commitment of all the people who wrote articles for us, as well as the following recent editorial board members:
Lee Ann Barnhardt, Daphne Burns, Steve Circeo, Jo Deyo, Shawn Marsh, John Newell, Danielle Pugh-Markie, Michael Roosevelt, Nancy Smith, Kelly Tait, Wendy Schiller, Kelly Tait.
I also want to acknowledge the offices, agencies, and sponsoring organizations that made it possible for these wonderful people to devote their efforts to educating us all. I especially want to thank the Supreme Court of Ohio and Milt Nuzum, Director of the Judicial College, for the support and encouragement that has enabled me to act as chair of this committee.
Often, being a committee chair for any organization is a thankless task, and at times it is hard to comprehend why one would put oneself through it all. For me, getting to work with the people named above has been just as great a reward as being able to bring our membership a valuable publication on a regular basis.
It is thus a bittersweet decision I have made after 15 years on this committee to step down as the editor of NASJE News, effective with an appointment of a replacement by incoming President Marty Sullivan. If any of you are interested in working with a great group of people to produce a valuable product, please let Marty know. There is space on the committee for an editor as well as members.
Thank you all for this opportunity.
Respectfully submitted, Philip Schopick, Editor NASJE News
Please join us in welcoming the following new NASJE members:
The past year has seen the NASJE News continue to be a publication that contributes substantially to our profession. We have continued to add new areas of focus for articles and continue to invite new people to manage the sections of our issues. The improved web-based format continues to be well received.