COLLABORATIVE CRITICAL THINKING EXERCISES FOR BUSINESS LAW

COLLABORATIVE CRITICAL THINKING EXERCISES FOR BUSINESS LAW
STUDENTS
by
Lynn M. Forsythe, Ida M. Jones, and Deborah J. Kemp1
I. INTRODUCTION
Three business law/legal environment professors have taken a collaborative approach to
developing common assignments for introductory level business law courses.2
Our premise is
two-fold: case problem analysis promotes critical thinking and critical thinking is best developed
through collaborative activities. Many AACSB accredited schools and U.S. universities in
general make critical thinking a primary learning outcome or objective. Also, many extol the
advantages of team based or collaborative learning. The value of collaborative learning was
illustrated in the scene from the Apollo 13 movie that captured the NASA engineers and
scientists being told to build an oxygen delivery system from the odds and ends on the
spacecraft, which they did successfully.3
While business schools do not train NASA engineers,
they train people to make crucial and well informed business decisions, often using the same
critical thinking and collaborative problem solving approaches used by engineers. In the legal
discipline, case problems are commonly used to teach both the substantive or topical area and to
help students engage in critical thinking through legal reasoning. “Case studies are often used in
business law classes … to help students identify and analyze real business problems.”4
Many business schools that offer multiple sections of the required introductory courses are
increasingly utilizing practicing attorneys as part time instructors to teach them.5
These
practicing attorneys generally have little time or incentive to learn how to instill critical thinking
© Lynn M. Forsythe, Ida M. Jones, Deborah J. Kemp, 2013. The authors grant permission to use the case problems
with proper attribution.
1 The authors are professors of Business Law, Craig School of Business, California State University, Fresno. Dr.
Jones is Director, Center for the Scholarly Advancement of Learning and Teaching; Verna Mae and Wayne D.
Brooks Professor of Business Law. Dr. Kemp is Craig Faculty Fellow 2011-2013. 2 For purposes of this article, the distinctions between business law and legal environment courses and faculty are
not significant. Hereafter the authors will use business law in its generic sense, e.g., to refer to faculty who teach
legal concepts to business students. See Carol J. Miller & Susan J. Crane, Legal Environment v. Business Law
Course: A Distinction Without a Difference?, 28 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 149, 151-62, 100-203 (2011) for an in-depth
discussion of the differences between the two approaches. Miller and Crane also discuss the fact that the label for a
given course may not accurately reflect the type of course or the approach taken in teaching the course. 3 See Square Peg in a Round Hole (1995), Apollo 13 (7/11) MOVIECLIP, YOUTUBE (published Jan. 16, 2011), at
(last visited Apr. 17, 2013). 4 Tammy W. Cowart & Wade M. Chumney, I Phone, You Phone, We All Phone with iPhone: Trademark Law and
Ethics from an International and Domestic Perspective, 28 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 331, 332 (2011). 5 See Deploying Professionally Qualified Faculty: An Interpretation of AACSB Standards, AN AACSB WHITE
PAPER ISSUED BY AACSB INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE AACSB INTERNATIONAL
ACCREDITATION QUALITY COMMITTEE, 1 (January 2006), revised February 2008 & March 2009, at
http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/papers/DeployingProfessionallyQualifiedFaculty.pdf (last visited Apr. 17, 2013)
(“the growing importance of professionally qualified faculty in light of the pending shortage of doctorally qualified
faculty….”)
1
skills in business students on their own.
6
As discussed later, our collaborative approach to
course design provides an opportunity for full and part time faculty to work together to promote
critical thinking. Through this collaborative design, we can assure that all the students in the
introductory course are exposed to some critical thinking and collaborative learning activities.
Collaborative design has the additional benefit of minimizing any sacrifice of educational
freedom, especially since, as we’ve collaborated, we’ve found that, as with students, three minds
are better than one when writing and thinking about analytical problem solving generally.
Consequently, we developed common case problem assignments that, if adopted, assure that
students are experiencing some consistent critical thinking practice in all the sections of the
course. We want to ensure that no matter which of seven instructors the student takes the course
from, the student will experience similar academic rigor, consistency of performance evaluation,
and explicit development of critical thinking skills. In addition, we introduced problem solving
activities using humorous and simple problems so that students could feel motivated and
empowered to continue developing their critical thinking skills through successful experiences in
their introductory coursework.
The case problems with accompanying teaching notes are included in the Appendix. The format
of the case problems accommodates our various methods for introducing structured critical
thinking to the introductory students, including using the IRAC method and briefing cases to see
how judges problem solve. Each of us use different techniques to help students learn, including
use of case briefing assignments, the use of the IRAC method of case problem analysis, research
projects, and more. Through our collaborative efforts we have made progress toward our goals
of increased rigor, consistency and creating cases that explicitly require students to engage in
critical thinking activities. We have done so in a way that preserves academic freedom and
individuality in course design and implementation.
In the next section we have identified the key components of critical thinking and problem
solving analysis. We also reviewed some common sense and observational data as well as some
law and education scholarship on the benefits of collaborative learning. In addition, through this
effort, we have experienced the benefits of our own collaborative work. This paper presents the
results of our collaborative work in writing and sharing case problems for our classrooms. Part
II summarizes and compares some scholarship on critical thinking and collaborative learning in
the business law field. Part III summarizes the collaborative nature of the course redesign
process. In the Appendix we share the case problems, teaching notes, and advice on how to
utilize them.
II. CRITICAL THINKING AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING
A. Critical Thinking
6 Most of these practitioners experienced the socratic method with varying degrees of success when they were law
students. The question has been raised whether law schools do an adequate job of teaching critical thinking. See,
e.g, Christine M. Venter, “Analyze this: Using Taxonomies to Scaffold Students’ Legal Thinking and Writing
Skills,” Working Paper, Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress) Legal Series, Year 2005, Paper 757,
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/757 (last visited Feb. 22, 2013).
2
Critical thinking is a common learning outcome or learning goal embraced by many universities.
While many are acknowledging and even mandating that our schools concentrate more on
teaching critical thinking, the advice or mandate is not always accompanied with an explanation
of just what is critical thinking. Clearly it is not the same across all disciplines, but there is a
core definition that is fairly universal. First we explore what critical thinking means in the law
and business context. Second, we analyze how the case problems we have agreed to use in our
introductory business law course provide critical thinking practice for business students.
1. What is Critical Thinking?
“Critical thinking is the process of reacting with systematic evaluation to what one reads and
hears; this system for conducting evaluation consists of a set of interrelated questions that critical
thinkers should be able and eager to ask and answer at appropriate times.”7
“[An] important aspect of our work is to help students learn how to acquire knowledge that
ultimately may exceed our own, to apply it in efficient and reasonable ways, and to adjust and
grow when knowledge becomes outmoded and new needs for application emerge.”8
As previously noted, although there is nearly unanimous agreement in higher education that
critical thinking is a key learning outcome,9 it is not always clear just what is meant by critical
thinking. Additionally, the concept may vary from one discipline to another. Many AACSB
accredited business programs, including the Craig School of Business at California State
University, Fresno, identify students engaging in critical thinking as a learning goal or learning.10
Numerous business law/legal environment scholars have discussed critical thinking, two of
which we review and compare, then later analyze to illustrate how the case problems from the
appendix promote qualities of critical thinking identified by the scholars.
Business law professors usually have law degrees, so have usually taken the Law School
Admission Test (LSAT).11 That test actually introduces what business law/legal environment
professors identify as critical thinking and higher order thinking, types of thinking that promote
good business decision making.
7 Nancy Kubasek & M. Neil Browne, Integrating Critical Thinking into the Legal Environment of Business
Classroom, 14 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 35, 37 (1996). 8 J. David Reitzel, Critical Thinking and the Business Law Curriculum, 9 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 471, 471 (1991). 9 Roger J. Johns, The Logic Doctor is In: Using Structure Training and Metacognitive Monitoring to Cultivate the
Ability to Self-Diagnose Legal Analysis Skills, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 357 (2009). 10 The critical thinking learning outcome for the Craig School is expressed as “the successful undergraduate student
in the CSB will be able to…[p]rocess information and express complex ideas to address business problems.”
http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/documents/SOAP/Craig_School_of_Business/craigschoolofbusiness2013.pdf.
11 See Law School Admission Council’s (LSAC) webpage, About the LSAT (describing the exam questions) at
http://www.lsac.org/jd/lsat/about-the-lsat.asp (last visited Apr. 21, 2013). Unlike the Collegiate Learning
Assessment (CLA), the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is multiple choice. Yet it measures the test taker’s
reading skill, logical reasoning skills, and analytical reasoning skills. Also, unlike the CLA, sample LSAT tests are
readily available. While there is not an obvious link between logical and analytical reasoning and business
learning, understanding and being able to use those types of thinking skills serve business executives in business
decision making. The case problem format adopted by the authors requires students to utilize basic forms of logical
and analytical thinking while problem solving.
3
The business law/legal environment course is a natural point at which students can develop
critical thinking skills. In the book RETHINKING UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS EDUCATION:
LIBERAL LEARNING FOR THE PROFESSION,
12 the authors posit that narrowly focused and
discipline specific content based business courses limit the students’ ability to analyze issues
from multiple perspectives. Two book reviewers note that business education should be revised
to incorporate more methods of analysis.13 Business law courses already usually require more
than focusing on the direct financial impact of decisions, or on purely content memorization.
Since law school education requires engaging in critical thinking from inception of the legal
education process, that of preparing for the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), and
continuing throughout law school itself, where analytical and logical reasoning are key
components of the education, business law professors tend to encourage development of similar
thinking skills in their business students. Law school education requires that learners examine
issues from multiple perspectives, examine the policies underlying laws and regulations and to
take positions that may conflict with the individual learner’s perspective. Those are significant
elements of critical thinking. As such, business law/legal environment professors are especially
equipped to provide business students with better critical thinking skills.
In the authors’ business law courses, they have explored the meaning of critical thinking in the
business law discipline. In general education, critical thinking has been defined as the ability to
“think effectively, to communicate thought, to make relevant judgments, to discriminate among
values.”14 Emeritus business law professor Reitzel has summarized key elements of critical
thinking:
? Ability to distinguish fact from opinion
? Ability to reason logically and systematically
? Ability to choose or develop an effective problem-solving approach
? Ability to avoid decisional pitfalls15
Business law professors Giampetro-Meyer and Kubasek16 have defined key factors in critical
thinking in the business law course as:
? Identifying the issue and the conclusion
? Identifying the reasons
? Understanding deductive and inductive reasoning
12 ANNE COLBY, ET. AL, RETHINKING UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS EDUCATION: LIBERAL LEARNING FOR THE
PROFESSION (2011). 13 Joshua E. Perry & Jamie Darin Prenkert, Charting a Course to Effective Education: Lessons from Academically
Adrift and Rethinking Undergraduate Business Education (book review) 29 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC 127, 138 (2012).
Perry and Prenkert also argue that critical thinking in business involves articulating and applying efficient markets
theory and the mathematical bases of those theories.
14 This definition is quoted by J. David Reitzel, Critical Thinking and the Business Law Curriculum, 9 J. LEGAL
STUD. EDUC. 471, n.2 (1991) (referring to the Report of the Harvard Committee: General Education in a Free
Society).
15 Retizel, Id. at 486. 16Andrea Giampetro-Meyer & Nancy Kubasek, A Test of Critical Thinking Skills for Business Law and Legal
Environment Students, 9 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC 501, 503-507 (1991).
4
? Identifying value conflicts and assumptions
? Considering the relevance of analogies
? Identifying errors in reasoning
? Determining what significant information is omitted
? Identifying alternate conclusions
Both examples identify key elements of critical thinking for business law courses. The factors
overlap, as indicated in Table 1-Critical Thinking Factors and Examples from Case Questions in
the next section. The table also identifies how questions from the case problems ask students to
perform the identified types of critical thinking.
The case problem analyses law faculty regularly assign students to use in their writing have been
embraced by textbook publishers and authors, referred to as IRAC or FIRAC method. They are
excellent formats for developing critical thinking skills in law and business. The IRAC method
requires that learners identify the issue, rule of law, application, and conclusion. FIRAC
includes a summary of relevant facts at the beginning of the analysis.17 The organized format of
these methods provides tools so that business people can thrive as they develop broad-based
decision-making skills beyond purely financial concerns. Law professors in business schools are
uniquely situated to help students master critical thinking skills that involve logical and
analytical thinking.
2. Engaging students in critical thinking
Examination of how and whether education encourages and promotes critical thinking has
become increasingly important as scholars of business education have conducted assessments of
learning of identified learning goals and learning outcomes. While measurement of learning
outcomes is being conducted throughout universities, AACSB accredited business schools have
included learning assessment in their programs since the 1990’s, with a mandate for direct
measurement of identified learning outcomes since 2003.18 The most recently publicized
learning assessment, the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA)19 has been administered and
17 Kubasek & Browne, supra note 7, at 38. These scholars have suggested that the IRAC method should also include
an evaluation of the ethical implications of decisions. Id. 18 Dennis Zocco, A Recursive Process Model for AACSB Assurance of Learning, 15:4 ACADEMY OF EDUCATIONAL
LEADERSHIP JOURNAL 67, 67 (2011), at http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-263157468/a-recursive-processmodel-for-aacsb-assurance-of-learning
(last visited Apr. 21, 2013). According to Zocco,
As a historical perspective, prior to 1991, AACSB learning standards were based on a “Common
Body of Knowledge” requirement of all undergraduate and graduate business majors. These
standards were based on discipline (e.g., finance and accounting) as well as more specific subdisciplines
which were evaluated based on contact hours within the program. In 1991, AACSB
adopted mission-linked, outcome-oriented AoL standards and the peer-review process. The
measurement of outcomes was broadly defined, with surveys of students, alumni, or employers
allowed. The latest conceptual change in AoL standards for initial accreditation and
reaccreditation occurred in April, 2003, with the most recent revision to the 2003 standards
occurring in Jan. 2010. The 2003 standards called for a more direct measure of learning
achievement for each degree program as a natural extension of the concept of “outcomes
assessment” introduced in the 1991 standards. 19 Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA): Returning to Learning, Council for Aid to Education website at
http://www.collegiatelearningassessment.org/ (last visited April 21, 2013). “The CLA helps institutions improve
undergraduate education through assessment, professional development, best practices and collaboration.”
5
some educators have concluded that four years of undergraduate education has resulted in little
to no significant improvement in learning.20 The CLA is a test designed to assess problemsolving
and analytical thinking skills, in contrast to measuring knowledge of content, through
requiring test-takers to respond in writing to a variety of complex scenarios.21 At California
State University, Fresno, for instance, student performance on the CLA was mixed and indicated
need for improvement. According to the test, performance levels improved from freshmen to
seniors on the performance and critique-an-argument tasks, but decreased on the analytic and
make-an-argument tasks.22 Overall, however, the estimated improvement was at or above
expected percentile rank.23 Although the test is not without its critics, its results are consistent
with commonly made faculty claims that our students learn content without improving analytic
skills. The organized format of the case problem method provides tools so that business people
can thrive as they develop broad-based decision-making skills beyond purely financial concerns.
Law professors in business schools are uniquely situated to help students master critical thinking
skills that involve logical and analytical thinking.24
Although there is nearly universal agreement that students can learn to critically analyze through
case analysis in our business law courses, the authors have sought a systematic way to analyze
and measure whether and how that occurs. Business law professor Roger Johns has
recommended a systematic approach to encourage critical thinking in business law courses.25
The key component of his recommended teaching method is to provide students immediate
feedback (whether their answer matches the teacher’s answer) and explanation of the teacher’s
answer, to encourage students to analyze and revise their thought processes based on the
additional information.26 Johns’ method is supported by research that it is through self-reflection
about how one’s thoughts work (meta-cognition) that analytical reasoning can be improved.27
The next section, explaining using collaborative learning techniques, might serve this purpose.
As noted above, the authors developed cases followed by questions designed to foster selfreflection
and critical thinking. Self-reflection can be fostered through students evaluating their
responses after they have participated in collaborative exercises. Critical thinking is embedded in
the authors’ case questions. The following table outlines the factors identified by Reitzel and
Giampetro-Meyer and Kubasek and explains how the case question(s) provide examples that
20 This is the conclusion reached by RICHARD ARUM & JOSIPA ROKSA, ACADEMICALLY ADRIFT: LIMITED LEARNING
ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES 35 (2011). 21 Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA): Returning to Learning, Council for Aid to Education website at
http://www.collegiatelearningassessment.org/ (last visited Apr. 21, 2013). “To gauge summative
performance authentically, the CLA presents realistic problems that require students to analyze complex materials
and determine the relevance to the task and credibility. Students’ written responses to the tasks are evaluated to
assess their abilities to think critically, reason analytically, solve problems and communicate clearly and cogently.”
22 2007-2008 CLA Institutional Report, at 3,
http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/learningoutcomes/cla/documents/CSUFresnoCLAReport2007-2008_000.pdf (last
visited Apr. 21, 2013). 23 Id. 24 We should not only institute critical thinking in business programs, but we should also help instructors succeed at
getting students to engage in critical thinking by developing curriculum wide thinking activities and by assisting the
instructional faculty in use and assessment of critical thinking in business/legal environment courses. 25 Johns, supra note 9. 26 Id. at 360. 27 Id. at 360-362.
6
probe each of those factors and thereby promote critical thinking. Note that the questions are not
identical, but that they are consistent with the critical thinking factors outlined by authors Reitzel
and Giampetro-Meyer and Kubasek.
Table 1 Critical Thinking Factors and Examples from Case Questions
Reitzel Factors Giampetro-Meyer and
Kubasek Factors
Examples-Question (s) From the Cases in the
Appendix
Distinguishing fact from
opinion
Identifying the issue and
the conclusion
What happened here? Who did what to whom?
(From Appendix case: A Trip Out of This
World)
What is the issue or what are the issues? It
might help to start by writing, “The issue is
whether or not….” State it as specifically as
you can, identifying the causes of action and
referring to the story. (From Appendix case:
Inquiring Minds Want to Know)
Reasoning logically and
systematically
Identifying the reasons Beauty Queen and Howard Huge want to sue
both the interviewer Baba Wawa and the
magazine that published the story Star News.
You should explain the issue(s), the law, how
the law might be applied to this story, and your
conclusion in regards to suing the defendants.
Write your essay in IRAC format (Issue, Rule,
Application, Conclusion). (From Appendix
case: Inquiring Minds Want to Know)
Note that if students miss that they are supposed
to explain and apply the definition of
defamation, they can be prompted with question
as in the manslaughter story, or can be given a
sample answer. If the latter is done, then they
can be asked to perform the analysis for the
related invasion of privacy torts and the
affirmative defense of constitutional privilege.
Reasoning logically and
systematically;
Avoiding decisional
pitfalls
Understanding deductive
and inductive reasoning
The Inquiring Minds Want to Know problem
could be altered for the professor to identify the
tort as defamation and the prompt would be to
ask for the definition with each element
identified.
Choosing or developing
an effective problemsolving
approach;
Identifying value
conflicts and
assumptions
Discuss the types of claims that Jesse might use
if he brings suit. Be specific. Explain the
elements of each claim and which elements
7
Reitzel Factors Giampetro-Meyer and
Kubasek Factors
Examples-Question (s) From the Cases in the
Appendix
Avoiding decisional
pitfalls
might be missing in the evidence. (From
Appendix case: A Trip Out of This World)
Explain the elements of each claim and which
elements might not be shown by the evidence.
As you explain the elements of each tort,
identify how the facts satisfy or do not satisfy
each of the elements. A plaintiff can sue more
than one defendant and can make more than one
claim. (From Appendix case: Inquiring Minds
Want to Know)
Reasoning logically and
systematically;
Avoiding decisional
pitfalls
Considering the
relevance of analogies
The case of New York Times v. Sullivan is a
famous case you should use for comparison.
Summarize it and tell how it is similar and how
it is different. If you do not find the case in the
text, you may access a summary of the case it at
the following website.
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/tortskeyed-to-epstein/defamation/new-york-timesco-v-sullivan/
(From Appendix case: Inquiring
Minds Want to Know)
Reasoning logically and
systematically;
Avoiding decisional
pitfalls
Identifying errors in
reasoning
In your own words, explain when a federal court
would have jurisdiction. What page number in
the textbook is that explanation? If you used the
internet to find the explanation, provide the
URL and explain why you think this is a good
source of information. (From Appendix case:
Where in the World Do I Start Resolving These
Issues? A Matter of Jurisdiction)
Distinguishing fact from
opinion
Determining what
significant information
is omitted
What additional facts would you need to know
in order to determine whether the company,
Tom or Dick could be found guilty of
involuntary manslaughter? In other words, what
else do you need to know in order to make a
decision? (From Appendix case: Be a Manager
and Stay Out of Jail!)
Choosing or developing
an effective problemsolving
approach
Identifying alternate
conclusions
Explore with students whether the result would
be the same if Jesse had ordered the jacket or
sunglasses. (From Appendix case: A Trip Out
of This World)
8
The above table outlines the questions and how they relate to encouraging critical thinking. The
third column identifies questions from case problems in the appendix that ask students to engage
in the identified critical thinking activities. Now that the elements of critical thinking in working
or solving a case problem have been identified, the actual assessment of how well students
perform on each step in the critical thinking process of case analysis can be measured with a
rubric, with multiple choice questions like those asked on the LSAT, and/or by a written exam
like the CLA. Since faculty workloads are increasing, instructor grading and teaching assistance
is decreasing, and demands to publish research is increasing, developing an assessment tool that
allows the instructor to efficiently, accurately, and rapidly assess the depth of learning of the
critical thinking skills will be crucial. While the actual assessment tools are not part of this
article, the authors intend to collaboratively develop assessment methods that can be applied
efficiently and accurately. Since self-awareness is an aspect of critical thinking that has
previously been identified, it is possible that an assessment measurement that utilizes self and
peer feedback, combining individual and collaborative communication will be developed.
The authors’ collaboration and willingness to revise questions as appropriate served to promote
agreement and identify which questions best promote critical thinking in identified areas, while
at the same time preserving academic freedom. Some of those questions have been revised to
reflect more analysis of the required elements of critical thinking and to tease out more of
students’ analysis.
B. Collaborative or Team Based Learning
Individuals come to a problem with individual points of view. If 3 or 4 individuals share with
one another their points of view on a case problem, the case problem analytical process will be
altered, usually enriched, by the added activity of comparing, contrasting, and altering the points
of view being considered. It is intuitive and logical that multiple varied inputs, with interaction
among proponents of the inputs, will result in a more satisfactory outcome or course of action.
Anecdotal indications of the value of collaboration to problem solve come from the Apollo 13
movie referenced at the beginning of this piece and from one author’s personal experience
coaching student teams for Odyssey of the Mind and Destination Imagination programs.28
28 Apollo 13 (7/11) Movie Clip. Square Peg in a Round Hole (1995). YouTube MovieClips.com

(last visited Mar. 30, 2013). For information on Destination Imagination, go to: Destination Imagination: Who We
Are. http://www.destinationimagination.org/who-we-are/vision-mission-history
It turns out that Odyssey of the Mind is alive and well, at least on its website. Destination Imagination said they
bought the rights to Odyssey of the Mind in 1999. But apparently they did not buy the Odyssey of the Mind charter.
The Odyssey of the Mind website includes its history tracing its founding back to a teacher in the public university
system.
The Odyssey of the Mind has its roots in the Industrial Design classes of Dr. Sam Micklus,
Odyssey of the Mind founder. As a professor at Rowan University in New Jersey (formerly
Glassboro State College) Dr. Micklus challenged his students to create vehicles without wheels,
mechanical pie throwers and flotation devices that would take them across a course on a lake. He
evaluated them not on the success of their solutions, but on the ingenuity applied and the risk
involved in trying something new and different. Students had fun. Word spread and the students’
activities attracted attention from the local media. Soon, people on the outside wanted a part of the
9
The scholarship on team based or collaborative learning in the JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES IN
EDUCATION is both numerous and diverse.29 Education scholars have studied the effectiveness
of collaborative learning also.30 Techniques for forming groups are outside the scope of this
article. Readers are referred to a number of articles that discuss that issue.31
George Spiro, an author in the above journal wrote about business law professors’ common dual
goals. “The task of a teacher of a legal environment course is to help this diverse group of
students achieve a common goal: to become grounded in the fundamentals of the U.S. legal
action. This public interest led to the development of a creative problem-solving competition for
school children. The Odyssey of the Mind was on its way. Since then, Dr. Micklus’s life has been
happily consumed with developing problems for other people to solve. His rewards are in the joy
and pride of the millions of participants who rise to the challenge of solving those problems.
Odyssey of the Mind: Information, at
http://www.odysseyofthemind.com/learn_more.php (last visited Mar. 30, 2013). 29 See, e.g., Marianne M. Jennings, In Defense of the Sage on the Stage: Escaping from the “Sorcery” of Learning
Styles and Helping Students Learn How to Learn, 29 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 191 (2012) (discussing the movement in
college education from lecture based courses to collaborative learning models of education, questioning the research
in support of the new methods, and proposing an alternative approach); Ida M. Jones, Can You See Me Now?
Defining Teaching Presence in the Online Classroom Through Building a Learning Community, 28 J. LEGAL STUD.
EDUC. 67 (2011) (describing methods for gaining professorial presence in online classes, identifying group
discussions as a method of learning online); Sandra S. Benson, Going for the Intrinsic Gold: A Collaborative
Quizbowl Quest to Motivate Students and to Showcase Business Law Courses, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 457 (2009);
Susan W. Dana, Implementing Team-Based Learning in an Introduction to Law Course, 24 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC.
59 (2007); Laurie A. Lucas, Diane F. Baker, & Dave Roach, Team Learning Versus Traditional Lecture: Measuring
the Efficacy of Teaching Method in Legal Studies, 19 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 63 (Dec 2001) (comparative study of
team learning method and traditional lecture, with inconclusive results); Judith Stilz Ogden & Mary Ellen Benedict,
What’s On Your Mind? A Negotiation Role-Play, 18 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 307, 308 (2000) (“Cooperative learning
in small groups helps students to learn better. Add

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
COLLABORATIVE CRITICAL THINKING EXERCISES FOR BUSINESS LAW
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay
GradeAcers
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Why Work with Us

Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers

We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.

Professional and Experienced Academic Writers

We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.

Free Unlimited Revisions

If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.

Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee

All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.

Original & Confidential

We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.

24/7 Customer Support

Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.

Essays

Essay Writing Service

No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.

Admissions

Admission Essays & Business Writing Help

An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.

Reviews

Editing Support

Our academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.

Reviews

Revision Support

If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. You can use this option as many times as you see fit. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.

Order your essay today and save 15% with the discount code DISCOUNT15