A Contribution for Teaching Law of Evidence:

Revista de la Facultad de Derecho

View Publication Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title A Contribution for Teaching Law of Evidence:
Aportes para Enseñanza del Derecho Probatorio:
Contribuição para a ensenhanza do Direito Probatório:
 
Creator Álvaro Pérez Ragone
 
Description The Socratic teaching-learning method is still valid - and the most recent research shows it - provided that it is complementary to other methodologies. In this case it is the collaborative learning empirically applied successfully in teaching with active methodologies to teach the Law of Evidence in a undergraduate course. With the combined use of Socratic dialogue and collaborative strategies, the student's distraction is taken advantage of him and make him participate in his group and in the class. In the collaborative learning the orientation (not imposition) comes from the student and the peers, the teacher does not give the answer, but it guides towards it and that is the plus that grants the Socratic or induced to the teaching-learning between pairs. The Socratic method in the collaborative framework has been rediscovered and shows effectiveness. Especially in the teaching of law the discussions around it are very valuable and the discussion about its application as an exclusive methodology is still valid. This is a contribution to diversify the teaching methods of the Law that is not limited only to the law, its knowledge and application, it exceeds it and it includes aspects of the student that can be better incentivized.
El método socrático sigue siendo válido -y lo demuestra la investigación más reciente- en tanto complementario a otras metodologías la manera de facilitar al estudiante un tránsito desde el escuchar y olvidar hacia el hacer y saber hacer es el aprendizaje colaborativo con el diálogo socrático. Ello ya que el aprendizaje colaborativo aplicado empíricamente con éxito en la enseñanza con metodologías activas del Derecho Probatoria en el pregrado. Con el empleo combinado del diálogo socrático y las estrategias colaborativas se aprovecha la distracción del estudiante para valorarlo y hacerlo participe en su grupo y en la clase. En el aprendizaje colaborativo la orientación (no imposición) proviene del estudiante y de los pares, el docente no da la respuesta, sino que oriente hacia ella y eso es el plus que otorga lo socrático o inducido al aprendizaje entre pares. El método socrático en el marco colaborativo ha sido redescubierto y demuestra eficacia. Especialmente en la enseñanza del derecho las discusiones en torno a él son muy valiosas y la discusión sobre su aplicación como metodología exclusiva sigue vigente incluso. Este es un aporte para diversificar los métodos de enseñanza del Derecho que no se reducen solo a la ley, su conocimiento y aplicación, la excede y comprende aspectos del estudiante que pueden ser mejor incentivadas y aprovechados. A partir de la determinación del problema en general en la enseñanza-aprendizaje y los desafíos planteados, se parte de la hipótesis de la necesidad de combinar el diálogo socrático con el aprendizaje colaborativo como metodología de la enseñanza innovativa y disruptiva. Se traduce en el diseño de actividades y secuencias en un escenario pedagógico real de una asignatura: el Derecho Probatorio. Los resultados empíricos de esta actividad educativa confirman la validez de las propuestas y tesis planteadas.
O método socrático ainda é válido - e a pesquisa mais recente mostra isso - desde que seja complementar a outras metodologias. Neste caso, é o aprendizado colaborativo empiricamente aplicado com sucesso em ensinar com metodologias ativas de direito probatório na graduação. Com o uso combinado do diálogo socrático e estratégias colaborativas, a distração do aluno é aproveitada para valorizá-lo e fazê-lo participar de seu grupo e na classe. Na aprendizagem colaborativa, a orientação (não a imposição) provém do aluno e dos colegas, a professora não dá a resposta, mas orienta-se para ela e essa é a vantagem que concede aos socráticos ou induzidos a aprender pares. O método socrático na estrutura colaborativa foi redescoberto e mostra eficácia. Especialmente no ensino do direito, as discussões em torno dele são muito valiosas e a discussão sobre sua aplicação como metodologia exclusiva ainda é válida. Este é um contributo para diversificar os métodos de ensino da Lei que não se limita apenas à lei, ao seu conhecimento e à sua aplicação, excede-a e inclui aspectos do aluno que podem ser melhor incentivados e explorados.
 
Publisher Facultad de Derecho
 
Date 2018-07-22
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
artículo evaluado por pares
Peer-reviewed Article
Avaliado pelos pares
 
Format application/pdf
text/html
 
Identifier https://revista.fder.edu.uy/index.php/rfd/article/view/628
10.22187/rfd2018n45a6
 
Source Revista de la Facultad de Derecho; No 45 (2018); e20184506
Revista de la Facultad de Derecho; Núm. 45 (2018); e20184506
Revista de la Facultad de Derecho; n. 45 (2018); e20184506
2301-0665
0797-8316
10.22187/rfd2018n45
 
Language spa
 
Relation https://revista.fder.edu.uy/index.php/rfd/article/view/628/1066
https://revista.fder.edu.uy/index.php/rfd/article/view/628/1108
/*ref*/Alford, R. (2008). How Do You Trim the Seamless Web? Considering the Unintended Consequences of Pedagogical Alterations. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 77, 1273.
/*ref*/Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J. y Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
/*ref*/Ayers, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389-400.
/*ref*/Bartimote-Aufflick, K., A., B. y Ainle, M. (2006). University Teachers Engaged in Critical Self-Regulation: How May They Influence Their Students? En A. Efklides y P. Misailidi, Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research (pp. 427-444). London: Springer.
/*ref*/Beryl, B. (1992). Teaching Evidence: Storytelling in the Classroom. The American University Law Review, 41, 453.
/*ref*/Berrett. D. (2012). How ‘flipping’ the classroom can improve the traditional lecture. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 12, 1-14
/*ref*/Carnelutti, F. (1982). La Prueba Civil. Buenos Aires: EJEA.
/*ref*/Cobas Cobiella, M. E. (2015). El aprendizaje cooperativo: una competencia imprescindible para la formación de juristas. Revista Boliviana de Derecho, 18, 604-621.
/*ref*/Cobas Cobiella, M. M. y Mirrow, M. (2014). Educación legal en los Estados Unidos. Facultades de Derecho y el Juris Doctor. Inter-American Law Review , 46(1), 7-31.
/*ref*/Coloma Correa, R. (2005). El ocaso del profesor Binns: Un ensayo acerca de la enseñanza del derecho en Chile. Ius et Praxis, 11(1), 133-172.
/*ref*/Couture, E. (1977). Fundamentos del Derecho Procesal Civil. Buenos Aires: Depalma.
/*ref*/Fiss, O. (1999). El derecho según Yale. En M. Böhmer, La enseñanza del Derecho y el ejercicio de la abogacía (págs. 26-35). Barcelona: Gedisa.
/*ref*/Fadul, J. A. (2009). Collective Learning: Applying distributed cognition for collective intelligence. The International Journal of Learning. 16 (4), 211–220.
/*ref*/Fernández March, A. y Bolonia, T. (2006). Metodologías activas para la formación de competencias. México, D.F.: Educación Siglo XXI.
/*ref*/Fredrick E. (2010). Toward a General Theory of Standards of Proof, 60 Cath. U. L. Rev. (2010), 1.
/*ref*/Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22-30.
/*ref*/Hammill, J., Best, G. y Anderson, J. (2015). Developing Student Mentor self-regulation skills through formative feedback: Rubric development phase. Journal of Peer Learning, 8, 48-58.
/*ref*/Heer, R. (2012). Iowa State University Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching Updated. Recuperado de http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-taxonomy(revisado 25/8/2016).
/*ref*/Hess, Gerald F. (2013). Blended Courses in Law School: The Best of Online and Face-to- Face Learning? McGeorge Law Review, 45, 51-67
/*ref*/Hess, G., Friedland, S., Schwartz, M. y Sparrow, S. (2011). Techniques for Teaching Law 2. North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
/*ref*/Hopkins, A. (2008). Teaching Evidence Law Within the Framework of a Trial: Relating Theory to Practice as Students Take to Their Feet and Take Responsibility for the Trial Narrative. Journal of the Australian Law Teachers Association, 173-184.
/*ref*/Iborra Cuéllar, A. y Izquierdo Alonso, M. (2010). ¿Cómo afrontar la evaluación del aprendizaje colaborativo? Una propuesta valorando el proceso, el contenido y el producto de la actividad grupal.Revista General de Información y Documentación, 20, 221-241.
/*ref*/Kaori, Y. y Hidetoshi, Y. (2017). Project-based learning in out-of-class activities: flipped learning based on communities created in real and virtual spaces. Procedia Coputer Service, 112, 1044-1053.
/*ref*/Kennedy, D. (1987). The Responsibility of Lawyers for the Justice of Their Causes. Texas Tech Law Review, 18, 1157-1163.
/*ref*/Kennedy, D. (1982). Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy. Journal of Legal Education. 591-615.
/*ref*/Lobato, C. (1997). Hacia una comprensión del aprendizaje cooperativo. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 4, 59-76.
/*ref*/Kolb, D. A. (1976). The Learning Style Inventory: Technical Manual, Boston, Ma.: McBer.
/*ref*/Kolb, A. Y., y Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory – Version 3.1: 2005 Technical Specifications. Haygroup: Experience New York: Based Learning Systems Inc.
/*ref*/Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J. y Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating aninclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43.
/*ref*/Lam, D. (2004). Problem-based learning: an integration of theory and field. Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 371, 372.
/*ref*/Leclerc, O. (2012). La distinction entre ’la preuve en droit’ et la ’preuve en science’ est-elle pertinente? E. Truilhé-Marengo. Preuve scienti que, preuve juridique. Paris: Larcier.
/*ref*/Lemmer, C. (2013). A view from the Flip Side: Using the “Inverted Classroom” to Enhance the Legal Information Literacy of the International LL.M. Student. Law Library Review, 2, 461-491.
/*ref*/Mayer, R. E. (2009). Learning and Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Pearson/ Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
/*ref*/Mazur, E. (1996). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
/*ref*/Mazur, E. (2006). Peer Instruction: Wie man es schafft, Studenten zum Nachdenken zu bringen. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften. Physik in der Schule, 55(4), 11-15.
/*ref*/Miller, K., Schell, J., Ho, A., Lukoff, B. y Mazur, E. (2015). Response switching and self efficacy inPeer Instruction classrooms. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 11(1),1–8.
/*ref*/Nicol, D. J. y Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class- wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies Higher Education, 28, 457-473.
/*ref*/Nance, D. (2016). The Burden of Proof. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.
/*ref*/Oh, R. y Reamy, B. (2014). The Socratic Method and Pimping: Optimizing the Use of Stress and Fear in Instruction. American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, 16(3), 182-186.
/*ref*/Orejundo-Hernández, S., Fernández-Turrado, T. y Garrido-Laporte, M. A. (2008). Experiencias con metodologías activas en la formación del profesorado. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 63(22), 21-45.
/*ref*/Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 49, 345-373.
/*ref*/Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
/*ref*/Pantoja Ospina, M. A. (2013). Learning Styles Models : An upgrade for their revision and analysis. Revista Colombiana de Educación, (64), 79–105.
/*ref*/Posner, R. A. (2001). Clinical and Theoretical Approaches to the Teaching of Evidence and Trial Advocacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Law School
/*ref*/Prütting, H. (2016). Münchener Kommentar zur ZPO. Múnich: Beck.
/*ref*/Ramy, H. (2013). Moving Students from Hearing and Forgetting to Doing and Understanding: A Manual for Assessment in Law School. Capital University Law Review, 41, 837-850.
/*ref*/Roberts, P. (2002). Rethinking the Law of Evidence: A Twenty-First Century Agenda for Teaching and Research. Current Legal Problems, 55(1), 1.
/*ref*/Rothstein, P. (2006). Teaching Evidence. Georgetown: Georgetown University Law Center.
/*ref*/Ryan, E., Shuai, X., Ye, Y. y Ran, Y. (2014). When Socrates meets Confucius: teaching creative and critical thinking across cultures through multilevel Socratic method. Nebraska Law Review, 92(2), 290-349.
/*ref*/Santiveri Morata, F., Iglesias Rodríguez, C., Gil Iranzo, R. y Rourera Jordana, R. (2011). Metodologías activas en la docencia universitaria: resultados de algunas experiencias realizadas. IX Jornades de xarxes d’investigació en docència universitària Recuperado de http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4127817
/*ref*/Sentis Melendo, S. (1979). La Prueba. Buenos Aires: EJEA.
/*ref*/Schatzberg, L. (1999). Applying Bloom’s and Kolb’s Theories To Teaching Systems Analysys and Design. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241724614_Applying_Bloom's_and_Kolb's_Theories_To_Teaching_Systems_Analysis_Design
/*ref*/Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171-180.
/*ref*/Taruffo, M. (2003). Rethinking the Standard of Proof. American Journal of Comparative Law, 51, 659-677.
/*ref*/Taruffo, M. (2010). Evidence, in International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Vol. XVI, Cap. 7, Berlin: Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen.
/*ref*/Thalluri, J., O ’Flaherty, J. A. y Shepherd, P. L. (2014). Classmate peer-coaching: “A Study BuddySupport scheme”. Journal of Peer Learning, 7(7), 92–104.
/*ref*/Turull, M. (Ed). (2011). Experiencias de mejora e innovación docente en el ámbito del Derecho. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona.
/*ref*/Thies, D. (2010). Rethinking Legal Education in Hard Times: The Recession, Practical Legal Education and the New Job Market. Journal of Legal Education, 59, 598-630.
/*ref*/Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M. y Stains, M. (2015). Research- Based Implementation of Peer Instruction: A Literature Review. Life Sciences Education, 2, 14-19.
/*ref*/Wolff, L.-C. y Chan, J. (2016). Flipped Classrooms for Legal Education. New York: Springer.
 

Contact Us

The PKP Index is an initiative of the Public Knowledge Project.

For PKP Publishing Services please use the PKP|PS contact form.

For support with PKP software we encourage users to consult our wiki for documentation and search our support forums.

For any other correspondence feel free to contact us using the PKP contact form.

Find Us

Twitter

Copyright © 2015-2018 Simon Fraser University Library