David A. Thomas, Brigham Young University I have taught property law to first year students since the beginning of my academic career in 1974. Throughout this time I have been troubled by two major deficiencies that seem to hinder learning. One deficiency is the lack of adequate information to guide students in their preparation for class sessions and examinations. We tell them which cases to read and generally the kinds of things they should say when they are asked about a case in class, but we are not very explicit about what they should be learning, either about the law or about analysis of legal issues. The other deficiency is that we give virtually no feedback on whether they have in fact learned the “right” or the important things, or learned those things sufficiently well to succeed in the course and beyond. Traditionally, a law student can discover whether the focus of study was anywhere near the mark only upon learning the result of the final examination. While “hiding the ball” may reinforce analytical techniques that some try to model through use of the Socratic method in the classroom, it is mostly anathema to learning and should not characterize our pedagogy generally. One of my attempts to overcome these deficiencies has been to create a “comprehension review” for each of the major topics I cover in the first-year property law course. The “comprehension review” consists of (1) a list of topics or learning objectives for that unit, to be consulted by the students before they begin preparation and to inform their preparation for that unit; and (2) several questions in a variety of formats designed to test their understanding and analytical mastery of the principal issues of law raised in that unit, to be completed and submitted within a few hours after conclusion of the class session for the unit. I or a teaching assistant review the comprehension review, notify the student of incorrect or inadequate responses, and require the student to submit new responses for those items until a correct response is given. As needed, further instruction is tendered as a foundation for achieving correct responses. I administer forty comprehension reviews in a semester of consisting of 52 class sessions. I do not grade the comprehension reviews, but require their timely completion for credit in the class. In conducting class discussions and creating examination questions (which in my case are unique to each exam) I draw heavily from the comprehension reviews. In this way the comprehension reviews (1) help inform the students on how to focus their study most effectively for my classes and my examinations, as well as (2) give them feedback on how well they have learned the law or how to analyze the basic issues raised in the units. For me, the comprehension reviews are a way of assessing the student progress on almost all the issues we cover in the entire course, rather than the only spotty coverage available through the examination process. I propose to describe in greater detail my experience in creating and administering the comprehension reviews, which I consider an aid student learning and a means for helping me know if all the students are gaining minimally acceptable understanding and competency in all the important parts of the course.