The New York Times has an interesting story about how legal (and other) education is incorporating new technology to encourage student participation. In particular, the article points out how some law professors now use wireless keyboards to get mass class participation: asking students to answer common questions, getting immediate reactions to issues, etc.
I know at least one of my professors here would be very upset by this development. This professor (naming no names here) would almost certainly argue that part of the job of a lawyer is to conquer nerves, stand up before a group of possibly hostile listeners, and persuade them about a point that you may not have completely researched. To the extent that technology submerges actual advocacy in invisible mass participation, important legal skills are being lost.
On the other hand, too often an emphasis on overcoming nerves and on public advocacy leaves some people silent the entire semester. I suppose it's an empirical question: these technologies undoubtedly cause some people who would have otherwise conquered their nerves to sink gratefully int the anonymous masses, but they also undoubtedly cause some people who would otherwise have stayed silent to participate, however minimally.