Skip to main content

Students Forget Most of What We Teach (And What To Do About That)

Studies show that humans forget most of what they learn. But, students acquire new knowledge better when we keep a couple of things in mind:

1)       Students learn better when they have a clear understanding of why they are being expected to learn new tasks and information. As such, it is critical that we explain to students why we are teaching what we’re teaching. Tying curriculum back to practical application can help students understand the importance of what they are learning. 

For those of us teaching legal research, this is vitally important. We have to tell students why being strong researchers is central to their ability to be efficient lawyers—that they will be spending approximately 35% of their time conducting legal research in their first few years of practice. We have to explain to them that research is an analytical skill that they must practice in context so they can learn to do this critical lawyering skill effectively. It’s also important that we explain the importance of their research skills to our colleagues; if they minimize the importance of research to the practice of law--or simply ignore its place in the practice of law, so too will students. Unfortunately, the message that research is a critical and challenging skill for students to learn seems to be lost in legal academia. As the experts on research in the building, it is our responsibility to spread this message at any opportunity we have—whether teaching to a full class of 1Ls, doing orientation for journal students, having a one-on-one appointment with a students, or discussing curriculum with our doctrinal colleagues.

2)      Students forget what they’ve learned when they don’t use their newly attained knowledge regularly. Maintaining one’s skills requires continual reinforcement.

This is especially true of legal research, where we use a variety of resources, most of which are constantly improving and adding tools. What does not change is the research process, which students should be practicing throughout their law school careers. Limiting required research instruction to the first year means that we must incorporate opportunities for research throughout the upper-level curriculum—much more than is currently being done at most law schools. There must be enough courses in the 2L and 3L curriculum that incorporate the practice of research (and the analysis inherent to research) that students cannot avoid exercising these critical skills. Since law schools are unlikely to mandate research instruction after the first year, we need to convince our colleagues that incorporating research-centric activities into their courses will make them better lawyers and better analytical thinkers. (The good news is that these types of exercises integrated into the curriculum will also help the law school to show the ABA that we are meeting the formative assessment required by the ABA Standards). This may require us (law librarians) being willing to partner with our colleagues to develop exercises, to be willing to do a guest lecture, or to find other creative ways to ensure students are maintaining the skills we’ve taught them in the first year. What is clear is that 3L students are leaving law school without sufficient research skills (their employers tell us as much when they describe the lackluster skills of newly hired attorneys)—and it’s not because they weren’t taught the basics in the first year; it’s due to students not practicing those skills regularly over the next two years, and particularly not in a way that allows them to get formative feedback from expert researchers.

It is only by emphasizing the importance of these skills and giving our students enough consistent practice throughout their law school careers that they can make significant progress toward become effective researchers.

Popular posts from this blog

Reflection in the Legal Research Classroom

Reflection is a critical component of experiential learning.  We see in ABA Standard 303 that experiential courses must include multiple opportunities for self-evaluation.  Self-evaluation is critically important to legal research.  Students must reflect on and assess their research methodology each time they research to continue becoming more efficient legal researchers and to determine what research strategies work best in which situations. [1]

Reflection relates to several ideas found in cognitive theory that have been shown to result in stronger learning and retention:

Retrieval: recalling recently-learned information; Elaboration: finding a nexis between what you know and what you are learning; and Generation: putting concepts into your own words and/or contemplating what you might do differently next time. I've been contemplating how to better incorporate reflection into legal research classes. At the beginning of this semester, at the recommendation of a workshop I attended …

Rethinking Learning Outcomes in Legal Research Courses

Learning outcomes have obvious value to our institutions.  ABA Standard 301 requires that law schools "establish and publish learning outcomes" that are designed to prepare students for "effective, ethical, and responsible participation" in the legal profession.  Usually, individual course outcomes should then align with these school-wide learning outcomes.  We include these learning outcomes in our syllabi to show our compliance with the ABA standards in our accreditation visits.  But learning objectives can, or at least should, also have a pedagogical benefit.  After all, we are including them in our syllabi for a reason--to give our students an idea of the learning experience they are about to have in the course. They should also give students a clear picture of what they should be taking with them from the course into the actual practice of law.

As Edmund J. Hansen writes in Idea-Based Learning: A Course Design Process to Promote Conceptual Understanding, the w…

Changing the Narrative About Legal Research

I attended an interesting talk by a colleague and friend recently that has me thinking about re-writing narratives. Specifically, I've been considering how to re-write the narrative about the importance of legal research in legal education.

Legal research instruction has long taken a back seat in the legal academy.  It's even been described as the "stepchild in legal education."[1] As a skills course, it's traditionally been considered of less import than doctrinal courses, though thankfully this seems to be improving. Even within the first years skill course, the dedicated time for students to learn legal research, research often takes a backseat in time and emphasis to legal writing and oral arguments, despite being the foundation needed to be successful at both. This happens despite those hiring new attorneys commenting regularly about their discontent with students' research skills.

It's unlikely in most cases that more time is going to be formally al…

Spaced Repetition & Interleaved Practice in Legal Research Instruction

Researchers refer to single-minded practice as "massed practice." This concentrated practice is thought to embed skills into memory. Unfortunately, while many students and teachers believe this to be the best way to learn, research doesn't support that idea. The problem with massed practice is that it is often accompanied by quick forgetting. Practice is important, but it is considerably more effective when it's spaced out--there's better retention and mastery.

It can be tough to convince our students of the benefits of spaced repetition. As Brown et al. point out in Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning:

 "[T]hese benefits come at a price: when practice is spaced, interleaved, and varied, it requires more effort. You feel the increased effort, but not the benefits the effort produces. Learning feels slower from this kind of practice, and you don't get the rapid improvements and affirmations you're accustomed to seeing from massed practi…

The Effect of Personalization on Student Learning

A group of ten separate studies illustrated that conversational cues can have a deep impact on student learning, particularly for deep learning that allows students to transfer their learning to new situations.[1]Students presented with information in a less formal and more personal manner performed significantly better on problem-solving tests than students hearing identical information presented in a more formal manner.[2]
In her article, Legal Education in the Age of Cognitive Science and Advanced Classroom Technology, Deborah Merritt provides three reasons why personalization deepens learning:
“First, encouraging listeners to think of themselves as a reference point may enhance their interest in the subject, which produced more active cognitive processing. Second, personalizing information may help listeners relate new data to existing mental schema; extending mental frameworks in this manner encourages deeper learning. Finally, listeners may respond to the social cues of convers…