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

Making "Thinking Time" for Curricular Development

In academia, we often hear faculty discuss the need to find time to write.  I've recently been reading Helen Sword's Air & Light & Time & Space, in which she discusses the need for those very things in writing.  In the first chapter, she notes, "[A]cademics talk constantly about making time, finding time, carving out time to write. We fantasize about having more of it, and we bemoan our chronic lack of it."[1]

I find the same is true for developing and assessing curricular programming. As librarians, true public servants, our profession is rooted in our service to others. Even if we are not scheduled for the reference desk or to attend a meeting, our "availability" is our calling card and in some cases our badge of honor.  It's expected that we will stop what we're doing should a patron come to our door or call on the phone.

The problem is that without free time to think, to think uninterrupted, we cannot innovate.  We keep with the stat…

Cold-Calling in the Law Classroom

In the years I've spent in legal academia, both as a student and a teacher, there's never been a great deal of discussion about the efficacy of cold-calling students. In the past year, however, I've heard arguments by faculty members that cold-calling works as a form of formative assessment for class, despite the fact that only one student is answering a given question. Recently, however, as I've been exploring brain science, I've been wondering about how much learning actually takes place inside classrooms where cold-calling is the primary method of instruction. Are we making learning more difficult than it needs to be?

I've written briefly before about the effectsof retrieval. Retrieval is the stage of the learning process in which students access information from their long-term memories.[1] Regular practice retrieving information leads to both long-term retention of information (basically, because we have had practice finding information in the knowledge st…

Intuitions About Teaching and Learning

Most learners rely on their own intuitions when selecting their study strategies. The same is true of teachers; we look back to our experiences as both students and teachers in deciding which strategies to use with our students. But how reliable are these intuitions?

It turns out, not veryreliable.

When relying on intuition, both students and teachers can select strategies that may not help learners be successful. We can see this in the tendency of college students to see reading and re-reading their textbooks and notes as the best way to learn.[1] Studies overwhelming demonstrate that re-reading takes more time on the part of the learner, but does not improve students' abilities to retain information in the long term.[2] To learners, however, re-reading feels good. As Yana Weinstein and Megan Sumeracki describe it in their book, "The more we read a passage, the more fluently we are able to read it. However, reading fluency does not mean we're engaging with the informatio…

Embracing Learner-Centered Pedagogy

Most educators pride themselves on putting our students first and try to make teaching decisions with our students' best interests in mind. But, what does learner-centered teaching really mean?

In their 2017 book, Learner-Centered Pedagogy: Principles and Practice, Kevin Michael Klipfel and Dani Brecher Cook set out to answer this question--and how it can be applied to teaching in a librarianship context. When asked to articulate what having a learner-centered approach means, most point to individual exercises or classroom techniques they employ or try to avoid, but are unable to describe the philosophy as a larger concept.

Ultimately, Klipfel and Cook's definition of learner-centered pedagogy is "who we are as people matters."[1] They explain it in further detail as: "Our conception of learner-centered pedagogy encourages library educators to encounter the learner as an individual with personal interests, preferences, and motivations, and uniquely human set of …

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…