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

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…

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…

Battling Law Students' Fixed Mindset

Many students show up to law school with fixed mindsets--the belief that each person is born with a particular intellectual ability and that they there is little to nothing one can do to surpass that innate intellectual level.  A large proportion of law students were classified as smart early on in their learning experiences and have been academically successful their entire educational careers.  Many faculty members had a similar experience as they advanced from primary school to secondary school to undergrad and finally to law school--where most continued to succeed academically.

For some law students, however, law school is the first time in their lives that they have struggled to succeed immediately.  This can have a disastrous result, because those with fixed mindsets have a tendency to equate mistakes with failure.  These students then have a tendency to avoid challenging themselves, to ignore constructive criticism, and to give up or not try.[1]  In their minds, they are just n…

Using Backward Design in Course Development

There are different methods instructors use to design their courses. In his book Creating Significant Learning Experiences, L. Dee Fink identifies three major approaches:
In the first approach, the instructor picks out some number of major topics within their course subject matter, then preps lectures for each topic. Then he or she adds in a final exam and sometimes a midterm, and the course is ready to go.  Fink notes that this approach is less time-consuming, but "pays little or no attention to the quality and quantity of student learning." [1] He explains that this type of learning "has a relatively short half-life and, more significantly, does not meet the educational needs of students and society today." [2]In the second approach, instructors still designs their course around major topics, but rather than focusing solely on lectures, he or she incorporates a variety of active learning opportunities. This approach is more engaging for students, but it still does…

Four Aspects of Effectual Teaching (& Why Instructional Design Is the One Missing In Many Law Courses)

There are four general components of teaching, which all must come together for a teacher to be successful:
Knowledge of the Subject Matter: Most instructors in higher education have this covered. The largest potential hurdle of this aspect of teaching is perhaps remembering to view the material from the perspective of the beginner learner, as opposed to from the teacher's own advanced learner status. In my first year of teaching, I found this to be an issue, as I jumped over steps that were so obvious to me that I didn't even notice them anymore. It was only by students asking questions that illustrated I was missing an important step in their comprehension and by watching the legal writing professor I co-taught with that I began to break down my material into pieces that were more digestible for my students.

Interaction with Students: Instructor-student interaction can take a myriad of forms. As L. Dee Fink writes in Creating Significant Learning Experiences,

"Teacher-stud…