Skip to main content

Desirable Difficulties in Legal Research Instruction

Challenges that result in stronger long-term learning are known as "desirable difficulties." Studies in how the brain works provide solid evidence that struggles in learning can actually be beneficial to the learner.

So how does the brain work? Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning by Peter C. Brown et al., gives a concise version, explaining that first the brain undergoes encoding to create memory traces, "converting sensory perceptions into meaningful representations in the brain."[1] Next comes consolidation, during which the brain has to solidify these not fully-formed memory traces; this involves "deep processing of the new materials, during which scientists believe the brain replays or rehearses the learning, giving it meaning, filling in blank spots, and making connections to past experiences," which helps learners to organize and strengthen their learning.[2] 

When you allow space out your learning, as opposed to practicing something you just learned immediately and repeatedly, your learning is strengthened because retrieval is more challenging.[3]  Basically, when you practice recalling a new skill or topic immediately after being introduced to it, it is easier to recall and consolidation isn't as deep. When you letting learning recede a little bit, learning is harder to recall, but learning is deeper.

Let's apply this to legal research instruction. In many instances, we introduce one type of source to our students, for example, statutes. They learn all the ways to retrieve statutes (table of contents, index, etc.) and they immediately get practice finding statutes both in-class and as homework. They may even feel good (and you as the instructor may feel equally good) because they seem to have grasped it so quickly.

After a day or a few days of statutes, however, we move on to the next type of source and focus solely on it, moving entirely away from statutes. The students will eventually get another chance to practice locating a statute, but it may not come until several weeks later when they are doing an open memo problem. Their learning recedes too far.  Because their practice was rapid and close to the time they were initially introduced to the material, their consolidation wasn't as deep and many of them struggle when asked to perform their skills in the context of a larger problem.

Consolidation would be stronger if throughout the semester, opportunities to research a statute were sprinkled into the curriculum--even as a beginning of class warm-up or by finding a statute in conjunction with whatever new source students are learning to help build those connections. Because law students are learning so much at once, their cognitive loads are full, so after even a week away from a type of source, it is helpful to give them a problem or two to help them continue to consolidate their learning.


[1]  Peter C. Brown et al., Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning 72 (2014). 

[2]  Id. at 73-74.

[3]  Id. at 74-75. 


Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

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…