Skip to main content

Elaborative Interrogation in the Legal Research Classroom

One type of activity legal skills professors can incorporate into their classrooms is elaboration. As described by Yana Weinstein and Megan Sumeracki in Understanding How We Learn: A Visual Guide, "[e]laboration describes the process of adding features to one's memories."[1]  It helps with organization of information within the knowledge structures in one's minds, making it easier to retrieve this information later. But what activities will help students to add features to their memories?

Weinstein and Sumeracki recommend three elaboration techniques that can all be applied to the legal research classroom: elaborative interrogation, concrete examples, and dual coding.[2] Studies of each has shown improvement in student learning and long-term retention. Today, we're going to look specifically elaborative interrogation.

With elaborative interrogation, students ask themselves questions about the reason and way things work.[3]  While it's easy to presume law students are doing this sort of analytical thinking when engaging in research skills, given the transfer of knowledge and long-term retention problems that plague law students' research skills, it's obviously not happening for all students. With simple prompting of our students, it could.

The basic structure of the elaborative interrogation technique is to ask a series of questions that will allow your students to explain the main ideas and make connections between major concepts. One study on elaborative interrogation showed that the "quality of the answer mattered," with students performing "best when they produced an adequate response to the question;" however, a poor answer was still better for learning than no response.[4] It's also important to note that elaborative interrogation is best used when students are familiar with a topic, rather than when a topic is originally introduced.[5]

Self-explanation is a subset of elaborative interrogation, in which students explain their problem-solving steps aloud while they work on a problem.[6]  In a 1994 study, one group of students were given prompts to self-explain as they worked through a group of problems, while another group was left to solve problems as they usually did. The group prompted to self-explain performed significantly better when tested on their understanding of the concepts.[7]

Self-explanation may work particularly well for legal problem-solving. Because legal research is a process, with various methods and strategies that can lead to answers, having students explain their process out loud is a great way to help them retain strategies that work well in certain situations. It may also help them to discern which strategy may work best when faced with research problems in the future--helping to fix the transfer of knowledge problem.

Legal research instructors can have students complete a research problem while explaining their choices as they walk through the problem. This might work particularly well in a legal research conference, where the instructor can ask questions that help the students make helpful connections between new learning and prior learning on an individual basis. While this will undoubtedly take a significant amount of time, it will only serve to boost the beneficial nature of research conferencing

It's critical that the self-explanations are happening aloud, not just in students' minds, so we know they are actually engaging in self-explanation. This could make self-explanation more challenging to do in-class if you want to directly supervise all students, but you could try having students explain their reasoning to one another. James Lang gives a number of easy-to-implement self-explanation activities in his excellent Small Teaching. It can be as simple as asking students to answer the question "Why are you doing that?"[8]

Self-explanation should help students recall steps to take when they are using similar research strategies in the future, as well as help students relate previously-learned skills with new skills, particularly important for legal research's circular and flexible nature. It also helps students to recognize when they are confused about a step in the process--talking aloud helps them recognize their lack of understanding. I'll be doing a lot more asking "Why?" to my students this fall; it may freak them out at first, but I think it'll ultimately result in them thoughtfully considering their research choices, determining for themselves why certain strategies work best in particular situations, and help them to select good strategies when they encounter future problems.

[1] Yana Weinstein & Megan Sumeracki with Oliver Caviglioli, Understanding How We Learn: A Visual Guide 102 (2019).

[2] Id. at 104.

[3] Id. at 105.

[4] Id. at 106.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 107.

[7] Id.

[8] James Lang, Small Teaching: Everyday Lessons from the Science of Learning 137-165 (2016).

Popular posts from this blog

Letter to A First-Time (Legal Research) Instructor

Dear Friend,

Seven years ago this week, I was prepping madly to teach my first legal research class.  Three months earlier, I'd been a law student myself.  To say that I was nervous is an understatement; mildly terrified was probably a more apt description.  The truth is I didn't really know what I was getting myself into, but I knew that I wanted to teach legal research differently than I had been taught legal research, where at best it was viewed as a skill less important than everything else being taught at law school and at worst an afterthought, a skill that students should be able to do with very little training. 

There are many points I wish I knew then that I know now and that's what I want to share with you today. 

First and foremost, students will forgive many imperfections in the classroom if they know you care about their learning.  At the start of every semester, I re-read Kent Syverud's "Taking Students Seriously: A Guide for New Law Teachers,"…

Why Experts Can Struggle to Teach Novices

This week in our Slack group on teaching, there was an interesting discussion about expertise and the amount of time needed to prep for instruction. I mentioned something that I recalled reading: that experts can be less effective in teaching novices because often the expert skips cognitive steps that the novice learner needs to understand.  I thought I'd dig into this a little more today on the blog.

The fact is novices and experts learn very differently.  The major reason for this is that experts not only know a lot about their chosen discipline, but they understand how that discipline is organized. As such, what has a clear structure to the expert is a jumbled set of unorganized information to the novice.  The information presented to novices "are more or less random data points."[1]  In contrast, when the expert learns something new in her area of expertise, she just plugs it into the knowledge structure that already exists in her long-term memory. Because the new in…

16x16 Challenge, or How A Tweet Resulted in Building a Community of Law Librarians Thinking & Writing About Teaching

Twitter is a space in which I've made connections with so many Law Librarians and many others within legal academia--and strengthened connections with others--and learned so much from and been inspired by colleagues across the country.

This past weekend, Emily Barney, Technology Training & Marketing Librarian at Chicago-Kent College of Law, was live-tweeting a panel from the WP Campus (Where WordPress Meets Higher Education) Conference called "The Infamous 9x9x25 Challenge," by Todd Conaway, from the University of Washington--Bothell. Started in 2013 at a community college in Arizona, faculty members were challenged to write 25 sentences a week for 9 weeks about teaching and learning. It gave faculty members the chance to reflect on what they do, share experiences and ideas, and see what their colleagues are up to over the course of the semester. And the challenge has spread in various iterations to college campuses across the United States.

This seemed like a wonder…

Motivation in the Legal Research Classroom

Motivating students in the legal research classroom can be a challenge. As we know, there are many false narratives surrounding students' conceptions of legal research's importance, interest level, and ease, all of which can result in a decrease in students' motivation to engage in this subject matter.

There are two types of motivation--intrinsic and extrinsic. Extrinsic motivation occurs when students are motivated by an outside reward or punishment;[1] in instruction, this is often the grades students will get on research assignments or the participation points they might receive for actively engaging with in-class exercises.  Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, occurs when students are interested in the topic for its own sake.[2]

Due to legal research's false narratives, students entering our classrooms tend to be drive primarily by extrinsic motivation.  The problem is, as Julie Dirksen aptly notes in her excellent book Design for How People Learn, "intri…

Gratitude in Teaching

My favorite poet is Mary Oliver and what I love most about her work is the awe and gratefulness she exudes in merely observing the world.

She writes,
Instructions for living a life:
Pay attention.
Be astonished.
Tell about it.
This is, I think, good advice for teachers.  As teachers, we tend to focus in, with laser-like precision, on anything that goes wrong in our classrooms. This is important--we must reflect on what doesn't work in our classrooms to improve as instructors. But, what we too often fail to do is take note of our successes.

In Chapter 3 of her new book, Geeky Pedagogy: A Guide for Intellectuals, Introverts, and Nerds Who Want to Be Effective Teachers, Professor Jessamyn Neuhaus has a wonderful section on the importance of gratitude in teaching. She describes gratitude as "an inner attitude [that] leads to an expression of thanks--taking an action--toward someone or something. It means recognizing what you received from another person or from the circumstances in w…