Skip to main content

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, "intrinsic motivation kicks extrinsic motivation's ass."[3]  Intrinsic motivation leads to greater and longer-term engagement and a greater depth of learning because the motivation doesn't go away when the reward or the punishment goes away.  Intrinsic motivation leads to a host of other benefits; those who are intrinsically motivated "tend to be more aware of a wide range of phenomena, while giving careful attention to complexities, inconsistencies, novel events, and unexpected possibilities."[4]  While extrinsic motivation can be useful for getting students in the room for class, how can we tap into the power of intrinsic motivation?

There are a number of different theories out there on how to support intrinsic motivation.  Most include three common factors that are laid out in self-determination theory (SDT) and its concept of cognitive valuation.[5] 

  1. Autonomy. Autonomy is the first element of SDT.  We can help increase students' intrinsic motivation by helping them feel some control and some freedom in their learning.  When conditions diminish students' perceived autonomy or competence, it undermines intrinsic motivation.[6]  I suspect this is why "treasure hunt" style exercises are so unpopular with students; in those exercises, they have little freedom to explore research platforms, to test out new methods, and to determine their actions. Instead, we should introduce strategies to students and then let them test them out themselves, hypothesizing what might work and adjusting their strategies if they fail. 
  2. Competence. Secondly, students need to feel challenged by their learning--it should be neither too difficult nor too easy.  When students have opportunities to gain new skills and to be challenged appropriately, their perception of their competence increases.[7]  This can be a difficult mark to hit when students arrive in our classroom with variant skill levels, but assignments that increase in difficulty is one way to ensure that all students are encountering a challenge in the assignment.  We can use scaffolding techniques with the early questions to help students with lower skill levels succeed with the earlier questions and work up to the more challenging questions.  But by having some harder questions toward the end, every student, regardless of their initial abilities, will be able to feel some struggle. By overcoming that struggle, students will start to have feelings of mastery, which is another important component of the competence prong of SDT.[8]
  3. Relatedness. Finally, students experience relatedness when they feel a connection to others.[9]  On legal research assignments, students are often working on their exercises solo.  Try finding ways to let your students work together to solve problems in pairs or groups, so they feel a connection to their classmates.  Maybe try setting up an advanced legal research class as a firm with a set of team goals that students can work toward as a unit.
Prizes and rewards in class are fun, but they do not have the power of intrinsic motivation in getting students to engage deeply in the material and consequently walk away with more knowledge.  By helping students increase their level of intrinsic motivation, not only will class be a better experience for all involved, but students will learn more.  Keeping these three prongs--autonomy, competence, and relatedness--in mind can help us to develop our courses in a way that utilizes the power of intrinsic motivation.





[1] Julie Dirksen, Design for How People Learn 30 (2016).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Karl M. Kapp, The Gamification of Learning and Instruction: Game-Based Methods and Strategies for Training and Education (2012).

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

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,"…

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…

Teaching and Burnout

Well, friends, it's been quite a while since I've written in this venue.  Full disclosure: the fall semester was a tough one--my library was down two teaching librarians and the load was heavy as responsibilities in this and other areas increased.  While I still enjoyed being in the classroom with my students, I didn't have as much time as I'd like to think deeply about cognitive science and educational theory, and I often started feeling badly about myself for not making more time for it, for not pushing forward in my understanding of how we can best help students learn.

The truth is that a career is a marathon, not a sprint. This is something that I spout off to others quite frequently, but is something I too often fail to keep in mind for myself.  I often feel like a hypocrite as I speak to my students frequently about the importance of self-care, when I so infrequently practice self-care myself.  Teaching, done well, uses up a huge amount of emotional and cognitiv…

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…