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 toda y.  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

Helping with Student Focus & Motivation in the Remote Classroom, Part 4: Building An Online Teaching Presence

I've written before about how important it is to show students you care about their learning and about them as humans , in part summarizing Kent Syverud's excellent piece , "Taking Students Seriously: A Guide for New Law Teachers. It is harder to show students that you care about them in a remote environment than when you see them in a physical classroom every day, where you can smile at them, easily ask them how they're doing as they enter the room or when you run into them in the classroom, or notice through their body language if they are having a hard time and reach out. But we know that showing we care matters; our students try harder and engage more when they feel like their learning matters to their instructor.  It takes more intention to show you care about students in the online classroom, but it's imperative that we find ways to show we do. So what are some ways that we can show students we care in the remote learning environment? The first is to

Rethinking Formative Assessment

We've seen an increased significance placed on formative assessment in the legal academy. Standard 314 of the ABA Standards requires that law schools use both formative and summative assessment methods in their curriculum. Its rational for doing so is "to measure and improve student learning and provide meaningful feedback to students." The ABA defines formative assessment methods as "measurements at different points during a particular course or at different points over the span of a student's education that provide meaningful feedback to improve student learning." Those of us in the legal research instruction business are no strangers to formative assessment. We are leaders in this in the law school curriculum, with rarely a class going by in which students do not practice their skills. Lately, though, I've been wondering whether I'm going about formative assessment in the way that will best provide meaningful feedback to students. In the mandato

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 , "Teac