The research and analysis that we teach our students are
processes, but when our students’ grades are based primarily on the documents
they produce, students can have a difficult time internalizing those processes.
This is partially due to what cognitive psychologists refer to as cognitive
load. Cognitive psychologists define cognitive
load as “the mental burden that managing working memory imposes on a person.”[1]
According to a 2015 law review article on cognitive load and legal writing:
"Cognitive load theorists opine that the process of learning complex new information can exhaust a student’s finite working memory, perhaps capable of holding as few as two or three elements at a time. The complexity of the ‘element interactivity’—the interaction between various elements of the material to be learned—alters cognitive load. Thus, the complicated process of analyzing legal problems, researching their possible solutions, and communicating that analysis in writing can overwhelm students’ working memories . . . ."[2]
The article describes three types of cognitive load:
- Intrinsic cognitive load: This is the mental burden essential to learning the materials at hand.
- Extraneous cognitive load: This is the mental burden that is not intrinsic to learning the material at hand. It is often obstructs learning and is caused by poor instructional design.
- Germane cognitive load: A sub-type of intrinsic cognitive load, it's the mental burden that memory uses to develop the structures of long-term memory.[3]
As research instructors, we must explain the import of giving
students opportunities two distinct types of practice: 1) exercises to practice
their bibliographic research skills—how to locate certain types of materials,
separate from engaging in any analysis; and 2) assignments to practice the
analytical process inherent to research without worrying about producing a
written document. This might require a re-working of the curriculum. In most first
year skills courses, we see two scenarios. In the first, instructors incorporate the bibliographic type of practice exercises because students must first and foremost know how to locate different types of materials. They don’t have
time to focus on research analysis skills separate from students' writing assignments, causing students to struggle with the analytical side of research as
they research their first open memo. In the second, instructors attempt to merge the two types of practice into
one assignment, which may be too much for students to absorb cognitively. This may cause students to focus more on research as a gathering skill rather than as an
analytical skill. It may be challenging to fit multiple research assignments
into an already packed curriculum due to the overabundance of topics covered
in 1L skills courses. But, given that studies show both that new attorneys will spend a considerable amount of their time conducting legal research and that their employers are unhappy with where their research skills currently stand, it’s
time to advocate for making more room for research instruction. Including exercises that allow students to process both sets of researching skills separately will ultimately produce the kinds of researchers prospective employers want to hire.
[1]
Terri L. Enns & Monte Smith, “Take a (Cognitive) Load Off: Creating Space
to Allow First-Year Legal Writing Students to Focus on Analytical and Writing
Processes,” 20 J. Legal Writing Institute 109, 110 (2015).
[2]
Id. at 111.
[3] Id.