Skip to main content

Reflection in the Legal Research Classroom

Reflection is a critical component of experiential learning.  We see in ABA Standard 303 that experiential courses must include multiple opportunities for self-evaluation.  Self-evaluation is critically important to legal research.  Students must reflect on and assess their research methodology each time they research to continue becoming more efficient legal researchers and to determine what research strategies work best in which situations. [1]

Reflection relates to several ideas found in cognitive theory that have been shown to result in stronger learning and retention:

  1. Retrieval: recalling recently-learned information; 
  2. Elaboration: finding a nexis between what you know and what you are learning; and 
  3. Generation: putting concepts into your own words and/or contemplating what you might do differently next time.
I've been contemplating how to better incorporate reflection into legal research classes. At the beginning of this semester, at the recommendation of a workshop I attended last year, we began using guided notes handouts in our first year legal research workshops to help students focus on what they were supposed to be learning.  Basically, the handouts provide students with spaces to jot down key ideas and research methods, in an effort to help them follow the lecture and ensure they are not missing key concepts. What I have found in using them, however, is that while students can track the lecture in a way they probably enjoy, they are not being challenged to transfer their knowledge from the screen or whiteboard to their notes.  Instead, they are merely transcribing key ideas from the PowerPoint slides with little effort to tie it to what they've learned before; I get the distinct impression that a significant portion of the class is not listening carefully, but are instead simply reading the slide (this despite an effort to reduce minimize text on the slide to increase their attention on the instructor and the topic at hand).  Students would be better served by incorporating an activity that isn't as easy, but requires them to work a little harder. 

I've been thinking that trying something new next year might work better--having students write out their own summaries of the key concepts we're teaching after introducing new information.  This would allow them to engage in retrieval, elaboration, and generation as they reflect on the knowledge they are acquiring. In Make It Stick, the authors discuss a study where students listened to lectures throughout the semester. [2]  For some concepts, students wrote out their own summaries of the concepts they were learning, putting the information into their own words.  For others, students copied down key ideas from a slide (effectively what our students are doing with the guided notes handouts). [3]  On tests given later on, students scored higher on those where they'd generated their own summaries than on those they'd merely copied down. [4]  The reflection also helped with retention in follow-up tests months later. [5]

The guided notes handouts might still work, with a little tweaking. Rather than distributing the handouts at the start of the lecture component of the workshop, I'd give them out after the lecture was complete and give the students time to retrieve what they've just been introduced to and fill out the handout. I'd probably add some reflection questions as well to assist students in their reflection (see bullet-point list of questions below). This could be challenging to fit in during a relatively short 50-minute class, but the benefits of including this in the curriculum seem to warrant its addition. Perhaps the reflection questions could be completed after class, and then the entire guided notes handout could be turned in for participation points (rather than a grade).  This would require them to do some critical thinking about the concepts introduced and give me feedback on what students are understanding and what concepts they're struggling to grasp.

In my upper-level research courses, I'd also like students to start doing reflections after readings and lectures, as well as after completing in-class exercises and simulation assignments.  For example, we can ask our students to consider the following: 
  • What are the key ideas?  
  • How does what I'm learning tie into the four-step research process?  
  • Is there anything I read about/was introduced to in the lecture that I cannot connect to what I previously learned?
  • What went well in my research process?  
  • What did I struggle with?  How can I avoid those struggles next time? 
  • What might I need to learn for better mastery?
Legal research conferences are another effective way to introduce reflection and self-evaluation into the curriculum.  After completing their research assignments, but prior to meeting with me for their research conferences, I have students fill out a research questionnaire that prompts them to think critically about their most recent research experience. [6]  The questionnaire asks them to consider what they felt successful at and challenged by in the research assignment and form the basis of our conversation during the conference. [7]  Making these conferences center around the students' answers to the questionnaire also show the students that their concerns and questions are valued. [8]

What's clear is that giving students time to reflect is not only important to strengthen their learning, but it's required in experiential simulation courses under the ABA's standards. 



[1] Alyson Drake, The Need for Experiential Legal Research Instruction, 108 Law Libr. J. 511, 517 (2016).

[2] Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roediger III, and Mark A. McDaniel, Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning 88-90 (2014).

[3] Id. at 89.

[4] Id. at 90.

[5] Id. at 90.

[6] Alyson Drake, On Embracing the Research Conference, 111 Law Libr. J. ___, Appendix A (forthcoming 2019). 

[7] Id.

[8] Id. 


Popular posts from this blog

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

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 , &qu

Helping With Student Focus & Motivation in the Remote Classroom, Part 3: Limiting New Technologies to Reduce Extrinsic Cognitive Load

A librarian colleague used to say to me, "Technology is great until it's not." This couldn't be more true in the classroom.  As many of us prepare for a fall entirely or partially online, there's a rush to familiarize ourselves with lots of new educational technology to teach our classes. There's this sense that if you're not using the best and newest ed tech in your class, you're doing something wrong. Fortunately, the science doesn't back this up.  Using too many different types of technology can be a contributing factor to cognitive overload in students . Cognitive load is a term cognitive psychologists use to describe the mental challenge that the limitations of working memory puts on a student's learning.[1] Basically, working memory is extremely limited in both time and duration. Humans can only hold on to between four and nine "chunks" of information at any given time,[2] and can only hold on to new information in their worki

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