jane bloom grisé uk college of law colonial frontier legal writing conference december 6, 2014...
TRANSCRIPT
- Slide 1
- Jane Bloom Gris UK College of Law Colonial Frontier Legal Writing Conference December 6, 2014 [email protected]
- Slide 2
- Introduction to Circuits
- Slide 3
- Hypothesis Law students who receive critical reading instruction will be stronger writers.
- Slide 4
- Introduction Study background Student experiences Reading studies General learning theory Research study Study design Critical reading instruction Student reaction
- Slide 5
- Student reading experiences
- Slide 6
- Reading Studies a correlation exists between the reading strategies of the top law students and their first semester grades. Leah Christensen, Legal Reading & Success in Law School: An Empirical Study, 30 Seattle L. Rev. 603 (2007)
- Slide 7
- Lundeberg Study: 1987 Expert & Novice Reading Strategies CategoryNovicesExperts Context look for headings 110 Overview08 Reread rule39 Reread terms36 Synthesis36 Evaluate110 Underline56
- Slide 8
- Dorothy Deegan: Law Review Article (1995) Reading Strategies Upper QuartileLower Quartile Paraphrase, underline 29.1%44.7% Reread, question 58.9%40.3%
- Slide 9
- Laurel Currie Oates: Torts Casebook (1997) CategoryTop 15%Bottom 20%Professor Read as advocate yesnoyes Rereadyesnoyes
- Slide 10
- Leah Christensen: Judicial Opinion (2007) CategoryHigher Performance Lower Performance Paraphrase, underline 21%77% Reread, question 45%12% Evaluate32%9% Read as advocate 55%15%
- Slide 11
- TOP STUDENTS Read as advocate or judge. Understood context of case. Created mental picture of facts. Read and re-read. Evaluated decisions.
- Slide 12
- LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS Read for class. Skimmed over the facts. Underlined and highlighted a great deal. Focused on paraphrasing. Did not question the result.
- Slide 13
- Lundeberg Study: 1987 Reading Instruction Intervention Student Experience GuidelinesGuidelines & Training Nothing Pre-law23.75/20.2018/12.71 2 weeks of law school 22.5/21.623.44/24.5019.87/19 2 months of law school 23.66/18.626.85/2622.66/20.8 1-2 years of law school 24.3721.87
- Slide 14
- Blooms Taxonomy
- Slide 15
- Research Study Hypothesis: Law students who receive critical reading instruction will be stronger writers. Apply basic principles of reading instruction to law school context.
- Slide 16
- Study Design All 1Ls invited to participate. Created participant & control groups equivalent LSAT/UGPA. First writing assignment - pre-test. 9 sessions of critical reading instruction for participant group. Last writing assignment - post-test. Compare 1 st semester grades & performance on writing assignments (rubrics for each).
- Slide 17
- Instructional Sessions SessionTimingSession Description OverviewBefore readingCases are difficult to read 1BeforeReading for a purpose, Read as an advocate, Focus 2BeforeContext, Prior Knowledge, Case Structure 3During readingRead for Overview 4DuringFacts 5DuringIssue, Holding, Rationale 6DuringInferences 7After readingEvaluation 8AfterSynthesis
- Slide 18
- Student Manual Theoretical basis for each session Research studies Practice
- Slide 19
- Checklist Phase 1 Before Reading Phase 2 Read for Overview Phase 3 Read More Carefully Phase 4 After Reading
- Slide 20
- Overview Session Research/Theory Carnegie Report Metacognition Session Implementation Cases are difficult to read Reading studies Self-awareness
- Slide 21
- Reading Studies a correlation exists between the reading strategies of the top law students and their first semester grades. Leah Christensen, Legal Reading & Success in Law School: An Empirical Study, 30 Seattle L. Rev. 603 (2007)
- Slide 22
- Session 1 Checklist (Purpose) Warning Phase 1 Before Reading Read for a purpose & assume the role of advocate or judge. Think about time. Read with energy & focus.
- Slide 23
- Session 1-Purpose Research/Theory Reading studies Mindfulness studies Exercise studies General reading theory Session Implementation Purpose of reading cases Read as an advocate Role of focus (mindfulness) & exercise
- Slide 24
- Session 2 Checklist (Context & Structure of Cases) Phase 1 Before Reading Put case in context Look at syllabus, table of contents, research Look at case name, citation, court, date Use prior knowledge (structure of cases, procedure)
- Slide 25
- Session 2 - Context & Case Structure Research/Theory Reading studies General reading theory Session Implementation Context Prior Knowledge Organizational structure of cases & procedure
- Slide 26
- Session 3 Checklist (Overview) Phase 2 Read for Overview Skim case from beginning to end. Examine general structure of opinion, headings. Focus on the parties, who won, and what case is generally about.
- Slide 27
- Session 3 - Overview Research/Theory Lundeberg study General reading theory Session Implementation Read for overview Non-linear reading
- Slide 28
- Session 4 Checklist (Facts) Phase 3 Read More Carefully Understand the facts completely.
- Slide 29
- Session 4 - Facts Research/Theory Reading studies General reading theory Session Implementation Substantive facts Procedure
- Slide 30
- Session 5 Checklist (Main Idea) Phase 3 Read More Carefully Look up words. Read to understand issue, rule, holding, rationale. Make margin notes and brief case. Read case in context of entire decision- understand main ideas.
- Slide 31
- Session 5 Main Idea Research/Theory Lundeberg, Oates, Christensen studies General reading theory Session Implementation Role of rereading in understanding holdings Read to understand main ideas and supporting details Read to understand opinion as a whole
- Slide 32
- Session 6 Checklist (Inferences) Phase 3 Read More Carefully When courts do not explicitly set forth the rule of law, make inferences to identify the rule.
- Slide 33
- Session 6 - Inferences Research/Theory General reading theory Session Implementation Understanding cases when holdings are not explicitly stated Explain text Text to text connections Extrapolate from text
- Slide 34
- What is going on here?
- Slide 35
- Session 7 Checklist (Evaluation) Phase 4 - After Reading Compile questions talk with other students/Professors. Evaluate the decision.
- Slide 36
- Session 7 - Evaluation Research/Theory Reading studies General reading theory Session Implementation Evaluate cases Determine if case can help solve new problems
- Slide 37
- Session 8 Checklist (Synthesis) After Reading How does the case fit with other cases in the casebook or your research?
- Slide 38
- Session 8 - Synthesis Research/Theory Reading studies General reading theory Session Implementation When to synthesize How to synthesize
- Slide 39
- Student Evaluations CategoryStudent Response Do you like the checklist?19/19 Yes Parts of checklist most useful?15 Read for a purpose-assume role of advocate/judge. 11 Synthesis 9 Read case in context 9 Look up unfamiliar words Parts of checklist least useful?Time/skimming When should sessions be done?13 - Before school starts; 6 - Earlier in the semester Should reading course be a separate class or part of writing and/or doctrinal classes? 6 Separate 5 Writing 2 - Doctrinal
- Slide 40
- Results & Implications Results Examine participant & control group grades & pre-test writing assignment & post-test writing assignments Implications Timing of instruction Who provides instruction?
- Slide 41
- BIBLIOGRAPHY Leah Christensen, Legal Reading and Success in Law School: An Empirical Study, 30 Seattle U.L. Rev. 603 (2007) Dorothy H. Deegan, Exploring Individual Differences Among Novices Reading in a Specific Domain: The Case of Law, 30 Reading Res.Q. 154 (1995) Mary A. Lundeberg, Metacognitive Aspects of Reading Comprehension: Studying Understanding in Legal Case Analysis, 22 Reading Res.Q.407 (1987) Ruth Ann McKinney, Reading Like a Lawyer (2012) Laurel Currie Oates, Beating the Odds: Reading Strategies of Law Students Admitted through Alternative Admissions Programs, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 139 (1997) James Stratman, When Law Students Read Cases: Exploring Relations Between Professional Legal Reasoning Roles and Problem Detection, Discourse Processes, 34:1 (2002)