Jane Bloom Grisé UK College of Law Colonial Frontier Legal Writing Conference December 6, 2014...
Preview:
Citation preview
- Slide 1
- Jane Bloom Gris UK College of Law Colonial Frontier Legal
Writing Conference December 6, 2014 jane.grise@uky.edu
- 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)