Critical Reading and Legal Writing
Download
Report
Transcript Critical Reading and Legal Writing
Jane Bloom Grisé
UK College of Law
Colonial Frontier Legal Writing Conference
December 6, 2014
[email protected]
Introduction to Circuits
Hypothesis
Law students who receive critical reading
instruction will be stronger writers.
Introduction
Study background
Student experiences
Reading studies
General learning theory
Research study
Study design
Critical reading instruction
Student reaction
Student reading experiences
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)
Lundeberg Study: 1987
Expert & Novice Reading Strategies
Category
Novices
Experts
Context – look for
headings
1
10
Overview
0
8
Reread rule
3
9
Reread terms
3
6
Synthesis
3
6
Evaluate
1
10
Underline
5
6
Dorothy Deegan: Law Review Article (1995)
Reading
Strategies
Upper Quartile
Lower Quartile
Paraphrase,
underline
29.1%
44.7%
Reread,
question
58.9%
40.3%
Laurel Currie Oates: Torts Casebook (1997)
Category
Top 15%
Bottom 20%
Professor
Read as
advocate
yes
no
yes
Reread
yes
no
yes
Leah Christensen: Judicial Opinion (2007)
Category
Higher
Performance
Lower
Performance
Paraphrase,
underline
21%
77%
Reread,
question
45%
12%
Evaluate
32%
9%
Read as
advocate
55%
15%
TOP STUDENTS
Read as advocate or judge.
Understood context of case.
Created mental picture of facts.
Read and re-read.
Evaluated decisions.
LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS
Read for class.
Skimmed over the facts.
Underlined and highlighted a great deal.
Focused on paraphrasing.
Did not question the result.
Lundeberg Study: 1987
Reading Instruction Intervention
Student
Experience
Guidelines
Guidelines &
Training
Nothing
Pre-law
23.75/20.20
18/12.71
2 weeks of law
school
22.5/21.6
23.44/24.50
19.87/19
2 months of
law school
23.66/18.6
26.85/26
22.66/20.8
1-2 years of
law school
24.37
21.87
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Research Study
Hypothesis:
Law students who receive critical reading
instruction will be stronger writers.
Apply basic principles of reading instruction
to law school context.
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 1st semester grades & performance on writing
assignments (rubrics for each).
Instructional Sessions
Session
Timing
Session Description
Overview
Before reading
Cases are difficult to read
1
Before
Reading for a purpose, Read as an advocate,
Focus
2
Before
Context, Prior Knowledge, Case Structure
3
During reading
Read for Overview
4
During
Facts
5
During
Issue, Holding, Rationale
6
During
Inferences
7
After reading
Evaluation
8
After
Synthesis
Student Manual
Theoretical
Research
Practice
basis for each session
studies
Checklist
Phase 1 – Before Reading
Phase 2 – Read for Overview
Phase 3 – Read More Carefully
Phase 4 – After Reading
Overview Session
Research/Theory
Carnegie Report
Metacognition
Session Implementation
Cases are difficult to read
Reading studies
Self-awareness
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)
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.
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
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)
Session 2 Context & Case Structure
Research/Theory
Reading studies
General reading theory
Session Implementation
Context
Prior Knowledge
Organizational structure of cases & procedure
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.
Session 3 - Overview
Research/Theory
Lundeberg study
General reading theory
Session Implementation
Read for overview
Non-linear reading
Session 4 Checklist
(Facts)
Phase 3 – Read More Carefully
Understand the facts completely.
Session 4 - Facts
Research/Theory
Reading studies
General reading theory
Session Implementation
Substantive facts
Procedure
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 decisionunderstand main ideas.
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
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.
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
What is going on here?
Session 7 Checklist
(Evaluation)
Phase 4 - After Reading
Compile questions – talk with other
students/Professors.
Evaluate the decision.
Session 7 - Evaluation
Research/Theory
Reading studies
General reading theory
Session Implementation
Evaluate cases
Determine if case can help solve new problems
Session 8 Checklist
(Synthesis)
After Reading
How does the case fit with other cases in
the casebook or your research?
Session 8 - Synthesis
Research/Theory
Reading studies
General reading theory
Session Implementation
When to synthesize
How to synthesize
Student Evaluations
Category
Student 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
Results & Implications
Results
Examine participant & control group grades & pre-test
writing assignment & post-test writing assignments
Implications
Timing of instruction
Who provides instruction?
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)