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)