Task mastery in legal research instruction

Law Library Journal

Volumn 103, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 395-413

  Cordon, Matthew C ^a  

^a BAYLOR UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052842811     PISSN: 00239283     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. See, e.g., Donald J. Dunn, Why Legal Research Skills Declined, or When Two Rights Make a Wrong, 85 LAW LIBR. J. 49, 49-52 (1993).
2. See, e.g., Robin K. Mills, Legal Research Instruction in Law Schools, the State of the Art or, Why Law School Graduates Do Not Know How to Find the Law, 70 LAW LIBR. J. 343 (1977).
3. See Helene S. Shapo & Christina L. Kunz, Teaching Research as Part of an Integrated LR & W Course, 4 PERSPECTIVES: TEACHING LEGAL RES. & WRITING 78, 79 (1996).
4. AM. BAR ASS'N, SECTION OF LEGAL EDUC. & ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR, LEGAL EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT-AN EDUCATIONAL CONTINUUM: REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON LAW SCHOOLS AND THE PROFESSION: NARROWING THE GAP 138 (1992) (MacCrate Report).
5. Brooke J. Bowman, Researching Across the Curriculum: The Road Must Continue Beyond the First Year, 61 OKLA. L. REV. 503, 520 (2008).
6. The nine other skills in the MacCrate Report are problem solving, legal analysis and reasoning, factual investigation, communication, counseling, negotiation, litigation and alternative dispute-resolution procedures, organization and management of legal work, and recognizing and resolving ethical dilemmas. AM. BAR ASS'N, supra note 5, at 138-40.
7. See, e.g., Comment, Frank R. Strong, Pedagogical Implications of Inventorying Legal Capacities, 3 J. LEGAL EDUC. 555, 556, 558 (1951) (listing legal research as one of the technical skills necessary to "act like a lawyer" as opposed to thinking like a lawyer).
8. See id. at 558 (describing legal research in terms of the "capacity for effective use of legal and related materials" without discussing the relationship of legal research to any other dialectical or technical skills).
9. WILLIAM M. SULLIVAN ET AL., EDUCATING LAWYERS: PREPARATION FOR THE PROFESSION OF LAW (2007) (Carnegie Report).
10. ROY STUCKEY ET AL., BEST PRACTICES FOR LEGAL EDUCATION (2007).
11. Michelle J. Anderson, Legal Education Reform, Diversity, and Access to Justice, 61 RUTGERS L. REV. 1011, 1019 (2009).
12. Paul D. Callister, Time to Blossom: An Inquiry into Bloom's Taxonomy as a Hierarchy and Means for Teaching Legal Research Skills, 102 LAW LIBR. J. 191, 192
13. -2010 LAW LIBR. J. 12, ¶ 3;
14. see also Nolan L. Wright, Standing at the Gates: A New Law Librarian Wonders About the Future Role of the Profession in Legal Research Education, 27 LEGAL REFERENCE SERVICES Q. 305, 306-07 (2008).
15. Boulder Statement on Legal Research Education and Boulder Statement on Legal Research Education: Signature Pedagogy Statement, available at http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/pubs/bb26663-pub.pdf (last visited Apr. 6, 2011).
16. See, e.g., Avi Kaplan, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, in 1 PSYCHOLOGY OF CLASSROOM LEARNING 513 (Eric M. Anderman & Lynley H. Anderman eds., 2009);
17. M. Boekaerts, Motivation, Learning, and Instruction, in 15 INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES 10112 (Neil J. Smelser & Paul B. Baltes eds., 2001).
18. See, e.g., Carole Ames & Jennifer Archer, Achievement Goals in the Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes, 80 J. EDUC. PSYCHOL. 260 (1988);
19. Martin V. Covington & Carol L. Omelich, Task-Oriented Versus Competitive Learning Structures: Motivational and Performance Consequences, 76 J. EDUC. PSYCHOL. 1038 (1984).
20. Carole Ames & Russell Ames, Systems of Student and Teacher Motivation: Toward a Qualitative Definition, 76 J. EDUC. PSYCHOL. 535, 538 (1984).
21. For a piece on the role of motivation in legal research instruction, see Kris Gilliland, Motivational Perspective on First-Year Legal Research Instruction, 28 LEGAL REFERENCE SERVICES Q. 63 (2009).
22. See MICHAEL HUNTER SCHWARTZ, EXPERT LEARNING FOR LAW STUDENTS 189 (2d ed. 2008).
23. The Texas Pattern Jury Charges are arranged in a numbering system that does not use section symbols. Thus, citations to these charges include references to that system rather than sections. See THE GREENBOOK: TEXAS RULES OF FORM § 18.4 (12th ed. 2010). This can cause some confusion.
24. T. RAY GUY, THE JURY CHARGE IN TEXAS CIVIL LITIGATION (Texas Practice Series, vol. 34, 3d ed. 2003).
25. The research for the question focused on an error in the charge is relatively straightforward, as one of the more popular litigation treatises addresses the possibility of error in the Texas Pattern Jury Charges. 8 WILLIAM V. DORSANEO III, TEXAS LITIGATION GUIDE § 122.04 (1) (2011). This source provides citations to Texas Supreme Court decisions that have addressed errors in these jury charges.
26. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S. W.3d 32, 41-44 (Tex. 2007).
27. See AM. BAR ASS'N, supra note 5, at 194 (listing the skills and processes a lawyer needs to know for effectively conducting a trial but not mentioning jury instructions as a specific item).
28. This caucus was integrated into the Research Instruction and Patron Services Special Interest Section in 1995. Research Instruction and Patron Services SIS, AM. ASS'N OF LAW LIBRARIES, http://www.aallnet.org/sis/research. asp (last visited Apr. 12, 2011).
29. RESEARCH INSTRUCTION CAUCUS, AM. ASS'N OF LAW LIBRARIES, CORE LEGAL RESEARCH COMPETENCIES: A COMPENDIUM OF SKILLS AND VALUES AS DEFINED IN THE ABA'S MACCRATE REPORT (Ellen M. Callinan ed., 1997), available at http://www.aallnet.org/sis/ripssis/PDFs/core.pdf.
30. See Victoria K. Trotta & Beth DiFelice, State-Specific Legal Research Instruction: Curricular Stepchild or Core Competency?, 28 LEGAL REFERENCE SERVICES Q. 151, 151-52 (2009).
31. See Barbara Bintliff, Context and Legal Research, 99 LAW LIBR. J. 249, 258
32. -2007 LAW LIBR. J. 15, H36.
33. -1 LITIGATING TORT CASES § 4: 10 (Roxanne Barton Conlin & Gregory S. Cusimano eds., 2010).
34. AM. BAR ASS'N, supra note 5, at 160-63.
35. LITIGATING TORT CASES, supra note 30, § 4: 10, at 4-17.
36. The authors of Litigating Tort Cases refer to WestCiteLink, KeyCite, and WestCheck as examples of "new research tools" that effective researchers may have embraced. LITIGATING TORT CASES, supra note 30, § 4: 10, at 4-18. These are clearly outdated references.
37. See, e.g., THOMSON/WEST, RESEARCH SKILLS FOR LAWYERS AND LAW STUDENTS 2 (2007), available at http://west.thomson. com/pdf/librarian/Legal-Research- white-paper.pdf.
38. LITIGATING TORT CASES, supra note 30, § 4: 10, at 4-18.
39. For a detailed commentary on these approaches, see Paul Douglas Callister, Beyond Training: Law Librarianship's Quest for the Pedagogy of Legal Research Education, 95 LAW LIBR. J. 7
40. -2003 LAW LIBR. J. 1.
41. Several authors have discussed the role of metacognition in the context of legal research instruction and legal education in general. Kristina Niedringhaus noted that "[a] student with metacognitive awareness will have knowledge about how she thinks and be able to control her learning. The knowledge about how she thinks would include knowledge about learning preferences, strengths, weaknesses, what knowledge needs to be gained, and the best way to acquire that knowledge." Kristina L. Niedringhaus, Teaching Better Research Skills by Teaching Metacognitive Ability, 18 PERSPECTIVES: TEACHING LEGAL RES. & WRITING 113, 113 (2010) (footnote omitted). For further discussion of metacognition, see Callister, supra note 13, at 210-12, ¶¶39-41;
42. Anthony S. Niedwiecki, Lawyers and Learning: A Metacognitive Approach to Legal Education, 13 WIDENER L. REV. 33 (2006).
43. Robert C. Berring, Legal Research and Legal Concepts: Where Form Molds Substance, 75 CAL. L. REV. 15, 22 (1987).
44. Id. (quoting FREDERICK C. HICKS, MATERIALS AND METHODS OF LEGAL RESEARCH 17 (1923)).
45. AM. BAR ASS'N, supra note 5, at 163.
46. Articles about this topic have appeared for the last twenty years or more. See, e.g., Jackson H. Mumey, Transforming Our Thinking: Responding to the Gap Between LRW Pedagogy and Knowledge-Based Systems, in EXPERT VIEWS ON IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LEGAL RESEARCH EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES 1 (1991).
47. Robert C. Berring, Collapse of the Structure of the Legal Research Universe: The Imperative of Digital Information, 69 WASH. L. REV. 9 (1994).
48. See Lee F. Peoples, The Death of the Digest and the Pitfalls of Electronic Research: What Is the Modern Legal Researcher to Do?, 97 LAW LIBR. J. 661, 662
49. -2005 LAW LIBR. J. 41, ¶ 4.
50. See also Carol M. Bast & Ransford C. Pyle, Legal Research in the Computer Age: A Paradigm Shift, 93 LAW LIBR. J. 285, 289-91
51. -2001 LAW LIBR. J. 13, ¶¶15-20.
52. See BRANDON D. QUARLES & MATTHEW C. CORDON, RESEARCHING TEXAS LAW 146-54 (2d ed. 2008).
53. Id. (quoting Judith Wegner, Thinking like a Lawyer About Law School Assessment 63 (2003) (unpublished manuscript)).
54. For a summary of various means of assessment in legal research courses, see Simon Canick, Legal Research Assessment, 28 LEGAL REFERENCE SERVICES Q. 201 (2009).
55. See Michael Hunter Schwartz, Teaching Law by Design: How Learning Theory and Instructional Design Can Inform and Reform Law Teaching, 38 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 347, 360 (2001).
56. This is not to suggest, though, that use of various assessment tools means that legal research instructors are using the best teaching methods available. Surveys have shown, for instance, that the vast majority of advanced legal research instructors use a classroom lecture format, which is not considered to be the most effective means of engaging students. See Wright, supra note 13, at 310 (citing Ann Hemmens, Advanced Legal Research Courses: A Survey of ABA-Accredited Schools, 94 LAW LIBR. J. 209, 229
57. -2002 LAW LIBR. J. 17, ¶ 51)). See also STUCKEY ET AL., supra note 10, at 231-34 (summarizing strengths and weaknesses of lecture format and providing tips for alleviating the problems with this format).
58. See Judith L. Meece et al., Students' Goal Orientations and Cognitive Engagement in Classroom Activities, 80 J. EDUC. PSYCHOL. 514 (1988).
59. Id. at 120 (quoting Gerald F. Hess, Head and Hearts: The Teaching and Learning Environment in Law School, 52 J. LEGAL EDUC. 75, 85 (2002)).
60. STUCKEY ET AL., supra note 10, at 120 (quoting THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES IN ACTION 23 (Susan Rickey Hatfield ed., 1995)).
61. Berring and others argue that "[s]ince the rest of the first year consists of traditional courses taught out of casebooks and readers, the research course lacks any context in the first year." ROBERT C. BERRING & ELIZABETH EDINGER, FINDING THE LAW 5 (12th ed. 2005). Others disagree. See Shapo & Kunz, supra note 3, at 78.
62. Matthew C. Cordon, Beyond Mere Competency: Advanced Legal Research in a Practice-Oriented Curriculum, 55 BAYLOR L. REV. 1 (2003). Though some of my observations summarized here apply to a basic first-year legal research and writing class as well, the goal orientation in those courses necessarily differs from the stand-alone, upper-level research course.
63. AM. BAR ASS'N, supra note 5, at 157.