Teaching law students through individual learning styles.

• Author: Boyle, Robin A.

"[S]ome things invite understanding and others do not."(1)

INTRODUCTION

Teaching can be rewarding, but it can also be frustrating when some students fail to grasp the material. Professor Robin A. Boyle of St. John's University School of Law has been teaching Legal Research and Writing in small sections of approximately twenty to thirty students for four years. She, like many of her similarly exasperated colleagues, has repeated the same course content by using either lecture or collaborative learning, and has observed some students doing well, Whereas others continued to perform poorly. Then, Dr. Rita Dunn was introduced to the law school faculty and suggested that law professors incorporate learning-styles theory into their lesson plans to accommodate students with diverse learning styles. Suddenly, there was light in the tunnel.

Dr. Dunn challenged the conventional belief that students who were motivated, concentrated during professors' class lectures, did all their assignments, and studied would be able to master basic law course requirements. Unfortunately, that belief is almost universally accepted in law schools where professors teach an entire class of aspiring attorneys in exactly the same way, with the same instructional materials, and in the same amount of time-- regardless of the differences in the students' intelligence levels, aptitudes, experiences, interests, and learning styles.

Learning theory evolves from the study of how students learn.(2) Learning style is the way in which individuals "begin[ ] to concentrate on, process, [internalize,] and [remember] new and difficult [academic] information" or skills.(3) Learning styles vary with age,(4) achievement levels,(5) culture,(6) and individual-processing of new information.(7)

During the past decade, Dr. Dunn and other educators have been researching and employing various learning-styles strategies in elementary through secondary levels,(8) as well as undergraduate schools.(9) Researchers experimenting with alternative strategies for teaching college students found significantly higher achievement when the strategy used was congruent, rather than incongruent, with individuals' learning styles. Those findings were reported for learning anatomy,(10) bacteriology,(11) marketing,(12) mathematics,(13) physiology,(14) social sciences,(15) and for an overall improvement in grade-point averages.(16)

Each of these studies document the effectiveness of teaching students to study by using their learning-styles preferences. When students were matched with teaching methods and materials that complemented their diagnosed learning-styles preferences, they performed significantly better than when they were not matched. Researchers have suggested that instruction delivered without concern for individual learning-styles is improper.(17) For this reason, we advocate that teachers should provide instruction that responds to the various large clusters of learning styles in their classes.

We tested Legal Research and Writing classes at St. John's University School of Law and found that, like undergraduate students, law students were diverse in their learning styles. Law professors,(18) regardless of their class size, should incorporate methods and materials that complement their students' learning styles. This approach can be used without individualizing instruction to each student, which would be nearly impossible in all but the smallest of classes. Law professors are encouraged to use a diagnostic assessment in their classes so that they have an understanding of the kinds of learning styles present within their classes. Once the assessment is complete, the professor then can determine the overall "learning-style majorities," meaning the larger populations of certain types of styles. Professors would be able to adapt their methods to a few such majorities. If assessing students is not feasible, then, in the alternative, professors would be wise to use a combination of instructional methods, ones that can be incorporated into most class periods and that are likely to reach a broad spectrum of students.

This Article is divided into three parts. Part I surveys the literature criticizing the traditional methods of law school teaching and explores the growing movement advocating that law schools should experiment with research on learning styles. Part II shows the results of our testing of the St. John's law students and recommends instructional strategies that are complementary to the learning styles identified by the assessment we used. Part III explains the usefulness of "homework prescriptions." Appendix 1 describes the diagnostic test used in our study. Appendices 2 and 3 provide statistical results of the testing. Appendix 4 is an example of a homework prescription.

1. APPLYING LEARNING-STYLES THEORY IN LAW SCHOOLS: A GROWING INTEREST AMONG LAW PROFESSORS

   Criticism of traditional law school teaching methods abounds.(19) As a result, there is growing interest among law professors in improving law school teaching by abandoning or adapting some of the traditional group methods, and instead focusing on individualized learning.(20) Recently, the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession suggested to law schools that "the first-year curriculum would be improved by the use of a greater variety of teaching methods in light of the diversity of learning styles in [their] student body...."(21)

   Prior to 1870, the "textbook method," whereby students studied and memorized parts of texts, was used at Harvard Law School.(22) The "lecture method" was combined with this approach, whereby professors lectured on material the students were required to read.(23) These approaches were revolutionized in 1870 when Christopher Columbus Langdell became dean of Harvard Law School and introduced the "case method."(24) In the case method, students are asked to dissect a case to understand the law, much like a science laboratory experiment.(25) Students actively participate in the case method process in the classroom.(26) In addition to the Langdellian method, the "Socratic method" evolved, which is a simulation of the ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, conducting a dialogue--a question and answer format that is intended to promote learning.(27)

   Perhaps the most common criticism of the traditional law school classroom is that many students learn neither by the Socratic method nor by the case method.(28) The Socratic method, which challenges all students to evaluate each student's answers to questions asked by the teacher is a "group method" rather than an "individual method." Employing this method to the exclusion of others mistakenly assumes that all students will learn "in a parallel fashion from any given exchange between student and instructor."(29) Some argue that the Socratic method tends to alienate individuals in certain groups, such as women(30) and persons of color.(31)

   A second category of criticism is with the physical structure of law school classes. The large classes in first-year courses operate on the incorrect assumption that the needs of all students are the same.(32) A related criticism is with the course structure--that students cannot equally demonstrate what they have learned by taking a single examination.(33)

   To improve law school teaching, several innovators have recommended changing the way law schools use traditional methods of teaching.(34) To incorporate changes in teaching methods, law professors can learn from the research emerging in undergraduate institutions.(35)

   For example, law professor Paul F. Teich of the Nevada School of Law observes that students at post-secondary levels appeared to respond best to "individualized" teaching systems, as opposed to "group teaching" systems.(36) Teich concludes that law teaching can be improved and suggests that more research needs to be done in individualized instruction to see "whether teaching methods differ in effectiveness, and if they differ, in what important ways."(37)

   In cautioning law professors against employing universal methods for all students, some researchers encourage students to engage in "self-regulation."(38) Law professor Paul T. Wangerin advocates metacognition, the process whereby "learners" become aware "of the learning process itself."(39) He advocates teaching law students "strategies for ... time management, efficient reading, note taking, review, and problem solving."(40) Law professor Cathaleen A. Roach extends Wangerin's theory and advocates more involvement by teachers.(41) As Roach explains, "law students are not being taught to be effective self-learners."(42)

   In the legal writing context, law professors J. Christopher Rideout and Jill J. Ramsfield, suggest focusing on the uniqueness of each student by using conference time effectively to "uncover attitudes, experiences, and questions that together will shape his or her audience for the year."(43) The legal writing course readily lends itself to working with students' individual strengths because often there is an emphasis on teacher-to-student conferences.(44)

   Other researchers advocate a personality assessment based upon the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).(45) The MBTI test identifies different "personality dimensions."(46) The four dimensions are: (1) "orientations toward life" experiences (measuring "extraversion or introversion"); (2) information gathering ("sensing perception or intuitive perception"); (3) decisionmaking ("thinking judgment or feeling judgment"); and (4) "orientations toward the external world (judging orientation or perceiving orientation)."(47) Law professor Vernallia Randall contends that some personality types may have a "relative, if not significant, advantage" over others in succeeding in law school.(48) She suggests "that law schools recognize, accept, and understand the diversity of students with regard to learning styles."(49) Randall also suggests that the law faculty...