May 23, 2012

Fixed and Growth Mindsets - Another Resource

Thanks to Jennifer Cooper at Thomas Jefferson for the mention on the ASP Listserv of a book review recently written by Tracy Turner, who is at Southwestern, regarding Dweck's book and using the mindset ideas in legal writing: Teaching Ourselves and Our Students to Embrace Challenge.  (Amy Jarmon)

May 23, 2012 in Learning Styles, Teaching Tips, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 17, 2012

Additional Items on the Fixed Mindset and Growth Mindset

Hat tip to Jennifer Romig at Emory University for a link on the LRW Prof listserv for an article on using fixed-mindset feedback versus growth-mindset feedback with students who are struggling.  The summary on several studies dealing with undergraduate math students can be found here: Be Careful When Comforting Struggling Students.

Also a hat tip to Myra Orlen at Western New England for information on an article about Dweck's work and how the mindsets apply to law student assessment:

"Carrie Sperling, Arizona State College of Law, has co-authored an article entitled "Fixing Students' Fixed Mindsets: Paving the Way for Meaningful Assessment." The article draws upon Carol Dweck's work and places that work directly in the law school context."

For more information about Carrie: Carrie Sperling.  For an abstract and download version of her article: Fixing Students' Fixed Mindsets

I have found Dweck's concepts helpful in working with my students.  These extra resources are useful to anyone interested in learning more about the mindsets.  (Amy Jarmon)

May 17, 2012 in Learning Styles, Miscellany, Teaching Tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 29, 2011

Free Trials for Graphic Organizer Software

Students and ASP professionals are always looking for ways to turn information into visuals.  There are several products that provide free trials of their software.  With the one exception noted, you will lose your work after the 30-day period unless you purchase the software.  So, print out what you make before your trial period ends if you are not going to purchase the software.

SmartDraw: www.smartdraw.com; free download (doesn't say how long the trial lasts)

NovaMind5: www.novamind.com; 30-day free trial

Inspiration: www.inspiration.com; 30-day free trial

The Brain: www.thebrain.com; 30-day free trial; will be able to access Personal Brain software after 30 days, but cannot edit or make new graphic organizers - the features in the purchased product are amazing, but this one is probably  not within most student budgets.

Have fun making your graphic organizers for exam study and workshop presentations.  (Amy Jarmon)

November 29, 2011 in Exams - Studying, Learning Styles, Miscellany, Study Tips - General | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 23, 2011

Learning differences between English and Chinese learners

Hat tip to Rod Fong at Golden Gate University School of Law for the following link to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on Chinese students.  (Amy Jarmon) 

His e-mail to me made the following observation:

"I saw this article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about students from China.  Although it focuses on undergrads, I thought the discussion describing the differences in language and thought processes between English and Chinese learners could be helpful.  I recall some past discussions on our ASP listserv on working with foreign students." 

The link to the article is: Thinking Right: Coaching a Wave of Chinese Students ...

July 23, 2011 in Learning Styles, Miscellany | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 19, 2011

Learning your teaching style

We write a lot about discovering student's learning and processing styles. But few of us spend a lot of time thinking about our teaching styles. We teach the way we were taught, the way that feels most comfortable to us, or the way we are told to teach by our employer. A handful of people change their teaching style based on what they learn at conferences. As ASPer's, we busy, and few of us have a lot of downtime to think about why we teach the way we teach and reflect on our teaching style.

I am using teaching style in the broadest possible way; all the things you do to prepare to teach and how you teach students. This is unique to every individual. Learning is a complex interplay between teachers, students, and students and peers. We all have preferences. We all need to understand our preferences to do our best to help students learn.

The one-on-one teacher: Whenever I go to a conference, I hear attendees talking that one-on-one is the best method for teaching students. It is assumed, not discussed. I have heard countless times "I could teach them anything, if I just had enough time to teach them one-on-one." No one seems to question the validity of the statement. One-on-one teaching is a teaching style, and one that does not work best for everyone. It is not true that everyone could teach anyone anything if they could just work with them one-on-one. It is a great method if it is your strength, but it is not everyone's strength. I  a lot of former practitioners prefer one-on-one's because it is how they worked with clients. My message to new teachers is that they should think before they assume this is the best way to reach all students. It's not the best way, it is a preference. Just as we would not assume there is a best learning or processing style for students, don't assume one-on-one's are the best teaching method because that is what you hear from colleagues.

The student-group leader-teacher: This is a common way of delivering ASP at many law schools. ASP professionals are expected to teach students to lead groups of students. There are some brilliant ASper's who use this method to great success; Joanne Koren at Miami and Mike Schwartz at Washburn immediately come to mind. However, there is no one master method for teaching student leaders to run student study groups. If you are an intuitive teacher, teaching students to teach students is difficult. Intuitive teachers are ones whose teaching reflects the needs and the makeup of the class. It is a more spontaneous, reactive way to teach, although it requires as much, if not more, preparation. Intuitive teachers master the subject material so that they can change the direction of the class on the fly to reflect how the class is moving that day. If this is your teaching style, it is difficult to translate this method to student leaders. You cannot tell student leaders to master the subject material. Most intuitive teachers have significant classroom experience, and it is rare for a student leader to have the teaching experience to be intuitive with the students they are leading. Intuitive teachers can learn how other teachers teach student leaders, but it is not their preference. And there is nothing wrong with finding that is not the best way to reach students.

The classroom teacher: Not everyone is cut out to be a traditional classroom teacher. There are some magnificent, awe-inspiring classroom teachers in ASP and doctrinal teaching, such as Rory Badahur at Washburn or Paula Manning at Western State. If you don't prefer classroom teaching, it doesn't mean you aren't a good teacher. It means your preference may be one-on-one or leading student leaders. I find that there is a spectrum, at one end are pure classroom teachers, and at the other, pure one-on-one teachers. Most people are somewhere along that spectrum. The difference is in how the teachers use peer learning. Classroom teachers need to cede control of learning to the students to be successful. This is not something everyone is comfortable doing. You need to build trust between teacher (you) and the students, and trust between peers. This is a skill. It's much easier for student's to feel safe in a one-on-one than it is for a class to feel safe. Safety is critical to learning because students need to push boundaries in order to learn, to move outside of their comfort zone, and to risk being wrong.

Every teacher needs to do some of every type of teaching. However, everyone has preferences in how they work with students. My message to new teachers--there is not a right or wrong preference, no master method that is most successful with students. When a colleague, even a very respected colleague, tells you that they have found a method that works best with students, realize they have found their method that works best based on their teaching preferences. That method may not work best for you. You need to reflect on your skill set and your preferences. The method that is most likely to reach your students is the method that reflects your preferences and strengths.

I have a non-ASP colleague at the undergrad who is one of the most brilliant one-on-one teachers I have ever observed. However, this teacher dislikes classroom teaching, and finds it ineffectual at reaching students. This educator was reflective during the job search, and found a position that consists primarily of one-on-one instruction, with limited classroom time. I am fascinated by one-on-one methods because I greatly prefer classroom teaching, and find a full day of one-on-ones to be draining, and for many students, counter-productive. I find students understand much more from peer learning in a class than in a one-on-one. I find that students are better at translating their misunderstanding of material to each other than to me. My colleague and I both receive great evaluations reflective of our respective teaching preferences. Our student body overlaps, so we know that the evals are not reflecting student preferences (i.e., students who like one-on-ones going to the colleague, students who like classroom teaching to me), but our strengths.

My message to new teachers: reflect on your preferences and your strengths. Your students will learn best when you play to your strengths as a teacher. There is no one master method of reaching students. Just as we respect student learning and processing differences, respect teaching preferences. (RCF)

March 19, 2011 in Advice, Learning Styles, Teaching Tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 01, 2011

PowerPoint for Teaching and Learning

I sat in on an Business Law class yesterday. I sat in the back of the classroom, so I had a nice view of all the open laptops in front of me. I was impressed with how few students were using their laptops inappropriately during class time; I could see only two in a class of over fifty students. Most law professors can only dream of a class with so few students playing games. I was intrigued with how the students were taking notes on their laptops, and I think this method can be of great use in law school classrooms.

The PowerPoints are digitally distributed ahead of time, so students can load the slides on their computer before the start of class. The slides were also projected at the front of the room. The students with computers almost universally had the PowerPoints open, in the "notes page" format. (For those of you unfamiliar with the notes page: in newest version of MS PP, go to the "view" tab at the top of the screen, and on the far left of the format bar, there is a tab for "Normal", "Slide Sorter" and "Notes page". Click on "notes page".) From the notes page format, students could see thePowerPoint on the screen, and take notes underneath. I had never seen students do this before, but it made sense that this was an excellent technique for organizing notes. The notes correspond with the lecture. If a student misses a word during the lecture, they can figure out the context by looking at where they were in the presentation.

The instructor had an interesting method of using PowerPoint as an instructional tool. The slides were used as place keepers for the lecture. Each slide had text outlining a major point, along with some fun visuals, such as a picture of the schoolhouse from Brown v. Board of Education. The PowerPoints did not outline the lecture, just the main point of the topic. Students could not use the PowerPoints as a substitute for class attendance. Therefore, it did not matter if he distributed them before class. I know law school professors fear distributing their PowerPoints because they fear it will create an incentive for students to miss class or play during class. However, what I observed in the class was that the students were MORE tuned in to class lecture. If they lost their place in the lecture, the students did not feel as if they were lost for the rest of the class. They could figure out the context by looking at the slide.

I know that using scaffolds such as PowerPoint help students learn material. I know all the theoretical reasons why PowerPoint is a great tool. This was the first time I saw how student behavior matched the theoretical reasons for using PowerPoint. Most of the research I have read on using scaffolds, such as PowerPoint, to learn in class were based on student's assessment of their own learning, which does not always correspond with appropriate behavior in class. This was my first experience  witnessing the positive change in student classroom behavior when scaffolds are used appropriately. This is definitely a technique I will adopt in my classes in the future. (RCF)

 

March 1, 2011 in Learning Styles, Teaching Tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 28, 2011

Movement to help you learn

Kinesthetic learners are those who learn and focus through movement.  Movement can be actual movement or "white noise" movement.  Each kinesthetic learner will have a selection of movement strategies that will match that student's own needs.  Consequently, one kinesthetic learner may choose different techniques than another kinesthetic learner.

What are some of the movement techinques that are part of the repetoire for various kinesthetic learners?  Here are just a few:

Can kinesthetic learners have too much movement?  Yes!  Here are some things to consider:

What about white noise to help with focus?  Here are some suggestions:

Some kinesthetic learners have damped down the movements that actually help them learn and need to regain movement.  Why?  They had parents and teachers who were not kinesthetics tell them to stop fidgeting and stop taking breaks.  Consequently, they gave up movement for someone else's idea of "proper" studying.  (Amy Jarmon)    

February 28, 2011 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 26, 2011

The Educational Bookends

Two teaching techniques are known as the educational bookends: previews and summaries.  The idea is that you present a preview of the material ("Let me preview adverse possession for you.  We will be studying the topic for the next 2 weeks."), teach the material, and the summarize the material ("Let's pull together what we have learned about adverse possession over the last 2 weeks.").

Global learners (who need a road map of the topic before they can understand the sub-topics within the topic) will appreciate the preview step.  It helps them to understand how to fit the parts into the whole as the material is covered.  They will feel that they know what the "road trip" will be about and can enjoy the journey.

Sequential learners (who need to first understand each sub-topic before they can think about the overview) will appreciate the summary step.  It helps them to know where they have been and how the parts fit into the whole now that they understand the material in its segments. 

In short, each type of learner gets to the same destination in a different way.  By providing both a preview and a summary, the teacher starts or ends the journey appropriately for each type of learner.

The trick as a professor is to remember to do both steps and not just the one that matches your own style of learning!  (Amy Jarmon)

February 26, 2011 in Learning Styles, Miscellany, Teaching Tips | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 18, 2010

Using color to learn

One dimension of visual learning that helps many of my law students is an awareness of how color can be connected to learning.  Some students can "see" material better when color is added: they organize the material more effectively, learn it more quickly, and retain it more easily. 

Here are some general observations about using color to support learning:

Here are some practical ways in which color can be added to assist in learning:

Color learners remark occasionally that they feel embarrassed because they should have outgrown coloring in grade school.  Sometimes they are teased by classmates.  They should ignore the jibes and continue to use color to advantage to improve their understanding, retention, and organization.  (Amy Jarmon)  

March 18, 2010 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 16, 2009

Doodling vs. Surfing

There was a recent article on the value of doodling while listening to a dull lecture (their wording, not mine). The study found that doodling while listening to the lecture improved retention of the material, well above the retention of people who were not allowed to doodle while listening. While I would not call all law school lectures dull, looking back at my handwritten notes, there are stars in the margins of many pages. (I drew stars on the margins of my notes since high school; I try to draw the perfect 5-point star.) One of the most brilliant law professors I know also doodles while listening to lectures, and she believes student computer games have taken the part of doodling in the margins.

 

What interests me about this study is not just that focused attention did not result in the best retention of material, but that I don’t know if there is a similar activity on the computer that can simulate doodling. I think that there are important differences between the sort of things our students do on computers and old-school doodling. I think the level of engagement with the distraction matters; my mind is on the game while I am playing because it requires thought. However, when I am drawing stars in the margins, my mind is still on the lecture while I am drawing, much like knitting while watching television or running on a treadmill and reading.  Additionally, I believe that doodling offers something that computers can’t mimic; we know that there is a mind-body connection in learning. Some people learn better when they are moving. While doodling does not require much movement, it requires more movement than moving an index finger to scroll on a laptop. Doodling frequently requires not just moving a writing utensil, but moving the paper, and re-arranging arm position. The movement takes the edge off the boredom, just enough so lecture sinks in.

 

The secondary effect of doodling is listening. While this sounds paradoxical, one of the problems with using a laptop to take notes is the “transcriber” effect.  Doodling stops students from being transcribers, and allows them to listen without focusing on transcribing every word.  (RCF)

November 16, 2009 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 27, 2009

Learning Buffet for Visual Learners

When working with my visual learners, I remind them that visual learning has a "buffet" of strategies and techniques from which they can choose.  Each visual learner will have an individual assortment of favorites from that buffet. 

Some visual learners have to remind themselves of their favorite selections from secondary education or college.  Somehow at the start of law school, they abandon what worked for them previously as if the strategies could not possibly work with legal information.

Here are some selections from the learning buffet for them to consider:

Thre are a number of different options for students who wish to convert text into something more visual.  To name just a few, students can turn to:

We often are unaware of the variety of graphic organizers that are available to us.  A number of helpful sites with examples can be found by doing an internet search for "graphic organizers free" or "graphic organizers for teachers."

Most visual learners have other absorption learning styles that they should use in addition to their visual learning: aural/oral and/or kinesthetic/tactile.  And, visual learners still need to use verbal learning effectively - they cannot ignore reading and writing.  (Amy Jarmon) 

October 27, 2009 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 20, 2009

Some tips on two commonly used learning styles questionnaires

I have mentioned in a number of postings and presentations that I use the VARK questionnaire for absorption learning styles and the ILS questionnaire for processing and absorption learning styles.  A request came in that I share some tips on ASPers using these two questionnaires with their students.

The VARK questionnaire letters stand for Visual, Aural, Read/Write, and Kinesthetic.  These four dimensions are all absorption style measurements.  Read/Write is the same as Verbal on a number of other instruments.  Aural can be used, with additional discussion with students, as a measure for Oral as well.  Likewise, Kinesthetic can be used to discuss Tactile learning.  Students will be multi-modal (2 or more styles are strong) or single mode (only one style is strong).  The link for the VARK questionnaire is: VARK Questionnaire.   

The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) surveys Visual and Verbal absorption styles and processing styles for Global or Sequential, Intuitive or Sensing, and Active or Reflective.  With ILS, the results are given as oppositional continua showing Mild (1 or 3), Moderate (5 or 7) or Strong (9 or 11) preferences for one of the two styles that are compared.  The link for the ILS questionnaire is: Index of Learning Styles.

Both of these questionnaires have the following common characteristics: 

Here are some tips when using the instruments with your students:

If you are new to using these questionnaires and want to discuss interpretation with me after you have read the website information and worked with some students, feel free to get in touch with your questions.  (Amy Jarmon)

June 20, 2009 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 01, 2009

Distinguishing Learning Preferences, Cognitive Processing Styles, and Multiple Intelligences

My post will serve two purposes; first, hopefully I will clear up some confusion about the differences between these three concepts; second, I want to plug the LSAC conference next week, and mention that Amy (Jarmon) will be discussing learning preferences and cognitive processing styles during the session titled "ASP 202."

There is a flurry of talk about learning preferences, cognitive processing styles, and multiple intelligences. That is a great thing; as ASPer's, we are often the first to suggest ways to improve law school teaching, and knowing how people learn best is incredibly important when brainstorming ways to help students learn.  However, many people use these terms interchangeably, when they are very different concepts that have very different applicability in the law school setting. I am not an expert on the first two (learning preferences and cognitive processing styles)--Amy wears that crown, and I strongly suggest everyone go back to her columns on 10/8/2008, 10/9/2008, 10/13/2008, 3/17/2008, and 2/9/2007 as a refresher. I wrote (and defended) my master's thesis on Howard Gardner's work with Project Zero and multiple intelligences, so this is an area I feel very comfortable discussing with anyone who has questions.

Learning preferences (or learning styles)refer to someones preferred method of absorbing information; visual, auditory/aural, read/write, and kinesthetic/tactile.  Someone who is primarily a visual learner prefers to absorb information through charts, mind maps, and diagrams.  An auditory or aural learner prefers to learn information by listening to it. Aural learners like the Law School Legends Series of CD's, like to record classes, and should read their notes aloud as they transform them for outlines.  Read/write learners prefer to absorb information by reading and writing; law school is made for them.  Kinesthetic/tactile learners like to touch, feel, and move with the information. They learn best by doing; dividing their notes into columns by topic and flash cards work well for them. Few people fall into one category exclusively; most of us are multi-modal learners.  Our learning preferences can change over time. An excellent resource on learning preferences is at www.vark-learn.com; check it out of you have not had a chance.

I will only go into cognitive processing styles briefly. Amy is the guru, and her posts on 10/8, 10/9, and 10/13/2008 do a far, far better job than I can explaining the different processing styles. I am using Amy's descriptions for this post. There are four processing styles; global, sequential, intuitive, and sensing. Global learners prefer to see the big picture, sequential learners prefer to look at each unit first and only seek the bigger picture after they are comfortable with the parts, intuitive learners prefer ideas, policies, theories, abstractions, and the inter-relationships among these concepts, and sensing learners prefer facts, details, and practicalities.  These processing styles work together. You will frequently encounter global-intuitive learners and sequential-sensing learners. These also work together with learning preferences; any type of cognitive processing style will have learning preferences as well. An example: a global learner, who prefers to process information "top-down" can also be a visual learner who likes to create flow charts that start with the big picture and later connect the smaller pieces.  Learning preferences and cognitive processing styles are not the same, but complimentary preferences. A learning preference is a preferred way of delivery of information, while processing style is the way the information is organized and understood by your mind AFTER delivery. 

Multiple intelligences refers to the limitations of measuring intelligence solely from the Stanford-Binet intelligence-quotient model.  Currently, there are eight intelligences, as defined by Howard Gardner, the "father" of the multiple intelligences movement; linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and (the newest) naturalistic.  Linguistic and logical-mathematical refer to the types of intelligences tested on the Stanford-Binet IQ test most people associate with "intelligence" in the western world. These are also the intelligences valued in law school.  Howard Gardner, an educator working with the Project Zero research project at Harvard, posited in 1983 that the traditional method of measuring intelligence left out large segments of the population, such as people with a gift for music, or people who are skilled at interacting with others or possess that undefinable "charisma" that draws people to them.  Interior designers must possess spatial intelligence to arrange furniture to highlight the benefits of a space. 

To excel in law school, law students must have highly developed linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities. However, as a lawyer, they must posses both interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence. Law school is frequently criticized for valuing linguistic and logical mathematical intelligence while neglecting the interpersonal intelligence necessary to deal with clients and associates.  The high levels of depression and substance abuse plaguing the profession may be a symptom of the lack of intrapersonal intelligence among lawyers.

But here is one of the areas where ASPer's can get confused; bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is NOT the same as kinesthetic/tactile learning preferences, auditory/aural learning preferences are NOT the same as musical intelligence, and spacial intelligence is NOT the same as a visual learning preference.  A person will highly developed bodily-kinesthetic intelligence will be an excellent dancer, excel at sports, and greet people with hugs. They may, or may not, prefer to learn new information by touching or moving. Many dancers, as well as athletes, prefer visual representations to learn new moves or plays. Similarly, someone with highly developed musical intelligence is likely to prefer to learn things by hearing them, but many composers actually prefer visual methods of absorbing information.  Many people with highly developed spacial intelligence are multi-modal, and need to move (kinesthetic/tactile) pieces in order to visualize the end result; architects draw blueprints and create models.  In summary, no matter what your intelligence, you can have ANY learning preference or cognitive processing style. In law schools, multiple intelligences have limited applicability on a small-scale, one-on-one level, but have great applicability when designing new courses and curriculum that reflects changes in the profession.  Learning styles and multiple intelligences are not interchangable terms. They are very different concepts that address completely different things; learning is not an intelligence.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at the blog, or talk to us after "ASP 202" next Thursday in St. Louis! (RCF)

June 1, 2009 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 27, 2009

Which kind of motor vehicle is this case?

The typical law school class is heavily focused on cases.  Consequently, to 1L law students, the cases often seem to be the essentials rather than mere vehicles for bringing them the essentials they will need for developing a bigger picture of the course.  Part of their misunderstanding of how to use cases is caused by our teaching methods and part may be because of their learning styles. 

Some law professors expect their students to know every detail of every case for class recitation.  Others just touch on a few points from the case.  The former style suggests to some students that they need to know every detail for the exam.  The latter style may leave some students wondering which details tie to those points or which details were important.

Professors will often throw out a series of hypotheticals to get their students to understand nuances of the application of a legal rule.    And, professors may give no answers to those hypotheticals and leave the ultimate task of getting from the cases to the big picture for students to discover in their studying outside of class.  Some students will walk away not knowing how the class discussion of cases related to the hypotheticals and what they were supposed to learn.

Does this mean that these professors are bad teachers or bad people?  No.  It does mean that some 1L students struggle with determining what is ultimately important in the course.

Because of their learning styles, some students will struggle more than other students in making sense of law school classes and cases.  Global-intuitive learners will tend to have less problem than the sequential-sensing learners in the class.

Global-intuitive learners naturally process everything looking for the bigger picture and the inter-relationship of ideas.  They prefer essentials because details are not particularly attrative to them.  The highly detailed professor will have them wondering why they have to sit through all of the trivia.  The professor who touches on a few points, throws out unanswered hypotheticals, and expects the students to pull it all together is more understandable to these learners.  However, if these learners are high scorers on their learning styles, they may miss important details, organization, and nuances of analysis. 

Sequential-sensing learners naturally process each case and each sub-topic as discrete individual parts.  They think about units and the facts and details of those units.  They naturally gain security from knowing everything there is to know about a case.  They only look for the bigger picture later.  The stronger their preference for "bottom up" learning, the harder it will be for them to see the bigger picture.  It is these learners who sometimes get "left in the dust" of our typical law school case approach.  Without help, they may get to the bigger picture too late to do well on the exam.  (By the way, these students actually know more law usually than any of their global-intuitive friends.)

(In the "old days" of law school teaching, global-intutitive professors probably predominated and may have thought that the sequential-sensing student was not made of the "right stuff" to be a good lawyer.  Fortunately, more awareness of learning styles means that both processing types are seen to have advantages and disadvantages in the study of law because all four processing steps are needed for the best essay answers or memos.  And, in practice, the client benefits most if both types of learners are on a team for the case.)

My sequential-sensing learners struggle in deciding what can be discarded for their outlines.  They are concerned that they will leave out something important.  They are concerned that they need to know it all - every minute detail and every tiny fact.

Over the years, I have tried to find ways to help these sequential-sensing learners get a different perspective on cases.  They will still read in more detail and still have separate units initially, but they can get to the bigger picture more quickly with some help.  I talk a great deal with them about synthesis of cases, of sub-topics, etc.

By chance I came up with a basic analogy to help sequential-sensors understand the relevance of cases to the overall course.  We talk about cases being like motor vehicles that may drive into your driveway but are ultimately owned by someone else and just "visiting." 

The shiny little sports car:  These zippy little cases pull into your driveway with little cargo capacity.  As a result, there is less of importance to unload.  Perhaps, you will find a definition of an element or an exception to a rule.

The family sedan:  These sedate cases pull into your driveway with large trunks of essentials.  One may find a substantial rule discussion, a sizeable interpretation of a statute, and/or a well-reasoned opinion with steps of analysis.

The family station wagon:  These workhorse cases will be loaded down with many essentials (using even the roof rack).  In addition to the type of cargo found in a family sedan, they often come loaded with extra policy discussion, additional variations on rules (minority and majority rules, restatement rules, model code rules), discussions of ambiguous or vague statutes, and/or discussion of multliple issues.

The U-Haul rental truck:  These vehicles are the really major cases driving into your driveway.  Think U.S. Supreme Court and state court of last resort.  These major cases are packed with important essentials: doctrines of epic proportion, significant policy discussion perhaps, methodologies or bright-line tests, involved discussions of multiple precedents, complex issues and points of law, and/or possibly dissents and concurrences. 

Whatever the motor vehicle size of a case, however, you let it drive away.  You do not park it permanently in your driveway.  You unload the essentials for your outline and wave goodbye to the driver with a thank you.

My sequential-sensing learners suddenly understand that it is okay to let go of the myriad of details once the essentials are spotted for their outlines.  They begin to see that their task is to find only the most important cargo.  They begin to see how cases are mere vehicles that fit together into a bigger picture of sub-topics and topics and applying that law to new fact scenarios.  (Amy Jarmon)   

   

February 27, 2009 in Learning Styles, Reading | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 07, 2008

We Can’t Multi-Task

I know some people will disagree with me, but we can’t multi-task. I don’t mean we can’t walk and chew bubble gum, but I do mean we can’t email friends, talk on the phone, and write a blog entry. However, I am also an offender of my own “no multi-tasking” rule. I multi-task because it has become an unfortunate habit reinforced by cultural cues. Like all bad habits, it’s hard to break. But it is also something that I am working on changing about myself, because it’s a cultural phenomenon that is harming law students who don’t know how to just focus on reading, OR writing, OR listening. Culture has told us that we need to be doing five things at once, but it’s a message that dooms many students as they try to email in class, listen to the lecture, and take notes. As ASP professionals, we need to model the best learning behaviors, but we are often interrupted by students who need help, phone calls, and emails for appointments, all while we are working on lesson plans, writing projects, and correcting assignments.  There has been some wonderful research that has come out recently that helps us push back against the cultural messages that tell us we are lazy if we are only juggling one task at a time.


To understand multi-tasking, we need to break apart three interconnected phenomena; productive daydreaming, multi-tasking, and self-interruption. When people (including some of the most respected ASP directors) argue that multi-tasking is not a problem, I believe they are actually talking about the related phenomena of productive daydreaming. Productive daydreaming, as its name suggests, is a good thing in moderation, and aids our thinking and processing. Productive daydreaming forces you to tune out when you have too much on your mind. It’s watching the snow fall, listening to running water, or doodling figure eights in the margins of notebook paper. It helps you make connections between material, connections that cannot happen when you are focused on activity. Productive daydreaming is often the product of too much multi-tasking; our brains become overstressed, and we start to tune everything out. Productive daydreaming is confused with multi-tasking because you are ostensibly participating in two things at one time; you are in a class while watching the snow fall. However, it is not multi-tasking because you are not engaged in any activity at all; you are letting your mind wander. Some of the best advice I received about starting a tough writing project came from Prof. Doug Kaufman of the Neag School of Education at UCONN. Productive daydreaming activities, such as mindlessly cleaning your kids rooms when you should be writing, are actually a critical part of the writing process, because they are giving our minds the chance to breathe. Too much productive daydreaming is not productive, such as when it becomes chronic, which brings me to the next activity often confused with multi-tasking…self-interruption.

Self-interruption is checking your email five minutes into a project, moving onto new project without finishing the last one, or channel-surfing. Self-interruption differs from multi-tasking because it is the rapid movement from one activity to another, rather than multiple activities at one time. Self-interruption has been called “attention-deficit trait” because it is a cultural phenomena, not a biological problem. We have taught ourselves to focus for shorter and shorter periods of time. Self-interruption can also be the product of depression or disillusionment towards a goal or project. This is a disaster when it is a habit of law students. Legal arguments are often complex and interconnected; it is impossible to follow and understand a legal argument if you self-interrupt after five minutes of reading. Self-interruption prevents students form reaching a flow-state that is critical to processing classroom discussion or casebook reading. It takes discipline to break multi-tasking and self-interruption habits, but it’s essential to doing well in law school.

So what have I learned about breaking the multi-tasking habit? I am reducing the number of distractions I have available to me when I am working on a complex project. Right now, I am typing the blog entry and listening to “Morning Edition” on NPR. My email is not up, I am not talking on the phone, and I am not playing with anything on my desk. Soon, I hope to work on only one thing at a time. (RCF)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multitasking Can Make You Lose ... Um ... Focus
By ALINA TUGEND
Published: October 25, 2008
Experts are finding that multitasking can put us under a great deal of stress and actually make us less efficient.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/yourmoney/25shortcuts.html?partner=p

Learning to Multi-Task: Don't Bother
By John M. Grohol, Psy.D.
October 30, 2008
PsychCentral
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/10/30/learning-to-multitask-dont-bother/

November 7, 2008 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 13, 2008

The Processing Learning Styles Part III

In this final segment in the series, I want to describe the differences between active and reflective learners.  In addition, I shall give some practical ways in which these two types of learners can better use their particular styles in law school.  Again, I shall focus on "strong scorers" on these characteristics because it is easier to see the differences between them that way.

Active thinkers are people who say "let me do something with this concept to think about it."  The "doing" may be talking it through, asking lots of questions, working out a practice question, or some other active mode of dealing with the information.  Active thinkers may fearlessly start talking about something they know little about; by the end of the conversation, they will have a better understanding than at the start of the conversation.  They may ramble in that process or change their minds completely before they get to a final answer or statement.  Active thinkers tend to participate in discussions whether in meetings, study groups, or other settings.  They are happy to work through any topic without forewarning.  They tend to be excellent brainstormers.  They may write quickly during an exam without a great deal of planning to their answers. 

Reflective thinkers are people who say "let me think about this concept before I have to do anything with it."  These thinkers need time to reflect before they talk, write, or work on practice questions.  They will often sit quietly in meetings, study groups, or other settings and listen.  They tend to be adept at summarizing material.  They may not give all of the steps in their analysis when they speak because they have internally reflected on the material and consider the end result to be more important.  Very strong reflective thinkers may not like open-ended questions because they give too little structure for their reflection.  If asked a "yes" or "no" question, a reflective thinker may just state "yes" or "no" without any explanation.

Depending on their other processing styles (global-intuitive or sequential-sensing), the active and reflective learners may vary by type.  The active-global-intutive learner may discuss in more general and conceptual terms; the active-sequential-sensing learner may discuss with more steps and details.  The reflective-global-intuitive may internally process the overview and concepts, provide less of that process out loud, and focus more on the overview and concepts in the response.  The reflective-sequential-sensor may internally process in a more methodical way with more attention to detail, provide less of that process out loud, and focus more on steps and details in the response.

Active thinkers sometimes are also high scorers on oral learning and kinesthetic/tactile learning because these preferences focus on participation and application which are both very active modes of learning.  Reflective thinkers sometimes also score high on aural learning and verbal learning because these preferences provide greater opportunity to be a reflective observer.  However, both types of thinkers come in a vary of learning style combinations.

Active and reflective learners can sometimes irritate each other because their approaches are so very different.  Here are some of the conflicts that they relate about one another if they do not understand that both learning styles are legitimate:

Here are some ways that the two types can be more productive but still reflect their differences:

Active and reflective thinkers need to consider their other absorption and processing styles to combine their multiple modes of learning.  As with other learning types, active and reflective learners are unique individuals within their general categories.  (Amy Jarmon)   

October 13, 2008 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 09, 2008

The Processing Learning Styles Part II

My prior column focused on four of the processing styles (global, sequential, intuitive, and sensing) and three categories of learners based on the combinations of those four styles: "Top-Down" (Global-Intuitive), "Bottom-Up" (Sequential-Sensing), and "Middle-Out" (Global-Sensing or Sequential-Intuitive).  I explained the general characteristics of each processing style and each category of learner.   

It is important to realize that all four types of processing (global, sequential, intuitive, and sensing) are essential for the best results in studying and on exams.  We must use all four processing styles no matter which are our actual preferences.  Thus, one needs to see the overview (global), understand the parts and the steps of analysis (sequence), realize the inter-relationships among concepts (intuitive), and recognize the important facts and details for the analysis (sensing).  Although one will use one's preferences first in learning, one then must "lean back" and use the opposites. 

In this column, I want to discuss how the main two categories of learners (global-intuitive and sequential-sensing) take advantage of their strengths and avoid the possible pitfalls of their preferences by using their opposite styles.  With practice one can take advantage of preference strengths and compensate for styles that may be initially overlooked. 

Global-Intuitives can assist their learning by considering the following strengths that they have and using them consistently:

However, global-intuitives must realize potential pitfalls in learning and take action to minimize them.  Here are a few suggestions for improving one's studying and exam performance:

Sequential-sensors can assist their learning by considering the following strengths that they have and using them consistently:

However, sequential-sensors must realize potential pitfalls in learning and take action to minimize them.  Here are a few suggestions for improving one's studying and exam performance:

As mentioned previously in Part I, the "Middle-Out" learners need more individual evaluation because of the crossover in styles.  However, using the descriptions in Part I to understand the particular combination of styles, a Middle-Out learner can use today's suggestions to determine which techniques seem to best match that person's crossover combination.

The final part in this series will focus on the active and reflective learners.  Part III will discuss the characteristics of these learners and practical ways for them to use their styles more effectively.  (Amy Jarmon)   

October 9, 2008 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 08, 2008

The Processing Learning Styles Part I

A great deal has been written about the absorption learning styles: Visual, Verbal, Oral, Aural, Kinesthetic, Tactile.  However, the discussions often overlook the processing styles: Global, Sequential, Intuitive, Sensing, Active, and Reflective.  These styles are critical to how students process information, perform on exams, and work together in study groups. 

Although much more could be written about these learning preferences, here are some highlights.  I shall describe each type as to the "strongest scorers" because it is easier to understand the preferences in those who exhibit them at high levels.

Global learners prefer to have the "big picture" first so that they can know how to insert the parts within that overview.  In a sense, the global learner is looking for the roadmap to the course and its various topics.  If a professor previews the material in a topic, the global learner will gain from that "here is where we are going for the next two weeks" perspective.  Global learners also benefit from looking at a table of contents to see how the topic relates to the whole course and how the sub-topics relate to the topic.  Global learners can also benefit from a topic-subtopic syllabus from the professor.

Sequential learners prefer to look at each unit first and only seek the bigger picture after they are comfortable with the parts.  For sequential learners, each case is a separate unit and each sub-topic and topic are separate units initially.  Sequential learners only seek the bigger picture or overview after they are comfortable with the parts.  Sequential learners must remind themselves to synthesize material.  Thus, a professor who summarizes the material in a topic will help sequential learners by that "let's look at where we have been the last two weeks and pull it all together" perspective.  Sequential learners are sometimes uncomfortable that a professor starts in the middle of the casebook instead of going in the sequence that the editor determined.

Intuitive learners prefer ideas, policies, theories, abstractions, and the inter-relationships among these concepts.  In a sense, they love ideas no matter how useful the ideas are and become excited by innovations.  They can quickly manipulate and retain concepts.  Intuitives can sometimes understand the concept or provide the "answer" without knowing how they arrived at the insight.  A policy-driven course is often a delight for the intuitive learner.  The law school mantra of "it depends" is less burdensome to intuitive learners because they deal well with ambiguity. 

Sensing learners, however, prefer facts, details, and practicalities.  They will notice each fact in a long fact scenario.  They will know far more details about the cases and the "black letter law" than their fellow students.  They are not particularly interested in the theoretical and abstract aspects of the law unless they can see practical uses for those aspects.  A policy-driven course is often drudgery for the sensing learner.  Ambiguity is frustrating because these students often come from academic disciplines that required right answers.

If students are both global and intuitive, they are often termed "top-down" learners.  They work from the overview with inter-relationships of concepts as their first step and then fit the pieces in place with some detail.  Global-intuitve learners sometimes think they understand a course because they have the gist of the material, but actually lack a depth of knowledge for closer analysis.  Class notes for these learners often comprise just the main points and have little detail.  These learners tend to make shorter outlines because they readily condense material and discard details before they outline a section.  They can get impatient with the details of an assignment.   In an exam they may misread questions because they are not reading closely or may forget the details of what they read because they focus on the general idea.  These learners may not read test instructions at all because they assume they know what the instructions will be. 

Global-intuitive learners may remember that a rule has six elements but have trouble remembering a different element each time they recite the rule.  Alternatively, they may paraphrase a rule too drastically.  These learners tend to not connect the dots in exam analysis to receive the maximum number of points because they write to the professor (s/he knows that so I do not have to include it).  They are less prone to organize an exam answer carefully before beginning to write.  Consequently, they juggle material in their heads and forget to discuss some facts, mention cases that apply, or consider all the steps of analysis.  In addition, they may think they wrote something in the answer when they did not or repeat part of an answer because they forget they already said it.  On multiple-choice questions, they may pick by gut rather than carefully analyze each answer choice.  They commonly finish exams earlier than other students: essay exams because there is nothing more to say although their answers were "conclusory"; multiple-choice exams because there is no inclination to review "gut" answers.

If students are both sequential and sensing, they are often termed "bottom-up" learners.  They learn each case as a separate unit with an eye for details.  They are loathe to finish reading a case until they understand every word and every detail.  They tend to write very detailed briefs, sometimes with extensive quotes.  Each sub-topic is a separate unit to be understood in detail.  Sequential-sensing learners sometimes stay bogged down in the separate parts and details and forget to learn the overview and inter-relationships of concepts for a topic or the course as a whole.  These learners tend to have "mega" outlines because they are reticent to condense material and leave any details out as they outline a section.  They are methodical in their thought and tend to notice methodologies, steps of analysis, and bright line tests.  They rarely misread anything.  These students often teach their global-intutitive friends the law in depth.  To their frustration, those global-intuitive friends often get higher grades because they have promptly discarded any details that seem unnecessary and find the big picture of the material.

Sequential-sensing learners tend to retain the organization of analysis whether it is the questions to ask whenever a topic comes up or the specific elements of rules.  They tend to be organized in their exam writing and to outline an answer naturally before writing.  Sometimes they see phantom issues because they know so much detail that they are sure the issue must be there somewhere in a question.  They might write more on a correct issue than will actually receive points because they have included everything they know about the topic.  They may second-guess themselves with constant "what if" and "how about" questions which are outside a multiple-choice question and fact pattern.  As a result, they will change correct answer choices to wrong answer choices.  These learners tend to have time management problems in exams because they spend too long on individual questions (whether essay or multiple-choice) and then rush through the final questions or never get a chance to answer some questions because time has been called.

"Middle-out" learners also exist which crossover the styles.  These leaners would be Global-Sensing or Sequential-Intuitive.  In a sense, the crossing over means that they process in both directions at once rather than in one direction.  For these learners, the crossover tends to act as a balance between the two opposite dimensions.  There appear to be fewer "middle-out" learners.  "Middle-out" learners are often older students with work or educational experiences that have tended to support this bi-directional learning.  For these learners, it is harder to generalize their characteristics.  Instead one needs to read the type descriptions and discuss the types in light of that learner's specific scores on each dimension.

For all of these types, they can frustrate each other greatly if they do not understand the different processing types and the legitimacy of all learning styles.  Opposite types sometimes "take it personally" when someone does not explain things the same way in a study group because they assume the other person is just being difficult or that they have the only "right" way to learn.  Members become exasperated that the other person drones on about unimportant details or paraphrases rules or other transgressions.  In addition, when professors teach to only their own learning styles, the students who are opposites struggle more to follow what is happening in class and to learn the material.  Without an understanding of different styles, a professor may inadvertently misjudge a student's class performance merely because the student processes information in a very different way.   

So how do these learners use their preferences to advantage and avoid the negative tendencies of their learning styles?  My next column (Part II) will address strategies and solutions.  Part III will talk about the active and reflective dichotomy among learners.  (Amy Jarmon)

   

October 8, 2008 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 25, 2008

Update on regional differences

I wrote a while back (maybe March?) about my irritation with the hyper-focus on generational differences (The Millenials v. Gen X v. Boomers)  and the under-focus on how other differences, such as region, shape classes of law students. I received some feedback from that blog post, mostly about whether regional differences are as real and important as I thought they were. Tuesday's Wall Street Journal (Sept. 23, 2008) has a great article on regional personality differences, titled "United States of Mind", that really delves into a study of the "Big 5" personality inventory by state. 

I am posting a link to the article here, but I don't believe it is accessible online unless you have a subscription to WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122211987961064719.html
(RCF)

September 25, 2008 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 17, 2008

Resources for Visual Learners

A large number of my students have higher scores for visual learning than verbal (read/write) learning when they take learning style assessments.  Obviously, they have to use both learning styles in law school.  However, by converting material to visual graphic organizers to absorb it, process it, and retain it, these students will be better able to convert it back into verbal forms for the exams.

I have listed some web-based and hard copy resources below that may assist your visual learners.

In addition, my students regularly use several methods to make their own graphics:

For our visual learners, a picture is worth a thousand words.  However, some of them hesitate to maximize on this capacity because others have told them verbal ways to learn in law school.  When I encourage them to use their visual preference more frequently, they often report major breakthroughs in learning, retaining, and recalling information.  (Amy Jarmon)

March 17, 2008 in Learning Styles | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack