Law School Academic Support Blog

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: 

• They are free on-line to your students and provide printable results immediately upon submission of the questionnaire answers.
• They are require a relatively short amount of time for students to take them.  The VARK is 16 questions, and the ILS is 44 questions.  Most students can complete both in 30-45 minutes.
• ASPers can learn to interpret the results easily.  Some interpretation information is on the website for each instrument.  The results can be easily translated to a law school situation.
• Both suppliers provide information on their websites on copyright permission for ASPers who wish to use the questionnaires with large groups or for research.

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

• Some students have trouble answering the questions because they feel that they would respond differently depending on the situation.  I suggest that they answer the questions as they would if they were in an undergraduate academic setting (if first-semester 1Ls) or in a law academic setting (other law students).
• Make sure that students understand that they need to "layer" ALL of their style preferences together to learn best.  Some students fixate on one style ("I'm a visual learner.") and ignore the other dimensions that they need to use to their advantage.
• Make sure that students understand that they need to use ALL of the styles even if they are not preferences.  They cannot refuse to read cases because they prefer visual over verbal.  Both reflective and active thinkers have to answer professor questions in class.  The best exam answers or papers will use global, sequential, intutive, and sensing styles even though the writer will only prefer two of those processing styles. 
• Make sure that students understand that their non-preferences are "shadow" styles; students can strength their non-preferences with conscious effort and practice.
• Remember that even within a category, a student is unique.  "Visual" learners have common traits but will pick different visual strategies because of their own visual score levels and their own "packages" of absorption/processing styles.
• If the results for Visual-Verbal (Read/Write) are different for the VARK and ILS, I go with the ILS score.  There are 11 questions on the ILS that look specifically at Visual and Verbal.  VARK is only 16 questions total for all four preferences.
• Very occasionally a student will tell me after our interpretation discussion that the questionnaire results are all wrong.  However, that happens rarely and is probably indicative of what "setting" the student was considering when the questions were answered.
• Listen carefully to your students.  They often provide their own insights that help you learn more about the nuances of learning styles.  They also mention strategies that work that you never thought of when considering a style.

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)

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)

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)   

   

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/

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:

• Active learners are attention seekers because they always want to talk whether they know anything or not.  Reflective learners are not team players because they listen to everyone else's ideas rather than participate.
• Active learners take forever to get to the answer and waste everyone's time with their rambling thinking.  Reflective learners never explain their analysis fully and only offer their conclusions.
• Active learners have no structure to their study group sessions and want to talk about anything and everything in no particular order.  Reflective learners want everything in study group to be over-organized and are control freaks.
• Active learners get bored in study groups that are just one member lecturing to the other members.  Reflective learners are willing to teach a topic in study group once they have had time to prepare.
• Professors sometimes think active learners are disorganized or unprepared because they ramble to an answer.  Professors sometimes think reflective learners are unprepared and undisciplined in their thinking because they pause so long to answer and then do not give all of their thought process.

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

• Both types of learners should spend more time when reading cases to reflect on what the professor may ask in class for both the case-specific and synthesis aspects of what they have read.  Reflective learners will be more confident if called on in class, will not be as startled by the questions, and will be more likely to include their thought processes in their answers if they have reflected before class.  Active learners will be more prepared in class to give organized answers rather than rambling answers and can write down clearly the questions they need to ask in class rather than ask the professor partially formed questions.
• Both types of learners should learn actively in class rather than be passive learners.  Reflective learners will be less likely to volunteer unless they are "comfortable."  However, they can self-monitor and engage in class by silently answering any question, comparing their answer to the answer of the reciting student, and listening to professor comments in reponse.  Active learners are typically more apt to volunteer in class and talk through the analysis with the professor to stay engaged.  However, they can also use the silent method to stay engaged if a professor only calls on students and does not take volunteers. 
• Both types of learners should spend 1/3 of their time on an essay question thinking about the analysis and organizing the answer and 2/3 of their time writing the answer.  Their exam writing will improve with adequate analysis and organization.    Reflective thinkers will allow themselves the reflection time they need to notice all of the aspects to include in an answer and to organize their analysis completely.  Active thinkers will provide themselves with time to analyze so that they will not forget aspects that should be mentioned and will not meander in their written answers.
• Both types should have input into the format of a study group.  Reflective thinkers truly need time to reflect on the material before the study group.  If the study group sets an agenda beforehand for the main topics to be discussed and which practice questions will be discussed, the reflective learner will be able to prepare and participate more effectively.  Active thinkers need some flexibility in the study group to discuss topics that were not on the pre-planned agenda.  If the study group allows for some time within the meeting for questions about any topic, the active learner can have time to ask what has suddenly popped into his head.
• Both types of learners can benefit from practice questions.  When both types of learners share a study group, they may want to do practice questions separately as well as together to account for their learning differences.  Reflective learners may prefer to use practice questions only after they have thoroughly reviewed a topic so that they feel prepared to do something with the material.  After review and individual working of questions, they will be ready to discuss them in a study group session.  Active learners may prefer to use practice questions to help them think through a topic after some review while not having fully learned the material yet.  They then will want to add more questions after a thorough review of the material.  They may use the study group setting at either of these stages in review. 

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)   

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:

• Always keep the big picture of a course or topic in mind so that the parts of the whole will make sense.  This way you never get stuck on a sub-topic or topic without understanding its importance to the overview.
• If the professor or casebook does not provide a preview of the material, look at the table of contents or a "big picture" study aid to gain a roadmap.  By previewing the material, you will be able to fit each part more naturally into the whole even if the professor initially isolates it as a separate unit.
• Always think about the inter-relationships between the concepts for synthesis into the whole.  For example, consider how the elements of negligence are related, how four cases on dominant tenant's rights are similar and different, how the intentional torts are similar and different from one another, or how two separate hearsay rules might interact.
• Use graphics to see the big picture of the sub-topic, topic, and course.  The type of graphic used will vary with the course, topic, and ways the visual learner personally "sees" material. 
• Structure outlines by one's natural tendency to use topics and sub-topics rather than focus on indivdual cases.  These learners immediately realize that most cases (unless they are major ones) become mere illustrations of the concepts rather than the "be all and end all" in an outline.
• Use your natural abilities to not get bogged down in minute details and to emphasize the essentials of a course.

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:

• Read cases and other materials for depth of understanding rather than for the gist of the material.  Avoid scanning and highlighting to learn later; instead focus on learning while you read.
• Avoid canned briefs as a shortcut.  You need to focus on learning legal reasoning skills yourself rather than relying on someone else's work.  In law practice, you will not have canned briefs, and headnotes are not always dependable or in-depth.   
• Beware of glossing a topic rather than learning it at enough depth to provide detailed analysis and to understand nuances.  Make sure you could explain the topic to a non-lawyer with clarity and detail.
• Drill regularly on rules and steps of analysis to increase retention so that you do not paraphrase the law or skip steps in the analysis of a problem.
• Use practice essay questions with model answers to determine whether you really know material as well as you think you do.  If you consistently miss points made in the model answers, then you are skipping steps or avoiding important details.
• Practice essay writing techniques as well as the content during practice questions.  Organize the exam answers first in outline or chart form to force a more detailed analysis.  Write out a number of questions in full and compare them to the model answers.Connect the dots in essay analysis by using several techniques: 1) write to a non-lawyer audience such as a relative rather than to the professor so that the analysis has to be more complete; 2) at the end of every sentence ask "why" to check if the statement is merely conclusory or has been explained.
• Use practice multiple-choice questions that supply detailed answer analysis to determine whether you really know the material well enough to see nuances.  By analyzing your mistakes, you can self-correct for missed nuances in the law or sloppy reading and thinking.
• On multiple-choice exams, beware of picking "by gut" instead of reading each answer choice carefully.  Analyze each choice methodically being careful to consider all of the relevant facts and all of the elements of the rule. 
• Read fact patterns, questions, and answer options carefully rather than scanning.  Read all exam instructions instead of assuming you know what the instructions will say.    
• Time chart for all exams so that you use all of the time provided rather than rushing through the analysis for multiple-choice questions or the analysis and writing for essay answers. 
• Ask a sequential-sensing study partner to point out when you are glossing material, skipping steps of analysis, paraphrasing rules too broadly, missing nuances in the law, etc.

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

• Use your natural ability to organize in your understanding and memorizing of methodologies, bright line tests, and other steps of analysis.  You will be methodical in working through each exam question this way.
• Use your natural ability to notice facts and details in reading essay exam fact patterns carefully and noticing nuances in multiple-choice answer options.  You will make few careless mistakes this way.
• Use your natural ability to organize and recognize important facts by outlining/charting exam answers with the necessary information to apply the law to the facts.  Note the facts, policies, case analogies, and other aspects that need to discussed for each party in the answer outline/chart.
• Use your natural abilities at organization and detail to connect the dots in your written analysis so that the professor is able to find the points in your essay answers quickly.  You maximize points by "showing your work."
• Use flashcards, acronyms, or other methods to memorize the rules and elements so that they are recalled automatically during the exam.
• Understand the parts or units before trying to jump to the big picture.  Understand the separate cases, the separate sub-topics, and separate topics before synthesizing them.

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:

• Before reading a case, take a couple of minutes to survey for important information: plaintiff-defendant categories; thumbnail sketch of the dispute; the level in the appellate process; whether the case will focus on precedents, statutes, policy or a combination of these; the holding; the judgment.  Surveying is not the same as scan reading the case. It is quickly finding pieces of information to give yourself a framework for reading the case.
• Keep your briefs brief so that you do not get bogged down in minute detail.  Use your casebook margins to note important information as you read the case.  Then condense to the most important information in your brief.  Thus, your brief and margin notes complement one another rather than duplicate work.
• Use additional techniques to shorten your briefs.  Use bulleted or numbered lists of phrases rather than sentences and paragraphs.  Use paraphrases rather than long quotes.
• After reading cases on a sub-topic, synthesize them.  How are they similar and different from one another?  How do they relate to the sub-topic?  How do they relate to the topic as a whole?
• After studying separate sub-topics, synthesize them.  How are the sub-topics similar and different from one another?  How do they relate to the topic as a whole? 
• Use graphics to see the overview of a topic and the inter-relationships of concepts as well as the separate parts and steps of analysis.
• Try to condense material to the essentials before you outline.  If you cannot curb your tendency to include minute detail, condense your outlines further several times during the semester to focus more on the overview and inter-relationships.
• Practice lots of questions to become more efficient in your test-taking strategies.  You want to have your techniques on auto-pilot so that you do not waste time in an exam trying to decide what to do.
• Stay within the four corners of the fact pattern during your analysis.  If "what if" and "how about" predominate your thinking, you have probably wandered outside the fact pattern as written.  You may be considering a phantom issue that is not in the fact pattern.  Writing about phantom issues wastes time and gains no points.
• Time chart on all exams so that you do not spend too much time on some questions and then have to rush through the final questions (or, even worse, not finish all questions). 
• Ask a global-intuitive study partner to point out when you bogged down in minutia, are worrying over unimportant points, have missed the inter-relationships among concepts, have missed the overview of a topic or the course, etc.

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)   

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)

   

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)

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.

• Students can explore three K-12 educator web sites to discover a variety of graphic organizers for learning.  Although the examples will talk about photosynthesis or the plot for Huck Finn, the students can easily relate to which of the organizer formats might be useful for different law courses.  The three web sites to check out are: Write Design on Line; Education Place; and The Graphic Organizer. 
• A software that helps students to produce flowcharts easily can be found at Inspiration Software.  Although the company offers several software products, law students want to click on Inspiration 8.0.  There is an option for a 30-day free trial.  One of the nifty aspects of this software is that once the student has made the flowchart, she can choose for the software to produce a skeleton outline of the information.
• The Gilbert Outline Summaries Series uses more visuals than any other study aid series that I have discovered.  Some of the different graphic formats used by the series are: tables, columns, time lines, decision charts, relationship charts, and checklists.
• The CrunchTime Series uses decision flow charts.
• The PMBR Finals Law School Exams Series uses tree diagrams.
• BarCharts is a laminated chart series that uses color and columns of information.
• The newest version of Microsoft's software apparently includes a better program for making graphic organizers than earlier versions.  I do not have Office 2007 on my computer yet, but several students have mentioned the changes.

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

• A dry erase board can be used to create the graphic with colored markers.  Once the student is satisfied with the result, she can turn it into a hard copy.
• A large newspaper pad with black pages (like what is put on an easel in a workshop) can be used to create graphics.  Some students use masking tape to put the results on their apartment walls so that the graphics are in constant view.
• Different color post-it notes representing different concepts or levels in a hierarchy can be taped to the same type of newspaper pad blank sheets.  The ideas can be connected by drawing lines with highlighters.

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)

More Lessons from Ballroom Dancing

A few months ago, I shared my insights on how learning ballroom dancing is similar to learning law.  After writing that post, I decided to work towards the my long-term dream of competing in ballroom dancing.

I had seven weeks to prepare for my first competition.  In that time, I had to learn three new dances (rhumba, foxtrot, and swing) and perfect those and two other dances (waltz and cha cha).  Here are some of the lessons that I learned and how they relate to our law students.

• Learning something new can be scary.  There were days when I wondered what I had gotten myself into with my dream.  I was frequently reminded of how I felt as a 1L trying to sort out mysterious courses about which I knew nothing and questioning whether law school had been a good idea. 
• Learning something new can be frustrating.  I wanted to learn steps more quickly than was humanly possible.  When I got frustrated at my "slow" learning, I had to remind myself that I tell my law students to be patient and take one day at a time.  I tell them that any new skill takes time. 
• Learning something new can be embarrassing.  I stepped on my instructor's feet.  I looked like a klutz in front of a World Champion dance coach.  I had regular mental blocks in mid-dance.  Through it all, I had to know how to laugh at myself and realize that it was not the end of the world.  I sympathized with our students who are sure that the professor and everyone in class will remember their abysmal class performance for years to come.
• Learning something new is easier if the instructor understands how I learn.  My dance instructor tries very hard to explain things to me in ways that I can understand.  He combines approaches to match how I learn: talking through steps, listening to my questions, verbal analogies, diagrams, and application as needed.  ASP professionals earnestly try to be cognizant of learning styles.  When our faculty colleagues do the same, more students can have the lightbulbs turn on in their brains.    
• Learning by tying new information to old information really works.  New steps came more quickly when I could relate the rhumba to similar steps in cha cha, foxtrot to similar moves in waltz, and swing to English jive.  Our students also need to make associations of new learning to old learning or experiences for greater comprehension.  When they try to learn in isolation, they fail to see connections that help them build on learning. 
• Learning the basics of something is not the same as perfecting that learning.  I realized that I can pick up the patterns and steps fairly quickly.  However, the styling and technique (that make the dances beautiful to watch) take much longer for me.  Our students often pick up the gist of a course pretty quickly.  Unfortunately, some of them do not realize how necessary precise rule statements, deeper understanding for perceptive analysis, and the fine points of fact patterns affect them.
• Learning can be both exciting and drudgery.  The feelings of accomplishment and improvement over the weeks were inspiring.  I could see how far I had come.  However, doing the same three steps in a pattern hundreds of times to get my foot position or arm position correct was drudgery.  Necessary, but not fun.  Many of our students love the law.  Many of our students do not love law school because of the drudgery that can accompany learning.
• Learning requires practice for many hours.  I could not just read about the dances, watch videos of ballroom dancing, or have my instructor tell me about the steps.  I had to practice diligently.  I went to hours of lessons.  I practiced steps at home while I balanced a book on my head so that my posture and frame were correct.  I did various exercises to train my muscle memory.  I condensed pages of notes on things to correct for each dance into the essentials to continue to work on right before the competition.  Too many of our law students spend hours reading, listening in class, and memorizing but never practice before they walk into the final exams.  No wonder their hard work has insufficient payoff.
• No matter how well we do, there is still more hard work ahead of us to get better.  I was delighted to win the third place trophy for the overall competition first time out.  However, I now know what to work on before the next competition.  I have not perfected any of the dances.  And, for years to come, I can improve.  Our students need to realize that they need to perfect their study habits over time.  No matter the initial success there is room for improvement.  Newcomer level versus gold level is something that requires on-going dedication.
• After all of the hours of hard work, life happens.  I was petrified for the first five heats in the smooth competition in the morning and again for the rhythm competition in the afternoon.  During the other 50 heats, I was fine.  I made mistakes that I had not made for weeks.  I suddenly did a cha cha step during the rhumba.  Hearing my students talk about their test anxiety during finals seems all too familiar now.  When they tell me they blanked or that they could only remember contracts in their torts exam, I have greater empathy.   
• Ideally, learning never ends.  No matter how competent we may be in some areas of our lives, we shall meet challenges during which we are incompetent at the beginning.  However, competence grows as we open ourselves to learning new things.  We need to make sure that our law students remain open to learning new things and having the courage to be novices.  We need to cheer them on for their successes even when they are focusing on their failures.

Ballroom dancing has been good for me as a learner.  Now I can use my recent experiences to help my law students learn.  (Amy Jarmon)