AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Legal Education Digest

Legal Education Digest
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Legal Education Digest >> 2012 >> [2012] LegEdDig 44

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

DeGroff, E A --- "Training tomorrow's lawyers: what empirical research can tell us about the effect of law school pedagogy on law student learning styles" [2012] LegEdDig 44; (2012) 20(3) Legal Education Digest 37


Training tomorrow’s lawyers: what empirical research can tell us about the
effect of law school pedagogy on law student learning styles

E A DeGroff

Southern Illinois University Law Journal, Vol 36, 2012, pp 251-285

Generations X and Y, which together account for the vast majority of today’s law students, are probably the most thoroughly analysed population group ever born. They have been described as diverse, education-oriented, career-minded, motivated, connected, and self-confident. As a result of all this, scholars have noted a growing disparity between the learning styles and thought processes of today’s students and their professors, and have questioned whether traditional law school pedagogy is the best approach to reach the current student population.

Today’s law students are increasingly products of the television and computer age and are accustomed to having instant access to information. They are less likely to have mastered previous learning primarily through books, and have grown increasingly used to the stimulation of visual learning and entertainment. Unfortunately, if the literature is accurate, they are also less adept than previous generations with the process of organising and synthesising information, and are, in fact, less motivated to engage in that process.

This does not mean that students in Generations X and Y are less capable of learning than their law school predecessors. It does, however, suggest a need to reconsider law school pedagogy and ensure we are providing what our students require to prepare them well for practice. To that end, scholarly literature increasingly suggests an expanded role for experiential teaching and learning, and asserts that an active, problem-based learning environment best fits the learning styles of the current generation of students.

Theoretically, there is little to prevent the legal academy from developing a more experiential teaching approach. However, most of today’s faculty members were trained under a variation of the Socratic approach, and there is no consensus among them regarding the need to discard an educational philosophy that apparently worked for many years.

At a recent conference of law school professors and administrators, the opinion was advanced that legal education ‘lags behind other disciplines in the development of scholarship, and particularly empirical scholarship, about teaching, assessment and student learning’.

The term ‘learning style’ has been defined in a variety of ways, and no one definition fully captures the concept. Perhaps the best descriptions that a learning style represents an individual’s ‘preferred way of thinking, processing, and understanding information’.

There is general agreement in the literature that individuals differ significantly in the ways in which they tend to gather and absorb new information, and in how they process such information and relate it to what they already know. There is also substantial agreement that these differences in learning styles may have consequences for how successfully adult learners perform in various educational environments.

Of the more than two dozen diagnostic instruments that have been developed by educational researchers since the 1960s, the Learning Style Inventory (LSI) was selected for this study because of its focus on the cognitive aspects of the learning process. Originally published by David Kolb in 1976, the LSI was designed to assess a number of personal traits including learning styles and approaches to problem solving.

The LSI reflects the view that learning styles encompass preferences, or personal tendencies, for both information acquisition and information processing.

The learning styles are designated as Diverging, Assimilating, Converging, and Accommodating.

Each of the four learning styles has unique strengths and weaknesses with respect to particular academic cultures and demands, and each appears to be uniquely compatible with a distinct range of teaching techniques. Students with learning styles in the ‘southern’ quadrants share a propensity for abstract thinking. Accordingly, they tend to thrive in a learning environment that emphasises logical, sequential reasoning and focuses on analytical constructs. Assimilators, for example (Quadrant 2 – southeast section), exhibit a preference for logical and abstract thought, reflective observation, and the development of theories and ideas. They are typically effective at understanding and formulating abstract concepts, and they tend to be detail-oriented, methodical, deliberate and analytical. Informal learning situations, they typically prefer ‘readings, lectures, exploring analytical models, and having time to think things through.’

Students who are more comfortable with the Converging style (Quadrant 3 – southwest section) rely primarily on the learning strengths of abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation. Those who exhibit this style are typically skilled problem-solvers and decision-makers and tend to place an emphasis on practical uses for ideas.

Students whose learning styles fall in the ‘northern’ quadrants tend to be visual or global thinkers who may be more adept than others at seeing the ‘big picture,’ but less proficient than those whose learning styles are in the southern quadrants at working sequentially through a theoretical framework. Divergers, for example (Quadrant 1 – northeast section), reflect personal preferences for concrete experience and reflective observation. They are generally strong in the areas of imaginative thinking and feeling, or sensing.

Accommodators (Quadrant 4 – northwest section) enjoy strengths in the areas of concrete experience and active experimentation. Those who exhibit this style tend to be experimenters who are effective in developing and implementing plans.

Kolb has theorised that there are four stages to the learning process, each represented by one of the learning modes. A learning experience may begin with any of the four stages, but Kolb and others have asserted that learning is most effective when it ultimately involves the student in all four phases of the cycle.

Although each learner is likely to feel most comfortable with one or two of the four learning modes, Kolb theorises that even adult students are capable of becoming ‘more proficient’ with aspects of the learning cycle which they do not naturally prefer. Their adaptability to new learning modes may be enhanced, however, if they are first introduced to new constructs in a way that comports with their learning preferences. Kolb therefore suggests that one of the keys to promoting growth and flexibility in adult learning styles is for the instructor to facilitate an initial connection with new material by presenting it in a manner ‘consistent with [the students’] learning preferences.’ Once presented with material in a way they can comprehend with relative ease, students can follow the sequence of the learning cycle as they process the same material in different ways through exercises that require the use of multiple learning modes and facilitate a deeper understanding of the subject.

When curricular design and classroom instruction encompass the entire learning cycle, ‘every type of learner has an initial way to connect with the material and then begin to stretch his learning capability in other learning modes.’ These principles are fundamental to what Kolb calls experiential learning.

The challenge for legal education is that the typical first-year curriculum focuses almost entirely on substantive doctrinal subjects that require a significant level of abstract thinking. The first-year courses also tend to be taught primarily through lecture, Socratic dialogue and the construction and exploration of analytical models. Mastery of the subject matter requires detail-oriented, methodical and deliberate analysis. Assuming the LSI is an accurate reflection of learning style strengths and preferences, this kind of academic environment is best suited for students with learning profiles in the ‘southern hemisphere’ of the Kolb schematic – i.e., Assimilators and Convergers.

By contrast, the traditional first-year classroom is poorly suited for students whose learning profiles lie in the northern hemisphere of the schematic – i.e, Divergers and Accommodators. A number of courses and non-classroom experiences offered in the typical law school do resonate well with Accommodators and Divergers, including skills courses, inter-mural competitions such as moot court or alternative dispute resolution, clinical programs, externships and practica. Such experiences – particularly those that incorporate live client contact or a chance to work on actual or even hypothetical cases – coincide with the abilities of such students to see the big picture and learn through active experimentation. These types of experiences, however, are normally reserved for second- or third-year students.

Research indicates that a substantial minority of today’s law students begin their legal study as Divergers or Accommodators – students whose learning styles reflect a relatively low preference for abstract conceptualization as a learning mode.

This study was designed to evaluate, through the use of correlation research, the nature and degree of change in learning styles among students during their first year of law school. It was also intended to assess whether differences in teaching styles would influence the direction and degree of that change.

Subjects consisted of a sample of 149 first-year law students, which represented the entire entering class at our law school in the fall semester, 2007. Participants’ LSAT scores ranged from 144 to 165.

Four faculty members who taught first-year courses during the 2007-2008 academic year were involved in the study, in the sense that their classes were observed and the learning styles of students in their sections were tracked. Of those four, two faculty members (referred to hereinafter as Professors X and Y) were familiar with experiential learning theory and had incorporated aspects of that theory into their teaching.

The two other professors who taught the same courses as Professors X and Y were rigorous instructors who were widely recognised at the school for their teaching excellence, but were more Socratic in their approach. Given the differences in teaching styles between the two pairs of professors who happened to be teaching those subjects that year, a unique opportunity existed to assess to what extent, if any, the incorporation of experiential learning principles by Professors X and Y would influence the learning styles of students in their sections.

Except for the Legal Research, Analysis and Writing classes, and a first-year course on jurisprudence – where sections were relatively small – first-year courses at our law school were double-sectioned, with approximately 70 to 80 students per class. Incoming students were actually divided into four sections, with each professor being assigned two of the four sections. Because the four sections were combined differently in each course, during the year in question Professors X and Y had one section of students in common, while each had one section of students that the other did not teach.

Subjects were administered both a Pre-Test LSI questionnaire before the beginning of the fall semester and a Post-Test LSI questionnaire during the final week of the spring semester.

The results of this study were consistent with those of our previous research in a number of respects. First, Pre-Test data from this study reflected a 3:1 ratio of students who exhibited Converging or Assimilating learning styles (southern hemisphere) as compared with those who demonstrated Accommodating or Diverging styles (northern hemisphere). This demonstrated a predominant preference among the first-year class for abstract thinking, as reflected in relatively high AC scores among the roughly 75 per cent of the sample population whose learning styles were in the southern quadrants of the Kolb learning style schematic. Second, as was also true with our previous findings, subjects’ LSAT scores proved to be a statistically significant predictor of first-year GPAs.

Third, a statistically significant correlation was found between subjects’ learning modes, as indicated on the Pre-Test LSIs, and their LSAT scores.

A correlation between LSAT scores and learning styles similar to that found in our previous research was also clearly noticeable, with the highest LSAT scores earned by subjects reflecting Diverging or Assimilating learning styles. Consistent with findings from our previous study, however, this correlation was not statistically significant when the four learning styles were considered individually.

Finally, data from the current study reflected a pattern almost identical to that of our previous study with respect to learning styles and academic performance in the first year of law school. Though the relationship was not statistically significant, students with a propensity toward the Converging and Assimilating learning styles (i.e., those in the southern hemisphere of the Kolb schematic) performed better, on the whole, than did those with Diverging or Accommodating learning styles.

One of the primary purposes of the current study was to assess the degree of change in law student learning styles over the course of an academic year. In a variety of non-law school settings involving both graduate and undergraduate students, researchers have found that immersion in particular academic cultures can generate significant change in subjects’ learning styles. A number of researchers have documented significant shifts in learning styles over the course of two to four years of study in particular professional fields or undergraduate majors. This phenomenon has been labelled by some authors as ‘learning style drift.’

As we planned our study and contemplated the likely results, we hypothesised that our students’ learning styles would shift noticeably over the course of their first year of study. That hypothesis proved to be accurate, though the direction of movement in the subjects’ learning styles was not anticipated. Knowing that the students would be engaged throughout their first year of study in learning the rudiments of legal analysis, we expected that their learning styles would move in a southerly direction to reflect a greater reliance upon, and proficiency with, abstract conceptualization. Instead, a comparison of our subjects’ Pre-Test and Post-Test learning style scores reflected a statistically significant shift in a westerly direction. Though the extent of the westerly shift was modest, the fact that a statistically significant change occurred over the course of only a single academic year was noteworthy.

The cause of the population’s westerly shift was not entirely clear. A change in that direction among students of Professors X and Y alone might have been attributed to the prevalence of problem-solving exercises used in those classes. What is less clear is why subjects in all four sections experienced the same type of westerly shift. It appears from these data that immersion in the academic culture of a legal education in general may tend to promote a more problem-solving orientation among the adult learners so engaged.

The literature makes it clear that an experiential teaching approach is generally well received by students in Generations X & Y, and particularly by those whose learning styles are visually oriented. The issue was not, however, whether an experiential pedagogy would appeal to non-traditional law students or make the learning process easier for them. It was whether the use of an experiential approach would facilitate learning style adaptation – i.e., a transition among such students toward a learning style that would better accommodate the process of abstract analytical reasoning.

Our hypothesis was that differences in teaching styles between Professors X and Y, on the one hand, and their two faculty counterparts on the other, would influence the direction and degree of any learning style shift among the first-year students. Specifically, we expected that the sections taught by Professors X and Y might reflect a stronger southerly shift as a result of their more experiential pedagogy.

Our data did, in fact, reflect a modest trend in the expected direction and suggested that the differences in teaching styles may have influenced students’ learning styles somewhat, particularly among those whose Pre-Test LSIs indicated a low propensity for abstract thinking.

Second, while not statistically significant, there were slight variations among the four sections regarding changes in AC scores over the course of the year. Given the ipsative nature of the LSI, the significant increase in the average AE scores (which led to the westward shift among the sample population as a whole) was accompanied by overall reductions in the subjects’ average RO, CE, and AC scores. Accordingly, the average AC scores among students in three of the four sections declined over the course of the year. However, the average AC scores among students in Sections X and Y fell somewhat less than did those in the control group, and the AC scores among students in Section X+Y actually increased slightly between the Pre-Test and Post-Test assessments.

Finally, the data also reflected disparities among the sections with respect to those students whose scores changed substantially over the year. Again, given the nature of the LSI and the possibility of test sensitization, modest shifts between Pre-Test and Post-Test scores were common among the test population in both directions along each axis. When limited, however, to subjects whose movement along the y axis equalled or exceeded five points from the first administration of the LSI to the second, differences among the four sections were noticeable.

Despite these trends, our hypothesis concerning the expected effect of differences in teaching styles was not confirmed. The disparities in direction and degree of learning style shift among the four sections, while consistent, were not statistically significant.

The results of this study were consistent with findings from our previous research in several respects. First, our Pre-Test data indicated that roughly three-fourths of the law school’s entering first-year class exhibited Converging or Assimilating learning styles, reflecting a relatively high propensity for abstract conceptualization as a preferred learning mode. Second, a statistically significant correlation was demonstrated between the subjects’ LSAT scores and their Pre-Test AC scores, suggesting a positive relationship between proficiency with abstract thinking and success on the LSAT. Third, though not statistically significant, our data again reflected that students whose learning styles fell within the southern hemisphere of the Kolb schematic performed better academically in their first year of law school than did those whose learning styles placed them in the northern quadrants.

The study also demonstrated a significant shift in learning styles among our first-year law students, as determined by a comparison of Pre- Test versus Post-Test LSI scores. The composite shift among the first-year class was primarily in a westerly direction, suggesting the development of a higher propensity among the sample population for active experimentation as a means of synthesising new information and analytical constructs.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdDig/2012/44.html