CELL Blog | Center for Engaged Learning in the Law

I have been thinking a lot lately about the research on reading cases (studies by, among others, Dr. Dorie Evenson and Leah Cristensen). These studies show that students understand cases better and learn more when:

(1) They read cases with an aim to resolve a particular real-world (at least simulated) problem. When students read with such a purpose in mind, they engage more and analyze the cases more deeply, looking for clues to the resolution of the problem. When they do not have such a problem in mind, they are more likely to read cases on a more surface level; why should they bother to do more? Why don’t we introduce each subject area (e.g., negligence in torts or formation in contracts) with the kind of problem students need to be able to analyze by the end of their study of that subject?

(2) They read cases with prior relevant knowledge. Many (dare I say most?) lawyers start their research on a problem by getting a sense of the big picture of the body of law. When I was practicing law in California, I started by reading what Witkin had to say about the subject area. This prior knowledge creates for legal readers a schema for the body of law, allowing them to make connections between what they are reading and what they already know. As a result, the legal reader not only is more likely to better understand the cases but also more likely to develop new, deeper and more creative understandings. Why don’t we train students to read this way for all their doctrinal classes?

Why not?