As I grade this semester’s torts exams I am again struck by how critical it is to give students practice in applying concepts. I am noticing that all students are more effective writing about an issue when they have had two or three chances to practice writing about it before the final exam. This semester students had an ungraded writing assignment which asked them to analyze 2 elements of a negligence claim – duty and breach of duty. Then they wrote a practice midterm and a midterm which asked them to analyze duty and breach again. On the final exam, those two elements showed up again – as did lots of others. In analyzing duty and breach, students’ quality of analysis was significantly better than their analysis of other elements.
This is consistent with current research on the brain. According to many cognitive scientists, human brains need to practice solving a problem in at least three to four different ways to have it “stick” in long term memory. To me this means that if I really want students to learn torts, I need to provide them with opportunities to practice each of the skills and knowledge I test on their final – at least three times, in writing. That suggests significantly more practice, dramatically less coverage. It would mean that I would need to work with others to define what it is that students need to retain in their long term memory. Assume that one of the learning outcomes of legal education is that law students should graduate with a core understanding of tort law, including the elements of negligence. If students had a deep understanding of the elements of negligence, two years later, and without any preparation, they could recognize and analyze a basic negligence claim when presented with a fact situation. That would show me that they didn’t just learn torts for the semester, but that they learned core torts concepts for later practice.