Using Cognitive Psychology to Improve Student Performance, Part Six: Putting it All Together II

My last post pulled together theory and practice by describing law school study methods that harness cognitive and educational psychology to enhance performance. In this final post in this series, I’ll do the same thing but in the context of bar study.

As a caveat, I should mention that there are myriad methods that schools and students can adopt to improve bar passage. I lack sufficient space here to catalog even all of the measures we use at our school. What must be understood, though, is that there is no one-size-fits-all, silver bullet method to improve bar passage. (Granted, there are plenty of folks offering to sell students (and law schools) so-called silver bullets, but they don’t work).

So, as a precursor to this post, I’ll say this: Law schools need to stop believing (and investing) in quick fixes and magic bullets. (Further, if a school’s median incoming LSAT is poor, no single, siloed, non-integrated, or externalized program can magically improve the bar pass rate to 94%. Magic wands cannot cure questionable admissions practices. Claims to the contrary exist solely to skimp on supportive measures while ignoring reality). Instead, any earnest effort to bolster bar passage requires a serious, rigorous, multi-faceted program contextualized within doctrinal learning.    

But, I digress; this series is about what students can do for themselves. So, now back to our regularly scheduled program….

Bar Exam Study Methods Employing Cognitive and Educational Psychology.

1.    Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) early and often – retrieval practice, spaced repetition, and metacognition. To their credit, most major bar prep companies now include MCQs early in bar prep. Usually, MCQs closely follow a lecture on the same subject. Then, a few days later, another set of MCQs on that same subject prods the student to return to the material, thus implicating spaced repetition.

The problem is that many students don’t do this. Why?

Students have been conditioned to believe that MCQs provide only summative assessment; they assess whether you’ve properly learned something that you’ve “fully studied” and can’t be used for formative assessment or learning itself. A high grade means you did well, and a low grade means you did poorly. The student response, then is “I don’t want to freak myself out, so I won’t take MCQs until ‘after I learn’” – in other words, it's a summative assessment, not a formative one.

This approach is flawed because it ignores metacognition. Students can use MCQs to assess their strengths and weaknesses. If a student takes 25 MCQs two days after the torts lecture, and she gets four of the five “duty” questions wrong, she knows she needs to focus on that subject. Many students avoid this feedback because they view wrong answers not as a metacognitive opportunity to improve but as an indictment of their knowledge, ability, and chances of success. This “fixed mindset” stymies students’ ability to eliminate their weaknesses and perform better on the exam.

Avoiding MCQs is also a flawed strategy because it ignores the benefits of both retrieval practice and spaced repetition. We know that students learn better from forced retrieval exercises (e.g. MCQs) than from listening to lectures. Because students have been conditioned to believe that MCQs serve only the purpose of summative assessment, they believe that MCQs are not necessary or desirable until the end of bar study. In turn, postponing MCQs until late June jettisons the more effective learning method embodied in forced retrieval. We also know that students learn materials better from testing in a particularly spaced manner. Delaying MCQs until July jams learning into short-term memory instead of encoding it into durable memory, where it’s more effective.

2.    Mixed practice and desirable difficulties. One theory from educational psychology I haven’t discussed is “mixed practice.” This theory is a sub-topic under retrieval practice, but it’s a bit more nuanced. The idea is that there are two types of retrieval practice. The first is “blocked practice” – whereby the learner tests herself on the same subject throughout the retrieval practice. The second is “mixed practice” – whereby the learner integrates different subjects into a session of retrieval practice. So, if you’re well along in bar prep and you take a set of 25 MCQs all on constitutional law, that’s a blocked set. If you intermingle all seven topics (or even just two), that’s mixed practice.

This is actually something of a contested topic in bar study. Some law schools’ programs instruct students to focus on one MBE subject at a time during retrieval practice (not that most people use that term) until very near the end of bar prep. This allows students to “feel good” that they’re improving on that subject.

But “feeling good” doesn’t get you a bar card.

Studies show that mixed practice provides far more effective learning. So, for instance, if a bar prep program starts the summer with three torts lectures, it’s fine only to take torts questions at that time. But, when the program then gives three lectures on contracts those next few days, students should intermingle the torts and contracts MCQs as soon as possible during retrieval practice sessions.

Most don’t. Why?

Because they immediately see their scores drop – often like a rock. Each major bar prep company provides (useful) real-time metrics tools showing student performance. A student will see that she’s performed at about a 60% level in straight sets. When she introduces mixed sets into her retrieval practice – whack – scores plummet to the 40s. At that point, many students scurry back to blocked sets to make themselves feel better – and, in so doing, deprive themselves of better learning.    

Enter “desirable difficulty.” This concept from educational psychology holds (very basically) that hard learning is better learning. If the learning process is easy, the student didn’t really learn as much. However, the pervasive narrative among law students is that if learning is hard, you don’t have “it” – that native aptitude for the study of law. Because students don’t want to label themselves as having a low aptitude for law, they sometimes avoid the hard learning. This is the entire concept of Dr. Carol Dweck’s concept of “mindset,” a discussion of which could easily take up its own series of blog posts.  

But schools could avoid this problem altogether with just one simple act:  letting students know ahead of time that their scores will be dropping when mixed sets start.

But most don't.  

3.    Stop listening to gurus – Self-regulated learning. In a hurried effort to stem the tide of crashing bar pass rates, some law schools have implemented stop-gap measures designed to prevent future rate decreases. Too many schools have done so by buying into the “one-size-fits-all” silver bullet methods, usually by slapping together an isolated, siloed final semester bar prep class. Lacking expertise in the specific disciplines of bar preparation and academic support, deans and faculty find themselves attracted to relatively inexpensive programs offered by independent contractors or outside companies who slickly boast of 95% pass rates and promises of turning each 145 LSAT student into a 150 MBE score. Like the self-help guru cottage industry of the 1970s, these gurus are long on talk and short on substance.

What’s wrong with the gurus? First, they deprive students of self-regulated learning. One of the most important facets of learning is that students manage their own learning, understand their own weaknesses, and plan how to improve. Bar exam gurus undermine this by offering “tutoring.” That word sounds terrific to faculty and students but it’s actually one of the least effective methods of learning law. Tutoring outsources the responsibility of learning to the tutor, thus undermining the student’s development and use of self-regulation. When a student suspects that she’s not getting it, she ignores that problem, and does nothing about it, because she’s sure the tutor is on top of it. The weaknesses, therefore, never get remediated. You’ll actually never see the word “tutor” used in any FIU Law AEP information.

Second, any guru offering to “game” the bar exam by predicting the topics on the state day of an upcoming bar exam is leading students astray. Not only are these predictions usually wrong, but this practice also undermines students’ self-regulation. Instead of strategizing about how to digest all the information necessary to be prepared for the exams, students jump at the possibility of skipping subjects. This reliance on faulty prognostication takes away students’ management of their learning. And, by the way, we know the prognostications are wrong because bar examiners tell us that they intentionally try to avoid gaming by gurus.

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

The bottom line is that fostering bar passage is not an easy task, and it cannot be accomplished in a half-baked, after-the-fact, half-hearted kind of way. Nor can it be accomplished by teaching to the test. (Teaching to the test is actually contrary to everything I’ve written in this series). Instead, schools need to adopt methods that are genuinely effective. Some measures, among others, might include adopting statistical analyses to discern the best places for the expenditure of resources; providing quality feedback to students during bar study; using technology to focus students on precise areas of study; and providing students with actionable data about their bar study choices.

Another crucial component of any successful bar pass effort has to be a focus on building better learners through educational psychology. If such a focus pervades a series of holistic programs ranging over time, students come out the other side poised to be better learners and better lawyers.    

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

It’s well beyond my month-long lease at the Faculty Lounge; sorry about that. I want to thank Al Brophy and Dan Filler for letting me hang out. And thanks to anyone who followed this series. I hope it was helpful.

Comments

[Scott Fruehwald]

This has been an excellent series. I would like to add that it has been proven effective. FIU had the highest bar pass rate for first-time takers on this year's Florida bar exam. Considering the competition, this is a remarkable achievement. The key is that Professor Schulze based his approach on established educational research. Method: Read proven general educational research; adopt it to legal education. If all law schools did this, they would 1) improve the bar passage rate, turn out more effective lawyers, and 3)help minorities succeed in the legal profession. It really isn't that hard.

[Louis Schulze]

Scott, thanks for your kind words. Each of the groups of FIU Law students who achieved the high bar passage rate in Florida (July 2015, February 2016, and July 2016) experienced the EdPsych concepts we adopted. The first group, July 2015, had some of it; the second group, February 2016, had a bit more; and the third group, July 2016, had still more.

Given all that, we are hopeful that the EdPsych aspects have been helpful. However, the credit is always due to our hard-working students, whose dedication and drive continue to astound me.

[Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King]

One of my best law school educational experiences came from a professor who had issues with alcohol and a pending divorce. He started class late, never really taught the material, was completely disengaged and would ramble on and on about his soon to be EX. I had to learn the material on my own and step up to the plate. How did that assist my practice down the road? I can share several instances when judges and prosecutors who, for various reasons were either at best, jaded or worst, uncaring about a drug addicted client with a long sheet. As an advocate, I was the one who stepped up to the plate... It's a sink or swim world. No need to coddle adult law students.

[Scott Fruehwald]

Captain,

You need to read these posts more carefully. There is no coddling here. Professor Schulze is trying to create self-directed learners.

[Rob T.]

"Captain" is just a troll. Simply ignore him, or, better yet, moderate and delete his worthless comments.