Background: Although the Socratic method, in some form or another, has been the dominant teaching tool for teaching legal reasoning and analysis in most U.S. law schools, it is not generally thought of as a tool for the teaching legal English reasoning writing to Ukrainian law students, and relatively little has been written about its use in that context. Purpose: The purpose of the analysis is to determine some features of the Socratic Method application to teaching Legal English reasoning writing to law students. Results: Good writing results from good thinking. It makes sense, then, that tools used to teach good thinking should be combined with tools used to teach good writing when law students are learning how to conduct written legal analysis.Socratic Method is the style of teaching through cases and questions. The professor never explains anything, but instead challenges the student’s explanation by questioning the student. If the professor is doing his job well, the questions will further and further refine the student’s thinking, exploring nuances that the student didn’t initially realize existed. Integrating Socratic Method with the writing process can make the process of teaching legal English reasoning writing the most effective while combines training of both analytical and written communication skills. The teacher can first follow writing process principles and require the students to complete their writing assignments in a series of focused drafts. Next, the teacher can intervene in the students’ thought processes by responding to early drafts with Socratic questions that prompt the students to formulate their thoughts precisely. Discussion: This study reveals some features of the Socratic Method application to teaching Legal English reasoning writing to law students and creates the necessary background for further research, particularly in terms of developing new models of teaching legal English reasoning writing to law students.
Effects of conceptual knowledge and availability of information sources on law students’ legal reasoning
