scholarly journals Teaching Practical Legal Problem Solving Skills: Preparing Law Students for the Realities of Legal Life

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celia Hammond
2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 315
Author(s):  
Kathy Douglas

Alternative or Appropriate Dispute Resolution (‘ADR’) is a crucial area for lawyers to understand in order to engage in present day legal practice. ADR is now common in courts and the community and is supported by legal policy at both federal and state levels. Learning about ADR can contribute to the moulding of law students’ professional identity so that they are better able to engage in commonly used processes such as negotiation and mediation. This article discusses research into the teaching of ADR in legal education. It draws on a project where the teaching of ADR was researched in depth to examine the content and pedagogy of this area of the legal curriculum. The article argues that ADR is an important part of legal education as it can assist law students to develop non-adversarial, holistic approaches to legal problem-solving.


validity of adopting the outcome suggested. In the court room, both parties put forward arguments and the judge chooses the argument that is either the most persuasive or that is the closest to the judge’s own belief concerning the outcome of the case. So far, in this text, there have been opportunities to read judgments and the judges have presented their decisions in the form of reasoned responses to the questions posed by the case. In the classroom, students are constantly called upon to practise and refine their skills in legal problem solving by engaging in reasoning processes leading to full scale argument construction. For the practising lawyer, a valid argument is of the utmost importance. Decisions as to right action can only be made by people who are able to distinguish between competing arguments and determine that, in a given set of circumstances, one argument is more valid than another. Judges are, of course, the ultimate arbiters of the acceptable decision. Sometimes, this decision is quite subjective. 7.7.1 Logic It is generally believed that academic and professional lawyers and, indeed, law students, are well skilled in the art of reasoning. Furthermore, it is believed that they are people who argue ‘logically’. To most, the term ‘logical’ indicates a person who can separate the relevant from the irrelevant, and come to an objective view, based often on supposedly objective formula. Colloquially, people accuse others, who change their mind or who are emotional in their arguing, of allowing their emotions to get the better of them, of ‘not being logical’. The dictionary defines logic as the science of reasoning, thinking, proof or inference. More than that, logic is defined as a science in its own right—a subsection of philosophy dealing with scientific method in argument and the uses of inference. Hegel called logic the fundamental science of thought and its categories. It certainly claims to be an accurate form of reasoning: its root is found in the Greek word logos meaning reason. Figure 7.7: a definition of logic

2012 ◽  
pp. 227-227

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarina Krkovic ◽  
Sascha Wüstenberg ◽  
Samuel Greiff

Abstract. Skilful collaborative problem-solving is becoming increasingly important in various life areas. However, researchers are still seeking ways to assess and foster this skill in individuals. In this study, we developed a computer-assisted assessment for collaborative behavior (COLBAS) following the experiment-based assessment of behavior approach (objective personality tests; Cattell, 1958 ). The instrument captures participants’ collaborative behavior in problem-solving tasks using the MicroDYN approach while participants work collaboratively with a computer-agent. COLBAS can thereby assess problem-solving and collaborative behavior expressed through communication acts. To investigate its validity, we administered COLBAS to 483 German seventh graders along with MicroDYN as a measure of individual problem-solving skills and questions regarding the motivation to collaborate. A latent confirmatory factor analysis suggested a five-dimensional construct with two problem-solving dimensions (knowledge acquisition and knowledge application) and three collaboration dimensions (questioning, asserting, and requesting). The results showed that extending MicroDYN to include collaborative aspects did not considerably change the measurement of problem-solving. Finally, students who were more motivated to collaborate interacted more with the computer-agent but also obtained worse problem-solving results.


1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherryl H. Goodman ◽  
Bill Barfoot ◽  
Alice A. Frye ◽  
Andrea M. Belli

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
William S. Shaw ◽  
Michael Feuerstein ◽  
Virginia I. Miller ◽  
Patricia M. Wood

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document