Welcome to LearnLawBetter.
Are you struggling to understand complex concepts in class?
Do you need a method to help you move beyond memorization to comprehension?
Stay to the end, and learn how to use the elaborative interrogation method for deeper
learning.
Also, if you like what you hear, don’t forget to hit the share button.
Hi, this is Beau Baez, and today I want to talk to you about the elaborative interrogation
method, which is used when you need to understand as well as remember.
For example, you may be able to recite the three elements for res ipsa loquitur, but
do you really understand the concept?
In a nutshell, this method helps you remember through interrogation, or more simply, having
you ask how and why questions, thereby allowing you to see connections between the various concepts.
As you use this technique you will compare and contrast ideas by asking how two concepts
are similar and how they are the different.
Lets’ go through a few examples.
You are dealing with res ipsa loquitur in torts and you’ve memorized the three part
test for using it.
That is where most students stop, so when they get to the exam they don’t do well
because they really don’t understand how to use res ipsa loquitur to get the maximum
number of points.
In reality, these students learned how to recite a test that they did not truly understand.
So step one, let’s connect res ipsa loquitur to what we do know.
You might ask yourself: how does it connect to negligence?
You then answer: it is connected to breach of duty.
Now let's go deeper: how does it connect to breach of duty?
It helps us determine if somebody breached their duty of care.
Next question: Why do we need res ipsa loquitur?
When the evidence against the defendant is circumstantial and not direct.
Don't stop there, go deeper, what is circumstantial evidence?
It is evidence that can be inferred from a fact that I know to be true.
What is the effect of using res ipsa loquitur at trial?
You keep interrogating yourself, establishing connections between interrelated concepts.
Soon you will understand the concept better, and expose gaps in your knowledge that will
allow you to do more research.
By the way, I strongly recommend that you do this in writing, and not just thinking
about it.
It’s just too easy to skip steps or not see the gaps without writing or typing
it out in your computer.
This technique will work very nicely the Feynman Technique, which I discussed in the episode
“Learn Law Faster: The Feynman Technique.”
Let’s try another example, this time civil procedure.
You just read International Shoe v. Washington, which I discuss in detail in my episode by
that name.
First question: what is this case about?
How is it similar to Pennoyer v. Neff.
How is it different from Pennoyer v. Neff.
In real life, how does this case affect people.
Do I still need personal jurisdiction after International Shoe?
What is personal jurisdiction?
How does this case change personal jurisdiction?
See what I'm doing?
I am making multiple connections, which is helping me to understand all the various aspects
of the case.
You may be asking, why do I need this technique?
The reason you need it is because you don’t know what you don’t know.
You need a process to move beyond knowledge to comprehension.
By creating those connections between different concepts, you won’t be fooled by some strange
fact pattern on exam day.
Your professor sees the connections and your professor will test you on your ability to
see those connections, not on your ability to memorize a rule statement.
Yes, you need to learn the rules, but law school exams require you to move beyond knowledge
into analysis—the kind of analysis that is only possible if you truly understand the
material.
If you’d like to see more episodes that can help you succeed, hit the subscribe button.
Also, don’t forget to check out LearnLawBetter.com where you will find more resources to help
you get ahead, including my blog, newsletter, and exam bank.
Thanks for watching.