I usually avoid articles about generational differences because they too often veer into the “kids these days” territory. However, from her opening quote and introduction, I suspect that Prof. Schlinck and I have similar feelings about those types of articles. As she writes, “After all, if complaints about the younger generation’s “tyranniz[ing] their teachers” (referencing a quote from Plato, or someone) dates back to ancient Greece, then it may be time to see our students as occupying a glass half full.” (P. 272.) Prof. Schlinck’s article, OK, Zoomer: Teaching Legal Research to Gen Z, provides a brief explanation of generational theory before exploring aspects of Gen Z’s “peer personality.” She then translates those generational traits into pedagogical strategies for optimizing legal research instruction for today’s typical law student. While the suggested techniques are discussed in the context of research instruction, most of them can be extrapolated to other subjects and will be useful for teaching a variety of law school courses.
Prof. Schlinck’s article outlines ten pedagogical tactics that respond to the generational traits of Gen Z.
Explain the relevance to legal practice: Prof. Schlinck posits that if Gen Z’s reaction to the Great Recession is concern about employment and financial security, students want to know how what they are learning will benefit them in their practice. Explain why they are learning something. Legal research instructors are encouraged to explain the real-world costs of legal research and how becoming more efficient researchers will affect the bottom line.
Record short lectures for pre-class homework: Gen Z students who prefer short-format video learning will appreciate a flipped classroom approach that allows students to learn in chunks (no longer than 20 minutes) individually before class. Prof. Schlinck emphasizes that quality matters. Content, video, and audio should all be high quality. Embedded questions can be used to incentivize focus. This is a technique I use in my legal research course. Using recorded mini-lectures and quizzes before class has the added benefit of allowing time in class for assignments that simulate real-world research problems, they may face in practice but with me there to answer questions and provide guidance.
Redesign group work: Prof. Schlinck highlights that while Millennials tend to enjoy group work and collaboration, Gen Z prefers a more hybrid approach. She explains that while Gen Z students typically do enjoy collaboration, they prefer to first have time to learn the material on their own before working in a group. Gen Z students may also prefer to work by themselves on assignments that will count toward their grade.
Turn the research memo into the research email: Students need practice communicating the results of their research. Many legal research instructors use the construct of the research memo to the partner as a method of practicing this skill. However, Prof. Schlinck points out that this information is more often conveyed as an email rather than a more formal memo. But, if as suggested, Gen Z is uncomfortable communicating by email, this suggestion becomes doubly important.
Provide regular, and timely, feedback on formative assessments: One example provided by Prof. Schlinck of this type of assignment is a live critique. She explains that Gen Z law students experienced near-constant standardized testing throughout their K-12 education. In contrast, a live critique provides in-person interaction desired by Gen Z while also giving them needed practice receiving feedback. Prof. Schlinck recommends making a live critique assignment ungraded to eliminate one source of stress from the experience.
Relate course work to what they care about: Gen Z law students tend to be more engaged with social and political issues and Prof. Schlinck suggests harnessing this trait by partnering with legal organizations for real-world legal research experiences. Although not suggested by Prof. Schlinck, I suspect there might be some benefit, although lacking the real-world component, in designing research hypotheticals that go beyond fences over the property line or dog bites and present scenarios related to issues like climate change or public surveillance.
Embrace the search engine and internet research: Traditionally, law faculty have preached about the dangers of using tools like Google and misinformation on the internet. As Prof. Schlinck states so aptly, “Zoomers are going to use Google for legal research, no matter how many times they are told not to.” (P. 299.) We need to teach them how to use the tools more effectively and to think more critically about how they search and how they assess their results. Given the past few months, I would extend this strategy to say that we need to also embrace generative AI. It is here and firms expect our students to understand how to use it and it is our job to teach them. In many ways, prompt engineering in AI is like constructing a search. This seems like a logical extension of our role in teaching law students how to search effectively and critically evaluate their search results.
Teach the process, not the platform: A key tenet of effective legal research is that legal sources are interconnected, and we use that interconnectedness to be more efficient and effective researchers. Traditionally, this has been more obvious when looking at print resources. Prof. Schlinck argues that law students today exist in a world where they will rarely, if ever, use print resources. Accordingly, we should be teaching them the structure and links between sources regardless of format, rather than showing them the structure in print and expecting it to translate to electronic. She also observes that by doing this we are creating “technologically resilient” graduates who can navigate the ever-evolving research platforms successfully.
Teach Critical Legal Research and name it: Prof. Schlinck argues that law students should be deliberately and transparently taught Critical Legal Research. Critical Legal Research examines how the structure and organization of legal information is influenced by underlying biases and decisions that impact the practice of legal research. For example, there has recently been discussion and advocacy around identifying “slave cases” when they are cited in legal materials. One purpose of this effort is to demonstrate how the structure of legal information contributes to the continued citation of slave cases as good law (See for example the Citing Slavery Project). She argues that teaching Critical Legal Research teaches students how to think critically about information sources in a broader context as well and helps teach critical analysis.
Care, and show it: If Gen Z expects inclusion, diverse viewpoints, acceptance of self-care, and a respectful environment, Prof. Schlinck argues that can be achieved by demonstrating care through responsiveness, empathy, and seeking student feedback on how they are learning. She goes on to say that care, or passion, for the subject, may also be helpful here. “Subjects often perceived as boring–legal research included–can be engaging if the Prof. is excited about the material and the class.” (P. 304.)
Prof. Schlinck’s article is deft at drawing connections between the generational traits typically associated with Gen Z and pedagogical techniques that can produce the best results with Gen Z in the legal research classroom. Many of these techniques are also readily transferrable to other skills and doctrinal subjects in the law school curriculum. The article is also an excellent read for learning more about the traits and social context of the typical law student today. Many faculty adjusted teaching strategies for Millennials and there are some significant differences between Gen Z and Millennials. It is time to update law school pedagogy to respond to these changes.
