Expertise-related differences in conceptual and ontological knowledge in the legal domain

Little research has been conducted on expertise-related differences in conceptual and ontological knowledge in law, even though this type of knowledge is prerequisite for correctly interpreting and reasoning about legal cases, and differences in conceptual and ontological knowledge structures between students and between students and teachers, might lead to miscommunication. This study investigated the extent and organisation of conceptual and ontological knowledge of novices, advanced students, and experts in law, using a card-sorting task and a concept-elaboration task. The results showed that novices used more everyday examples and were less accurate in their elaborations of concepts than advanced students and experts, on top of that, the organisation of their knowledge did not overlap within their group (i.e., no “shared” ontology). Experts gave more judicial examples based on the lawbook and were more accurate in their elaborations than advanced students, and their knowledge was strongly overlapping within their group (i.e., strong ontology). Incorrect conceptual knowledge seems to impede the correct understanding of cases and the correct application of precise and formal rules in law.

[1]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Ontologies in legal information systems; the need for explicit specifications of domain conceptualisations , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[2]  Jyotsna Vaid,et al.  Creative Thought: An Investigation of Conceptual Structures and Processes , 2001 .

[3]  Arthur S. Elstein,et al.  Naturalistic decision making and clinical judgment , 2001 .

[4]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A Comparison of Four Ontologies for the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems , 1998, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[5]  J. Michael Spector,et al.  Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 3rd Edition , 2012 .

[6]  G. Richards.  The more things change... , 1986, The American journal of nursing.

[7]  Henk G. Schmidt,et al.  The development of clinical reasoning expertise , 2018 .

[8]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, Rev. ed. , 1993 .

[9]  Robert J. Dufresne,et al.  Constraining Novices to Perform Expertlike Problem Analyses: Effects on Schema Acquisition , 1992 .

[10]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Toward an intelligent tutoring system for teaching law students to argue with cases , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[11]  Lars Lindahl,et al.  Operative and justificatory grounds in legal argumentation , 2003 .

[12]  Beau Jones,et al.  Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction , 1990 .

[13]  L. Mason,et al.  Reconsidering conceptual change: issues in theory and practice , 2002 .

[14]  Maarten van Someren,et al.  The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes , 1994 .

[15]  F. Paas,et al.  Uncovering the problem-solving process: cued retrospective reporting versus concurrent and retrospective reporting. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[16]  S. Kay.  On the Nature of Expertise. , 1992 .

[17]  H. Schmidt,et al.  Knowledge restructuring in expertise development: Evidence from pathophysiological representations of clinical cases by students and physicians , 2000 .

[18]  Slava Kalyuga.  Assessment of learners' organised knowledge structures in adaptive learning environments , 2006 .

[19]  Earl Hunt,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance: Expertise, Talent, and Social Encouragement , 2006 .

[20]  Rod D. Roscoe,et al.  THE PROCESSES AND CHALLENGES OF CONCEPTUAL CHANGE , 2002 .

[21]  Paul Ti-Iagard.  Adversarial Problem Solving: Modeling an Opponent Using Explanatory Coherence , 1992 .

[22]  Henk G. Schmidt,et al.  On the Role of Biomedical Knowledge in Clinical Reasoning by Experts, Intermediates and Novices , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  Michelene T. H. Chi,et al.  Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust , 2005 .

[24]  Kpe Koeno Gravemeijer,et al.  Instructional models in domains and professions , 2007 .

[25]  C. Welin.  Scripts, plans, goals and understanding, an inquiry into human knowledge structures: Roger C. Schank and Robert P. Abelson Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977. 248 pp. £ 10.60 hardcover , 1979 .

[26]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Frameworks for Comprehending Discourse , 1977 .

[27]  R. Bromme,et al.  Expertise and estimating what other people know: the influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[28]  Henk G. Schmidt,et al.  The Explanation of Clinical Concepts by Expert Physicians, Clerks, and Advanced Students , 1999 .

[29]  William M. K. Trochim,et al.  An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. , 1989 .

[30]  L. Lindahl.  Deduction and justification in the law : the role of legal terms and concepts , 2004 .

[31]  M. Ferguson-Hessler,et al.  Cognitive structures of good and poor novice problem solvers in physics , 1986 .

[32]  Frank C. Keil,et al.  The More Things Change ...: Metamorphoses and Conceptual Structure , 1985, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  A Predictive Role for Intermediate Legal Concepts , 2003 .

[34]  M. Chi.  Creativity: Shifting across ontological categories flexibly. , 1997 .

[35]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data , 1984 .

[36]  F. Gobet,et al.  The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance , 2006 .