“ Think Like a Lawyer ” Using a Legal Reasoning Grid and Criterion-Referenced Assessment Rubric on IRAC ( Issue , Rule , Application , Conclusion )

The Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s Bachelor of Laws Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement identified “thinking skills” as one of the six threshold learning outcomes for a Bachelor of Laws Program, which reinforced the significance of learning, teaching and assessing “thinking skills” in law schools (Kift, Israel & Field, 2010). The fundamental conceptions underpinning “thinking skills” in a legal education context are “legal reasoning,” “critical analysis” and “creative thinking.” These conceptions shed light on what it means to “think like a lawyer” and help shape a professional legal identity. This paper identifies a number of acronyms used to teach traditional “legal reasoning,” drawing particular attention to IRAC, which is commonly understood within the legal academy as Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion. An incremental development approach to learning, teaching and assessing IRAC is recommended whereby first year law students use a legal reasoning grid to a simple problem-based question before applying IRAC to a more complicated problem-based question in the form of barrister’s advice. An example of a criterionreferenced assessment rubric that breaks IRAC down into five performance standards is shared with the community of practice.


Introduction
, a leading scholar on the discipline of Law noted that some efforts have been aimed squarely at teaching thinking skills to law students and that future research in legal education could focus on how to assess "thinking skills."This paper adds to the literature in this field by demonstrating how to scaffold IRAC (issue, rule, application, and conclusion) for first year Law students and use criterion-referenced assessment to assess the application of IRAC to a problem-based question.IRAC is one of many acronyms commonly used to teach "legal reasoning" and thus teach "thinking skills," what it means "to think like a lawyer," and how to shape a professional legal identity.

Thinking Skills
"Thinking skills" are integral to the study of law.This was confirmed by their inclusion as one of six threshold learning outcomes (TLO) in Bachelor of Laws programs by the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project (Kift, Israel & Field, 2010).The TLOs represent what a graduate is expected to know, understand and be able to do as a result of learning or, in the words of the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), the "set of knowledge, skills and the application of the knowledge and skills a person has acquired and is able to demonstrate as a result of learning (Kift, et al., 2010, p. 9).The six TLOs are: • TLO 1: Knowledge While there may be some overlap between the TLOs, including TLO 3 and TLO 4, this paper focusses on TLO 3 Thinking Skills, which states: Graduates of the Bachelor of Laws will be able to: a. identify and articulate legal issues; b. apply legal reasoning and research to generate appropriate responses to legal issues; c. engage in critical analysis and make a reasoned choice amongst alternatives; and d. think creatively in approaching legal issues and generating appropriate responses.(Kift, et al., 2010, p. 17) Interestingly, problem solving is not one of the explicit six threshold learning outcomes.At the turn of the century, Christensen and Kift (2000) had identified problem-solving skills as a cognitive skill and a necessary law graduate attribute.Problem-solving skills are critical to problem-based learning and assessment in the discipline of law.It is arguably not a threshold learning outcome in its own right because it is subsumed by TLO 3 Thinking Skills and TLO 4 Research Skills.
TLO 3 Thinking skills is consistent with numerous Australian and international standards on legal education that emphasise thinking skills (and problem-solving skills) including the Australian Qualifications Framework Level 7; Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD) Standards; United Kingdom Quality Assurance Agency Subject Benchmark Statement for Law; United Kingdom Joint Statement of the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar's requirement; United States MacCrate Report; Task Force on the Canadian Common Law Degree; and Scottish Accreditation Guidelines (Kift, et al., 2010).

Legal Reasoning
The key components of TLO 3 Thinking Skills are "legal reasoning," "critical analysis" and "thinking creatively."James (2012) drew on an abundance of literature to analyse these concepts.The definitions included those put forward in the Australian Learning and Teaching Council's Bachelor of Laws Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement (Kift, et al., 2010).Kift et al. (2010) conceptualised "legal reasoning" as "the practice of identifying the legal rules and processes of relevance to a particular legal issue and applying those rules and processes in order to reach a reasonable conclusion about, or to generate an appropriate response to, the issue" (p.18).
Law students need to be able to discern factual issues, policy issues, relevant issues, irrelevant issues, legal issues and non-legal issues (Kift, et al., 2010).
Generally speaking, "legal reasoning" corresponds to "thinking like a lawyer," but many interpretations have been attributed to this latter phrase (James, 2012).For example, Sanson (2006) developed a narrow and broad definition of the phrase "to think like a lawyer."Sanson's (2006) narrow view is akin to the definition of "legal reasoning" as espoused by Kift, et al. (2010).Similarly, Stuckey et al. (2007) presented several conceptualisations of "to think like a lawyer," all of which have the common theme of structured reasoning.In contrast, broader interpretations of "to think like a lawyer" include other styles of thinking such as critical analysis, creative thinking and reflective practice (Field, et al., 2014).
According to James (2012), analysis and evaluation are the crux of "critical analysis."Further, the Australian Learning and Teaching Council's Bachelor of Laws Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement defines "critical analysis" as: … the practice of examining a text, claim or argument and identifying the hidden structures: for example, legal and non-legal issues; premises and hypothesis; factual, theoretical and ideological assumptions; undisclosed biases and prejudices; and so on.The word "critical" emphasises that analysis is a high-level, conceptually analytical activity; it does not mean simply being confrontational or negative -the outcome of critical analysis can be agreement with the text, claim or argument.(Kift, et al., 2010, p. 18) The Australian Learning and Teaching Council's Bachelor of Laws Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement gave an insight into "creative thinking" in a legal education context (Kift, et al., 2010).In particular, creative thinking does not equate to fabrication but instead requires a law student to "determine the most appropriate response from the spectrum of available responses" including an appreciation of non-adversarial and adversarial responses (Kift, et al., 2010, p. 19).There may be a slight overlap between legal reasoning and creative thinking in the sense that they both involve deductive and inductive reasoning (Kift, et al., 2010).This paper adopts a narrow view of "thinking like a lawyer" focussing on "legal reasoning" rather than "critical analysis" or "creative thinking."Further, it does not canvass reflective practice, which is another style of thinking incorporated in TLO 6 Self-management, rather than TLO 3 Thinking Skills.

Traditional approaches to "legal reasoning"
There is no single, universal traditional approach to the learning and teaching of "legal reasoning."A survey of the pertinent legal education literature found over 40 acronyms used in law schools to teach the traditional approaches to legal reasoning (Bentley, 1994;Field, et al., 2014Field, et al., , 2015;;Hart, Hammer, Collins & Chardon, 2011;James, 2012;Kift, et al., 2010;Martin, 2003;Turner, 2012;Ward, 2000;Wade, 1990Wade, -1991)).Table 1 illustrates these findings.Anecdotally, law students commonly apply one of these traditional approaches to legal reasoning in problem-based assignments and examinations.Turner (2012), a legal academic from the United States, outlined the steps in "CRAC," "CRAAP" and "CRAAAP."While these three approaches contain similar steps to some of the approaches in Table 1, the legal academy should arguably steer clear of these three approaches because they do not resonate with a positive professional identity.Similarly, AFGAN (Application, Facts, Grounds, Answer, Negotiation) and KUWAIT (Konclusion, Utility, Wording, Answer, Initiation, Thoughts) sound discriminatory and should be avoided.Accordingly, these approaches have been omitted from Table 1.

ISAACS
Identify a legal issue from the facts, state the relevant law and authority for it, apply the law to the facts, come to a conclusion and repeat the steps above to the next issue, synthesise the conclusion Beginning with the conclusion has been recommended on the basis that this is what the client wants to know upfront (Field, et al., 2014).Thus, CIRAC represents a client-centred approach.However, reiterating the conclusion at the beginning and end hardly seems efficient, and consequently, CIRA might appear to be a better option.Ending the acronym without a conclusion would be striking difference for CIRA as most of the traditional approaches in Table 1 end with a conclusion.
Turner (2012) also highlighted "IRAC Plus" but the letters do not correlate with the steps which makes the approach confusing.The "plus" component seemed to require a comparison between the facts of the problem and the precedent as well as a connection between the facts of the problem and the expected result.Arguably, these additional steps are already canvassed in IRAC under A and C and, therefore, "IRAC Plus" is not an appealing alternative.
The MIRAT approach (Material facts, Issues, Rules, Arguments, Conclusion) has been discussed more frequently in scholarly Australian legal education discourse (Bentley, 1994;Martin, 2003;Wade, 1991Wade, , 1994;;Ward, 2000;Wolff, 2003).Wade (1990Wade ( -1991) ) listed the benefits of MIRAT as being: • easy to remember; • able to be used at different levels of sophistication; • capable of use in every area of law; • useful to define a personal or group educational goal; • a reasonably precise method for a student to measure higher performance in any written/spoken exercise; • a helpful method for teachers to model in chunks; and, • a satisfying method for marking written or spoken analytical exercises as strengths and weaknesses of each stage can be so precisely identified.
It can be contended that this list of benefits is equally applicable to many of the traditional approaches to "legal reasoning" presented in Table 1.Maclean (2010) traced IRAC back to 1976 when Brand and White (1976) made use of it in the United States in legal writing.IRAC continues to be commonly discussed and debated in current legal research and writing discourse (Turner, 2012).The benefits of IRAC are equal to the benefits of MIRAT as identified by Wade (1990Wade ( -1991) ) a quarter of a century ago.On reflection, the author has been teaching IRAC for over 10 years and prefers it to MIRAT because IRAC is easier to remember and contains fewer steps.
Contemporary legal texts and law school survival guides promote the use of IRAC, (see, for example, Field, et al., 2014;Sanson & Anthony, 2014).IRAC offers a "'technical rational' approach to thinking and problem-solving"; a "logical linear pattern"; "an orderly and structured method of legal reasoning"; and "conceptually it makes sense" (Field, Duffy & Huggins, 2014, pp. 203-206).
Law students have given feedback to the effect that they like to use templates to structure their assignments (Hart, et al., 2011).However, Metzler (2002Metzler ( -2003)), argued that "IRAC is much more than an organizational structure"; it is, rather, "an important mental exercise that forces an author to a deeper understanding of the legal issues at stake" (p.501).While the same point may be made about MIRAT, law students should be encouraged to adopt a deeper approach to learning rather than a surface approach (Heath, 2011).As a couple of the key benefits of IRAC are structure and encouraging a deeper approach to learning, it is not surprising that IRAC has had a role to play in other disciplines, for example, social sciences (Bittner, 1990).
While IRAC has benefits, it is not without critics.The key criticisms attached to the structured traditional approaches to legal reasoning including IRAC are: "formalistic"; "unnatural way … of interrogating a legal problem"; and, "oversimplifying legal reasoning and distorting the complex nature of legal problems" (Field, et al., 2014, p. 204).Taylor (2006) expressed similar sentiments.Additional drawbacks include inaccurate or unrealistic answers (Bentley, 1994); inability to determine how multiple issues should be prioritised (Wolff, 2003); and an inability to cope with diverse student learning styles.To overcome the weaknesses of IRAC, some legal educators have opted for another traditional approach to legal reasoning, primarily "to supplement the simplicity of IRAC and aim to offer a method that is more congruent with authentic legal problem solving" (Field, et al., 2014, p. 205).
Despite the criticisms associated with IRAC, it is practised in law schools in the 21 st century, and is functional for first year law students.In particular, James (2011) explained: The prevailing view in Australia appears to be that formalistic techniques such as IRAC are useful for students new to the study of law, but as they progress through their legal studies the "scaffolding" offered by the step-by-step techniques should recede into the background in favour of a greater emphasis upon "flow" in the student's reasoning and consequent improvements in subtlety and persuasiveness.(pp.11-12) There is scope for legal educators to include IRAC in the first year of a law degree, for example, as part of a legal research and writing course, a substantive law course or a dedicated thinking skills course.

Using a Legal Reasoning Grid to teach and assess IRAC
A diverse range of assessment practices is available to the legal academy including "empty outlines," "categorising grids" and "defining features matrix" (Stuckey et. al, 2007, 193).First year Law students should be encouraged to apply thinking skills to a legal reasoning grid before applying thinking skills to more formal written legal advice (Steel & Fitzsimmons, 2013).A legal reasoning grid enables them to develop their thinking skills without getting embroiled in challenges associated with written communication.A legal reasoning grid also assists students to see what the final output will resemble and guide them through the process necessary to achieve that output (Steel & Fitzsimmons, 2013).Additionally, legal educators stand to benefit from a legal reasoning grid as it results in efficient marking practices (Steel & Fitzsimmons, 2013).Steel and Fitzsimmons (2013) offered two sample legal reasoning grids, which largely follow MIRAT (see Table 1).The first grid pertains to tort law and contains the following categories: legal issues; relevant sub-section; material/relevant facts; rule: relevant case law; analogy with previous case law; and apply law to material facts (reasons for decision) (p.87).The second grid pertains to criminal law and contains the following categories: elements of offence; relevant facts; legal facts; relevant case law/section on element scope; do the facts prove the element?(yes/no/unclear); and, reasons for decision (p.89).
As an alternative, this paper puts forward a legal reasoning grid based on IRAC.The legal reasoning grid presented in Table 2 scaffolds the IRAC by providing a brief, introductory checklist for each step in the traditional approach to legal reasoning.While this legal reasoning grid has been designed for a first year first semester, compulsory, substantive course on criminal law and procedure, the categories are generic and could be applied to any field of law.As Law students in later years of a law degree advance and refine their ability to engage in legal reasoning, the brief, introductory checklists could be removed from the legal reasoning grid.Further, the practice of completing a legal reasoning grid might be confined to the first year law experience.• Frame the legal issues in the factual problem as questions using material facts, party names and elements of the relevant rules of law.
• Break down the relevant rules of law into elements.
• Include definitions from statute and case law.
• Include the facts of cases that are similar to factual problem.
• Make a linkage between the elements of the law and the factual problem.
• Make analogies between the factual problem and the case law.
• Distinguish the factual problem from the case law.
• Make assumptions clear.
• Identify additional facts required.
• Reach a convincing conclusion on all of the legal issues in the factual problem based on strong support from statute and case law.
• Justify why alternative conclusions were not reached.
In Semester 1 2015 and Semester 1 2016, first year law students applied the legal reasoning grid to problem-based questions in tutorials.The structure of the legal reasoning grid was intended assist in the provision of formative feedback.In particular, it was designed give structure to the dialogue between the tutor and students; and guide students through self-assessment and peer-assessment processes undertaken in their tutorials.Its use was premised on the idea that Law schools should make greater efforts to facilitate formative feedback to law students before they embark on summative assessment (Stuckey et. al, 2007).
In Semester 1 2015 and Semester 1 2016, after the law students received formative feedback on their ability to apply the IRAC approach, they then completed an individual legal reasoning grid as a 30% summative assessment task in their Week 8 tutorial (of a thirteen week semester).An example of a first year law problem-based question and legal reasoning grid has been published (Burton, 2016).
On reflection, the first year law student experience of the legal reasoning grid in Semester 1 2015 and Semester 1 2016 was valuable because the introductory checklists provided students with confidence to develop thinking skills in a new discipline in a safe and supported learning environment; reassured students that they were on track in answering problem-based questions; guided students on how to get back on track in answering problem-based questions; deepened student understanding of the rules of criminal law; helped students to identify how they could improve their ability to apply the law to a factual problem, which is arguably the hardest cognitive step in IRAC; helped students to identify if they jumped to conclusions too early; and helped students to reflect on which steps in IRAC they were strong or could improve.
The designer of the legal reasoning grid reflects on the introductory checklists in preparation for each offering of the first year law course, but the checklists have remained unchanged in 2015, 2016 and 2017 because they are detailed and practical.Using the legal reasoning grid including the introductory checklists in a first year criminal law course has proven to be a sustainable and valuable experience in 2015 and 2016, and is currently being used in Semester 1 2017.
For completeness, the law students also submitted an individual 2500 word barrister's advice as a 50% summative assessment at the end of semester.The remaining 20% was allocated to a submission to a law reform commission that did not use the legal reasoning grid.Student engagement was enhanced by summative assessment (Johnstone, Patterson & Rubenstein, 1998) and problem-based assessment (Le Brun & Johnstone, 1994;Steel & Fitzsimmons, 2013).

Criterion-referenced assessment rubric on IRAC
In contemporary legal education, criterion-referenced assessment has been widely advocated as the best practice for assessing student learning (Stuckey et. al., 2007).It places emphasis on whether a law student has achieved the learning outcomes (Stuckey et. al., 2007).Three benefits of criterionreferenced assessment are advising law students upfront what is expected of them; reliable marking and encouraging students to engage in reflective practice (Stuckey et. al., 2007).The alternative approach, norm-referenced assessment, requires the distribution of raw assessment scores on a bell-curve.Anecdotally, it makes law students competitive and has a "negative effect on student motivation and learning" (Stuckey et. al., 2007).
A criterion-referenced assessment rubric for IRAC is extracted in Figure 1.The four criteria represent the four steps in IRAC.The boundaries between the performance standards are based on the author's experience of teaching and assessing IRAC and the author's profound interest in criterion-referenced assessment (Burton, 2006(Burton, , 2007(Burton, , 2009(Burton, , 2015a(Burton, , 2015b;;Burton & Cuffe, 2005;Burton & McNamara, 2009;McNamara & Burton, 2009).In Semester 1 2015, and Semester 1 2016, the criterion-referenced assessment rubric (shown as Table 3) was applied to a first year compulsory criminal law course at a regional law school with a cohort of 125 internal students.
The rubric can be adapted to other fields of law by finding and replacing the word "criminal."It has been designed to assess two problem-based assessment tasks -a legal reasoning grid and a barrister's advice.In Semester 1 2017 (at time of writing), the rubric is currently being applied to the legal reasoning grid.

Conclusion
For generations, IRAC has proven to be a useful framework for developing legal reasoning, and teaching law students how to "think like a lawyer."This journal article adds to the existing literature by sharing the design of a legal reasoning grid and criterion-referenced assessment rubric for IRAC to support the thinking skills of first year law students.
The legal reasoning grid is an introductory learning tool for scaffolding IRAC; assisting first year law students with problem-based learning and assessment; and increasing awareness of how to "think like a lawyer" and thus, the future professional legal identity.Offering first year law students an opportunity to learn IRAC through a legal reasoning grid is a valuable and sustainable stepping-stone before they tackle a more complex problem-based question and prepare a barrister's advice.After first year law students have incrementally learned the four steps in IRAC and become increasingly familiar with the introductory checklists, the legal reasoning grid could be removed.As law students progress through their degree and practise answering problem-based questions, legal reasoning and thinking like a lawyer will become more natural.
The criterion-referenced assessment rubric presented in this journal article is aligned with the four steps in IRAC and the introductory checklists in the legal reasoning grid.In doing so, the rubric echoes a traditional approach to legal reasoning and thus, thinking like a lawyer.The rubric could be applied to problem-based assessment, such as a legal reasoning grid or a barrister's advice, and adapted to other fields of law.
Designing scaffolding, such as a legal reasoning grid with introductory checklists; and a criterionreferenced assessment rubric for IRAC, to support first year law students to engage in legal reasoning, serves the law students well for thinking like a lawyer in today's legal education and thinking like a lawyer in tomorrow's legal profession.

Table 2 :
Legal Reasoning Grid based on IRAC