Journal of Learning Design

Burton

“Think Like a Lawyer”

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

Kelley Burton
University of the Sunshine Coast
kburton3@usc.edu.au

Abstract
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 criterion-
referenced assessment rubric that breaks IRAC down into five performance
standards is shared with the community of practice.

Keywords
thinking skills, legal reasoning, IRAC, criterion-referenced assessment, legal
education

Introduction
James (2011, 2012), 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

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 57

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

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
• TLO 2: Ethics and professional responsibility
• TLO 3: Thinking Skills
• TLO 4: Research Skills
• TLO 5: Communication and Collaboration
• TLO 6: Self-management.

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).

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 58

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

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., 2014, 2015; Hart,
Hammer, Collins & Chardon, 2011; James, 2012; Kift, et al., 2010; Martin, 2003; Turner, 2012;
Ward, 2000; Wade, 1990-1991). 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.

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 59

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

Table 1. Examples of traditional approaches to legal reasoning (Turner, 2012)

Approach Details
BaRAC Bold assertion, rule, application, conclusion
CAGONARM Current situation, alleged problems, goals of a good system, options, necessary
action to achieve options, advantages and disadvantages of each option,
recommending the least detrimental alternative, monitoring and measuring the
effects of the reform
CIRAC Conclusion, issue, rule, application, conclusion
CI/REXAC Conclusion, introductory/roadmap (issue and rule), explanation, application,
conclusion
CLEO Claim, law, evaluation, outcome
CRARC Conclusion, rule, application, rebuttal and refutation, conclusion
CREAC Conclusion, rule, explanation of rule, application of rule, conclusion
CREXAC Conclusion, rule, explanation, application, conclusion
CRuPAC Conclusion, rule, proof or explanation of rule, application, conclusion
FIRAC Facts, issues, rules, application, conclusion
HIRAC Heading, issue, rule, application, conclusion
IDAR Issue, doctrine, application, result
IGPAC Issue, general rule, precedent, application, conclusion
ILAC Issue, law, application, conclusion
IPAAC Issue, principle, authority, application, conclusion
IRAAC(P) Issue, rule, apply, apply, conclusion, policy
IRAAAPC Issue, rule, authority, application, alternative analysis, policy, conclusion
IRAAPC Issue, rule, authority, application, policy, conclusion
IRAC Issue, rule, application, conclusion
IRACDD Issue, rule, analysis, conclusion, defence, damages
IRACEIP Issue, rule, application, conclusion, explanation, illustration and policy
IRAFT Issues, rules, application of rules to the facts, tentative conclusion
IREAC Issue, rule, explanation of rule, application, conclusion
IREXAC Issue, rule, explanation, application, conclusion
IRRAC Issue, rule, reasoning, application, conclusion
IRREAC Issue, rule, rule, application, conclusion
IRRAAC Issue, rule, reasoning, application, alternative analysis, conclusion
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
MIRAC Material facts, issues, rules, arguments, conclusion
MIRAT Material facts, issues, rules, arguments, tentative conclusion
RAFADC Rule, authorities, facts, analogising and distinguishing, conclusion
TREAC Topic sentence with a conclusion, rule, explanation, application, conclusion
TREACC Topic, rule, explanation, analysis, counterarguments, conclusion
TREAT Thesis, rule, explanation, application, thesis
TRIAccC Topic, rule, issues, analysis (cases, conclusion), conclusion
TRRAC Thesis, rule, rule, application, conclusion

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 60

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

Considering a selection of approaches highlights some of their disadvantages. For example,

CIRAC (Conclusion, Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) starts and ends with 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, 1991, 1994; Ward, 2000; Wolff, 2003). Wade (1990-1991) 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 (1990-1991) 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 (2002-2003), 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

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 61

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

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 21st 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.

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 62

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

Table 2: Legal Reasoning Grid based on IRAC

Issue Rule Application Conclusion
• Frame the legal • Break down the • Make a linkage • Reach a
issues in the relevant rules of between the convincing
factual problem as law into elements. elements of the law conclusion on all
questions using • Include definitions and the factual of the legal issues
material facts, from statute and problem. in the factual
party names and case law. • Make analogies problem based on
elements of the between the factual strong support
• Include the facts
relevant rules of problem and the from statute and
of cases that are
law. case law. case law.
similar to factual
problem. • Distinguish the • Justify why
factual problem alternative
from the case law. conclusions were
not reached.
• Make assumptions
clear.
• Identify additional
facts required.

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).

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 63

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

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 criterion-
referenced 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, 2007, 2009, 2015a, 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.

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 64

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

Criteria from the Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction

Course Outline
Identifies the Omits to identify Uses the key Frames most of Frames all of the Frames all of the
relevant legal issues the relevant legal words in the the legal issues legal issues as legal issues as
in the factual issues in the relevant criminal as questions questions using questions using
problem factual problem. law as the using the the elements of material facts,
Copies the facts. relevant legal elements of the the relevant party names and
issues. relevant criminal criminal law. the elements of
law. the relevant
criminal law.
Explains the Omits to describe Writes out slabs Breaks down the Breaks down the Breaks down the
relevant rules of the relevant law. of the relevant relevant criminal relevant criminal relevant criminal
criminal law derived statutes or quotes law into law into elements. law into elements.
from statute and from the relevant elements. Includes the Includes the
case law judgments. Includes the definitions of key definitions of key
definitions of key elements derived elements derived
elements derived from statute and from statute and
from statute. case law. case law. Includes
the facts of cases
that are similar to
the factual
problem.
Applies legal Omits to apply Makes linkages Makes linkages Makes linkages Makes linkages
reasoning to the legal reasoning to between the key between all of between all of the between all of the
factual problem the factual elements of the the elements of elements of the elements of the
problem. relevant criminal the relevant relevant criminal relevant criminal
law and the criminal law and law and the factual law and the factual
factual problem. the factual problem. Makes problem. Makes
problem. Make analogies between analogies between
analogies the factual the factual
between the problem and case problem and case
factual problem law. Distinguishes law clearly stating
and case law. the factual the similarities.
problem from case Distinguishes the
law. Makes any factual problem
assumptions clear. from case law
clearly stating the
differences.
Makes any
assumptions clear.
Identifies the
additional facts
required.
Reaches arguable Omits Reaches a Reaches an Reaches an Reaches a
conclusions conclusions. conclusion on arguable arguable convincing
most of the legal conclusion on conclusion on all conclusion on all
issues in the most of the legal of the legal issues of the legal issues
factual problem issues in the in the factual in the factual
only using yes/no, factual problem problem based on problem based on
or ticks and based on strong support strong support
crosses; or does support from from statute and from statute and
not justify the statute and case case law. case law. Justifies
conclusions. law. why alternative
conclusions were
not reached.

Figure 1. Criterion-referenced assessment rubric for IRAC – Example from a first year law
course on criminal law (Threshold Learning Outcome 3: Thinking Skills).

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 65

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

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 criterion-
referenced 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.

References
Burton, K. (2006). Designing criterion-referenced assessment. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2),
73-82. doi:10.5204/jld.v1i2.19
Burton, K. (2007). Skills and criterion referenced assessment: Turning “LWB234 Real Property A
Law” into a subject for the real world. Journal of South Pacific Law, 11(1), 56-63.
Burton, K. (2009). Does the summative assessment of real world learning using criterion-
referenced assessment need to be discipline-specific? In ATN Assessment Conference
Proceedings, RMIT University, Melbourne, November.
Burton, K. (2015a). A criterion-referenced assessment rubric on reflective practice designed with
clinical legal education in mind. Journal of Australasian Law Teachers Association, 8(1&2), 3-
12.
Burton, K. (2015b). Continuing my journey on designing and refining criterion-referenced
assessment rubrics. Journal of Learning Design, 8(3), 1-13. doi:10.5204/jld.v8i3.250
Burton, K. (2016). Teaching and assessing problem solving: An example of an incremental
approach to using IRAC in legal education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning
Practice, 13(5). Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol13/iss5/20
Burton, K., & Cuffe, N. (2005). The design and implementation of criterion-referenced assessment
in a first year undergraduate core law unit. Legal Education Review, 15(1&2), 159-175.
Burton, K., & McNamara, J. (2009). Assessing reflection skills in law using criterion-referenced
assessment. Legal Education Review, 19(1&2), 171-188.

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 66

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

Bentley, D. (1994). Using structures to teach legal reasoning. Legal Education Review, 5(2), 129-
152.
Bittner, M. (1990). The IRAC method of case study analysis. Social Studies, 81(5), 227-230.
Brand, N. & White, J.O. (1976). Legal writing: The strategy of persuasion. New York: St Martin’s
Press.
Christensen, S., & Kift, S. (2000). Graduate attributes and legal skills: Integration or
disintegration?. Legal Education Review, 11(2), 207-238.
Field, R., Duffy, J., & Huggins, A. (2014). Lawyering and positive professional identities.
Chatswood, Australia: LexisNexis.
Hart, C., Hammer, S., Collins, P., & Chardon, T. (2011). The real deal: Using authentic
assessment to promote student engagement in the first and second years of a regional law
program. Legal Education Review, 12, 97-122.
Heath, M. (2011). Assessment strategies. In S. Kift, M. Sanson, J. Cowley, & P. Watson (Eds.),
Excellence and Innovation in Legal Education (pp. 269-294) Chatswood, Australia:
LexisNexis Butterworths.
James, N. (2011). Good practice guide (Bachelor of laws): Thinking skills (Threshold learning
Outcome 3). Australian Learning & Teaching Council. Retrieved from
http://www.lawteachnetwork.org/resources/gpg-thinking.pdf
James, N. (2012). Logical, critical and creative: Teaching “thinking skills to law students.” QUT
Law and Justice Journal, 12(1), 66-88.
Johnstone, R., Patterson, J., & Rubenstein, K. (1998). Improving criteria & feedback in student
assessment in law. Sydney, Australia: Cavendish Publishing.
Kift, S., Israel, M., & Field, R. (2010). Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project:
Bachelor of Laws Learning & Teaching Academic Standards Statement December 2010,
Australian Learning & Teaching Council. Retrieved from
http://www.altc.edu.au/system/files/altc_standards_LAW_110211.pdf
Le Brun, M., & Johnstone, R. (1994). The quiet (r)evolution: Improving student learning in law.
Sydney, Australia: Law Book.
Maclean, R. (2010). First-year law students’ construction of professional identity through writing.
Discourse Studies, 12(2), 177-194.
Martin, F. (2003). Teaching legal problem solving: A problem-based learning approach combined
with a computerised generic problem. Legal Education Review, 14(1), 77 -100.
McNamara, J. & Burton, K. (2009). Assessment of online discussion forums for law students.
Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 6(2). Retrieved from
http://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol6/iss2/6, 1-14
Metzler, J. (2002-2003). The importance of IRAC and legal writing. University of Detroit Mercy
Law Review, 80, 501-504.
Sanson, M. (2006). Thinking like a lawyer. International Bar Association Conference Newsletter.
Sanson, M., & Anthony, T. (2014). Connecting with law (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia:
Oxford University Press.
Steel, A., & Fitzsimmons, D. (2013). Assessing problem based and experiential learning:
Answering legal problem questions in a grid format. In K. Coleman, & A. Flood (Eds.),
Marking Time: Leading and Managing the Development of Assessment in Higher Education,
Champaign, ILL: Common Grounds Publishing LLC.
Stuckey, R. et al. (2007). Best practices for legal education: A vision and a road map. South
Carolina: Clinical Legal Education Association. Retrieved from
http://www.cleaweb.org/Resources/Documents/best_practices-full.pdf

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 67

 Journal of Learning Design
Burton

Taylor, G. (2006). Structured problem-solving: Against the “step-by-step” method. Deakin Law
Review, 11(1), 89-101.
Turner, T. (2012). Finding consensus in legal writing discourse regarding organizational structure:
A review and analysis of the use of IRAC and its progenies. Legal Communication and
Rhetoric: JALWD, 9, 351-364.
Wade, J. H. (1990-1991). Meet MIRAT: Legal reasoning fragmented into learnable chunks. Legal
Education Review, 2(1), 283-297.
Ward, H. (2000). The adequacy of their attention: Gender-bias and the incorporation of feminist
perspectives in the Australian introductory law subject. Legal Education Review, 9(3), 5-6.
Wolff, L-C. (2003). Structured problem solving: German methodology from a comparative
perspective. Legal Education Review, 14(1), 19-52.

Copyright © 2017 Kelley Burton

2017 Vol. 10 No. 2 68