7.2 Discussion

Student Use of the ICE Framework

On the first day of the course, I introduced the ICE framework to students. I described the origin of the framework and its purpose as a means of guiding learning and assessment. I also suggested that students themselves could use the terms and framework as a vocabulary to describe their own learning process throughout the course. I explained that the various ICE verbs, displayed in a chart on a slide, were useful for differentiating between the capabilities represented in each frame of the model.

To illustrate the progressive and expansive aspect of the frames, I presented three sample questions on a concept with which students were already familiar.^[1]  Each question was designed to invite responses squarely within one of the three ICE frames. The Ideas frame question focused on information recall regarding a single research tool; the Connections frame question invited students to compare and contrast what they knew about two related research tools, and the Extensions-framed question prompted students to adapt what they knew to a novel circumstance.  We discussed each question and the difference in the quality of the answer that would satisfy it.

I also suggested to students that the frames and their progression should seem familiar, as they corresponded to the typical markers of achievement on law school exams.  Law students often are told by their instructors that, to do well on a law exam, you must not only be able to identify the relevant legal rule in a case or statute (Ideas); and compare/connect the rule(s) to other cases in which the rule has been developed or interpreted (Connections); you must also be able to apply that rule to analyze a new set of factual circumstances and predict outcomes (Extensions).

Students readily adopted the model as a way of describing and monitoring their own performance and as a way of exploring what a task asked of them (see Impact, below).  We used the framework collectively to describe their developing knowledge base and skill set.^[2]

Instructor Use of the ICE Framework

Class discussion

I referred to the framework often in class discussions, to model for students how they might use it to analyze learning tasks.  For example, as a class, we noted that understanding and recalling the steps in the legal research process, or a list of search techniques, or the attributes of particular research resources, were tasks that primarily engaged the Ideas frame.  Doing this reminded students that they could observe and classify their own achievements in learning. It also gave me a way of  prompting them to stretch their thinking into a more complex frame: “Here, I’m simply referring to the attributes of x; but how do the characteristics of x distinguish it from y?”  Such comments were intended to anchor students in the ICE framework and explicitly highlight the difference between simple information recall (Ideas frame learning) and active, purposeful comparison of elements in their knowledge base (making Connections).

This approach worked similarly well our class discussions focused on information-seeking skills (the application of particular techniques for information seeking; know-how, as opposed to know-what).  Students seemed able to recognize that identifying the elements of a skill (for example, the steps in executing a particular online search technique) was qualitatively different from being able to compare and assess one technique as against another, and then predict which technique would be most useful for a particular research task.

Two or three times during the course, I returned to the strategy I used in the first class.  I displayed a slide at the end of class with three questions related to the concepts of the day, one based on each of the ICE frames, using the related ICE verbs.  Of course, students were easily able to identify the frame of learning for each question.  Then we worked through the questions, as a review of that day’s material, but also as a way to connect new information back to earlier concepts and forward (extend) into hypothetical research tasks.

A Bonus Exercise and Two Assessments

As an offshoot of the “three questions” slide, I invited students to submit an optional exercise to earn a bonus point on their final quiz.  Students were asked to create three questions, one for each frame, using ICE verbs, on a course concept of their choice.^[3]  They also needed to include a model response for each question.  Almost half of the students in the course took advantage of this opportunity.  I offered feedback on their characterization of questions as belonging in one frame or another, and on their selection of ICE verbs. For my own purposes, I also paid special attention to their Extensions questions, as a way of gauging the impact of the exercise, because in order to construct a good Extensions question, students would have to be able to predict, to some degree, how their future experience as practitioners might make demands on their research skill set.

The “three questions” theme returned again on the final quiz.  Each of the 20 questions on the quiz was explicitly classified in accordance with the type of answer it invited.  Questions that asked a student merely to demonstrate their recall of concepts were labelled as “I” questions and were worth 4 points each.  Questions with a “C” label were worth 6 points and asked students to compare and contrast various research resources, tools, and techniques. Finally, an “E” question signalled that students were being asked to apply their knowledge to new circumstances or to design a strategy or predict a combination of tools and resources that would be helpful in a particular situation.

The other major assessment, a course paper, was also loosely connected to ICE.  In this paper, students were required to construct and communicate an efficient research strategy for a topic of their choice.  I advised students that this was primarily an exercise in Extensions, pushing their developing legal research skill set to describe a comprehensive approach to researching their chosen topic area. I explained that it would not be sufficient to merely recite the steps in legal research, nor to describe a tool or technique, or even to compare basic functionalities. To be successful in the assignment, students would have to show their ability to combine and apply research tools and techniques to design an effective, efficient research strategy for a specific topic area, justify their overall approach as the optimal one, and communicate it to others.^[4]