Keywords

1 Introduction

Japan’s level of technology has contributed to the country’s development of a sophisticated information-oriented society. Japan possesses world-class technological prowess and enjoys a strong reputation as a highly developed, technology-rich country. At the same time, Japan possesses few natural resources, a condition which makes intellectual property (hereafter, IP) critically important to the nation [1]. A sound understanding of IP is essential for working professionals, especially those involved with technology. Bearing in mind the insufficient amount of time spent on IP education in university faculties of engineering, the authors have thus far endeavored to identify optimal IP education practices to support engineering students, develop different types of learning support systems [2,3,4,5,6,7], and examine the effects of those systems. One of our previous studies defined a model problem-solving process for the study of Patent Act (Japanese law) for engineering students and developed a learning support system based on that definition [3]; however, the study also specified that in order for the model to be applied, students would first need to possess adequate knowledge to solve the problems posed by the system. In other words, the system was output-focused, providing students with opportunities to demonstrate acquired knowledge. Another previous study [2] found that students prefer different types of learning support systems depending on their own personal learning styles. However, one limitation of the study [2] was its classification of learning styles into just two types. Furthermore, in regard to the educational process for IP law, the study clarified which types of students (when classified according to several dimensions, with a primary focus on attitude toward the subject of law) preferred which types of systems, as well as how different types of students interacted with the systems [8]. Following on the results of our previous work, in this study we attempted to define a learning support system tailored to different types of students, classified according to multiple dimensions, as well as methods for implementing such a system.

2 A Learning Support System for the Study of Legal Texts

2.1 Multi-dimensional Student Classification and System Evaluation

Our previous work [8] defined and used the following three dimensions to classify students:

  1. (a)

    Learning Style – Students were divided into four categories: “practice-exercise–focused,” “information-gathering–focused,” “equally receptive to both learning styles,” and “not receptive to either learning style.”

  2. (b)

    Perceived Ability to Read Legal Texts – Students were divided into the two categories: “finds legal texts easy to read” and “finds legal texts difficult to read.”

  3. (c)

    Perceived Ability to Understand Legal Texts – Students were divided into the two categories: “finds legal texts easy to understand” and “finds legal texts difficult to understand.”

The combination of all options across all dimensions (4 × 2 × 2) resulted in 16 possible categories into which students could be classified; the study ignored categories not containing any students after classification had been performed, leaving 11 categories for potential analysis. However, of those 11, one category contained only a single student; that category was noted but not included in the final analysis.

The study also prepared three types of learning support systems:

  1. (1)

    A system for studying text as-is (the “text system”) (see Fig. 1)

    Fig. 1.
    figure 1

    Article learning screen

    Full size image
  2. (2)

    A system employing logical formulas as a study method (the “logical formula system”) (see Fig. 2)

    Fig. 2.
    figure 2

    Logical formula of learning screen

    Full size image
  3. (3)

    A system in which students learn by assembling logic circuits (the “logic circuit system”) (see Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).

    Fig. 3.
    figure 3

    Assembling of the logic circuit (initial screen)

    Full size image
    Fig. 4.
    figure 4

    Assembling of the logic circuit (operating screen)

    Full size image
    Fig. 5.
    figure 5

    Assembling of the logic circuit (incorrect operating screen)

    Full size image
    Fig. 6.
    figure 6

    Feedback screen (in the case of an incorrect answer)

    Full size image
    Fig. 7.
    figure 7

    Assembling of the logic circuit (correct operating screen)

    Full size image
    Fig. 8.
    figure 8

    Feedback screen (in the case of a correct answer)

    Full size image

In this way, the study also prepared three types of learning support systems, in addition to printed practice exercises (Fig. 9) and explanation (Fig. 10).

Fig. 9.
figure 9

Practice problem screen

Full size image
Fig. 10.
figure 10

Explanation screen

Full size image

As shown in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the logic circuit system does not merely display exercises on the screen in a passive manner; when students study using this system, they must assemble the circuits themselves, after which they receive feedback from the system about whether each assembled circuit was correct or incorrect.

An examination of the relationship between students’ system evaluations and the multi-dimensional classifications revealed that practice-exercise–focused students tended to rate the text and logical formula systems poorly, while giving favorable ratings to the logic circuit system. Furthermore, among students defined as practice-exercise–focused, stronger agreement that “law is a (relatively) easy subject” tended to correspond to higher ratings of the logic circuit assembly method of study. Among information-gathering–focused students, those who perceived legal texts as difficult to read but not necessarily difficult to understand tended to ignore the text system almost entirely; however, these students made regular use of the logical formula system and tended to use that system more frequently than the logic circuit system.

Logical Based on this relational analysis, the present study hypothesized an optimal method for supporting students, as outlined below (see Table 1). The remainder of this paper examines the validity of our hypothesized method.

Table 1. Adaptive systems to multidimensionality of students’ learning style
Full size table

2.2 Evaluation Experiment

We first investigated a method for supporting information gathering, as shown in Table 1.

Subjects:

A total of 86 university students studying IP infringement.

Methods:

Students were twice presented with a problem that required them to combine information from texts and think critically. Between the first and second instances, students received explanations of how to solve the problem, and they also performed practice exercises. Explanations were provided according to the model problem-solving process for Patent Act (Japanese law) study (see Table 2) [3]. Generation support for surface structure and formularized structure denoted the provision of assistance in extracting terminology from texts. Generation support for conditional structures denoted assistance in the creation of logical formulae. Also, generation support for solution structures denoted assistance in the creation of logic circuits. We collected information on whether students answered the problem correctly or incorrectly on each of the two instances, and we also asked students to make subjective evaluations of the support methods on a scale of 1 to 4 points. In addition, we performed system-use analyses and other tests as shown in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Table 2. Model for a problem-solving process for Patent Act (Japanese law) [3].
Full size table

Results:

We divided students into four groups (those who answered correctly both times [C→C], those who answered incorrectly the first time but correctly the second time [I→C], those who answered correctly the first time but incorrectly the second time [C→I], and those who answered incorrectly both times [I→I]) and then examined the relationship between these four groups and the students’ own subjective evaluations. Groups C→C and I→C tended to rate the support methods used in this study more favorably than did the other two groups (see Fig. 11). For Group I→I, little difference was observed across scores given for any of the evaluation items.

Fig. 11.
figure 11

Subjective evaluations from the evaluation experiment

Full size image

The analysis revealed a positive opinion of the logical formulas and logic circuits among the I→C and C→C groups; furthermore, the fact that students in these groups were able to determine the correct answer after receiving support suggests that the systems may be useful in helping students acquire new knowledge. Conversely, the analysis also suggests that for students like those in the I→I group, who display little interest in any of the support methods, knowledge acquisition remains difficult.

With that in mind, we next looked at which of the multi-dimensionally defined categories each student belonged to. We found that students in the I→I group were the same students that had been classified as not receptive to either learning style and perceived legal texts as both hard to read and difficult to understand; this supported the findings of previous research [8]. Finally, we attempted to identify support methods for students in this particular category.

2.3 Multi-dimensional Student Classification and System Evaluation

As shown in Table 1, the text system is the recommended system for students classified as not receptive to either learning style and who perceived legal texts as both hard to read and difficult to understand. (In previous research [8], these students had rated all of the systems poorly; however, their evaluation of the text system was less unfavorable than that of the other systems.) Bearing in mind the possibility that students in this category were poorly motivated to study law from the outset, we decided to administer an additional survey (as described below) to these students following their final exam for the term. Responses to items (1) to (4) were made using a 4-point Likert scale, from positive to negative.

  1. (1)

    Was the semester term final exam difficult?

  2. (2)

    Did you make use of the learning support system?

  3. (3)

    Did the learning support system help you prepare for the term final exam?

  4. (4)

    How did you feel about the exercise that allowed you to assemble logic circuits yourself?

  5. (5)

    Free description question etc.

Analysis of this additional survey found no significant difference between these students’ answers and the overall averages for items (1) to (4) (see Fig. 12). However, on the free response portion, students shared sentiments such as “I think the systems can be useful depending on how they are used,” “The systems are intuitive to use,” “I would be more interested in using the systems if the interfaces had more entertaining designs,” and “Drawing the lines for the logic circuits requires too many clicks, making the interface feel cumbersome.” This suggests that improvements made to the systems’ features, along with adjustments to the order in which the systems are used, could lead to more positive system evaluations from students.

Fig. 12.
figure 12

Subjective evaluations after final exam

Full size image

3 Conclusion and Future Work

This study attempted to determine the ideal method for implementing learning support systems so that they can best assist different types of students; the learning support systems in question were previously developed by the authors, and they are meant to aid information acquisition in the study of Patent Act (Japanese law). The study determined that adjustments to the learning support systems, such as changes made to the order in which the systems are presented, could have a positive effect on system-use outcomes, even among students for whom learning support has not had a previous significant effect. These adjustments should be made in the context of student categories determined according to a multi-dimensional classification system, including dimensions such as student attitudes toward the study of law.

Future research should endeavor to further improve the systems, as well as to determine ideal design, expansion, and usage methods for learning support systems.