Emerging Technology-Driven Legal Education Reform and the Cultivation of Students’ Critical Thinking Skills
Published Online: Mar 19, 2025
Received: Nov 06, 2024
Accepted: Feb 16, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/amns-2025-0419
Keywords
© 2025 Kuizhong Xue et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Driven by emerging technologies, the development and change of society, legal education must also keep pace with the times, reform and innovation to better cultivate students’ critical thinking, critical thinking has become one of the important missions of education [1–2]. Critical thinking refers to the ability to analyze and evaluate the problem in depth, comprehensively and accurately, which can not only help students better adapt to the changes in the society, but also cultivate their independent thinking and problem solving ability. Legal education is an important way to cultivate critical thinking [3–6].
Law is directly oriented to social life, has a strong application, so the true meaning of legal education is not only to teach legal knowledge, more importantly, to cultivate and train students’ comprehensive ability. The comprehensive ability of law students includes legal thinking, logical analysis, communication and negotiation, litigation, research and improvisation and other abilities, which are directly or indirectly related to critical thinking [7–10]. Cultivating critical thinking ability and mental temperament is necessary for law students to cope with the complex and changing world and to enhance the humanistic spirit of modern social life. There is a close relationship between critical thinking and legal thinking. Legal thinking is characterized by “following the logic of law, value-oriented thinking, rational argumentation, interpretation and application of law”, and its purpose is to make a legal judgment on the facts of the case [11–14]. Critical thinking emphasizes the rational analysis to deal with differences of opinion, through the hearing, dialogue to eliminate the conflict between the parties, in essence, the use of legal thinking is the use of critical thinking way to realize [15–17].
With the rapid development of information technology, the field of education is experiencing unprecedented changes, the innovative combination of legal education and technology provides a strong impetus for the change of legal education, and the reform of legal education is of great significance for the cultivation of legal professionals in the new era. Literature [18] emphasizes the application and importance of technology in legal education. Based on the actual situation of developing countries, suggestions are made to introduce technology in their legal education. And explored the digital divide between genders. Literature [19] explored technological innovation and its importance in legal education, with insights into the views that suggest that technological innovation in legal education can meet the needs of law students in the new era and promote the effective realization of the goals of legal learning, and insights into these views. Literature [20] drafts the outline of programs that are technology-focused and can provide a systematic approach to legal education. The application of systematic learning is examined in terms of user-based, innovative learning. A framework for reorienting some parts of legal education to understand the technological systems used to “produce” law and to develop pedagogical practices is proposed. Literature [21] reveals the impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on legal education, which has created opportunities and challenges for law students, based on which colleges and universities are focusing on the development of new competencies through educational reforms, which are gradual and do not allow sufficient time for students to prepare for their careers. Literature [22] discusses the challenges for legal education due to the impact of emerging technologies on law and legal practice. Emerging technologies are emphasized as an important way of understanding the world and the design of legal education curriculum in the context of law and technology is proposed. Literature [23] indicates the impact of technological advances on the development of legal education. The current purpose of legal education and the pressures that emerging technologies are putting on teaching and learning practices are explored. It is argued that the future of legal education will be one of broad and liberal education, leading to interdisciplinary insights, creativity and other aspects.
Critical thinking is a crucial component of legal education. It emphasizes rational analysis and prudent judgment, the process of exploration and questioning, and the way to acquire new knowledge. In legal education, teachers should encourage students to question and think about legal issues, to analyze problems from different perspectives, and to analyze the rationale and applicability of laws. Literature [24] points out that the job market requires law graduates to have excellent critical thinking skills and to have the same strengths as mature lawyers, and the implications of this have been the subject of much deliberation and research. The literature [25] examines the integration of critical thinking and critical reading instruction in the legal studies classroom. It also describes the important role of case summary preparation exercises in developing and critical thinking and critical skills, argues that reading skills are a prerequisite for students to achieve critical thinking assignments, and discusses teaching methods. Literature [26] reveals that most university graduates have poorer critical thinking skills than when they enrolled in school, a phenomenon that has received much attention, and people even one of the value of higher education in the development of human resources, especially in areas such as the development of students’ reasoning skills. Literature [27] emphasizes the importance of critical thinking skills, the development of critical thinking skills of law students brings more benefits to their careers, and the ability to think critically also facilitates law students to distinguish between high and low quality of information. Literature [28] discusses the development of critical thinking among college students from the perspectives of three groups: students, faculty, and academic administrators. Through interviews, three effective aspects of critical thinking development were identified, one of which was particularly prominent and reliable. Literature [29] describes the impact of legal case reading teaching methods on students’ critical thinking ability, and applies quantitative methods and questionnaires to conduct the study, and the results show that legal case reading has a significant role in promoting the development of students’ critical thinking ability.
The article uses information technology in the reform of conventional legal education, builds a legal education model based on information technology, simulates the mock court through virtual reality (VR) technology, creates a virtual legal teaching situation, and pays attention to the cultivation of students’ critical thinking ability in the teaching process. Then, the evaluation index system of legal education is constructed, and the weights of the indicators at all levels are calculated by using the hierarchical analysis method, and the evaluation index system is used in the evaluation of the legal education model of this paper. Finally, the critical thinking ability of the experimental group and the control group before and after the teaching experiment is measured through the teaching experiment method, and the data of the two measurements before and after the experiment are compared to explore the effect of the legal education reform in cultivating students’ critical thinking ability.
Information-based instructional design involves using a systematic approach, focusing on learning, and fully utilizing modern information technology and information resources [30]. It scientifically arranges the various links and elements of the teaching process in order to optimize the teaching process. Information technology teaching design is mainly composed of eight modules, including unit teaching goal analysis, learning task and problem design, learning resource finding and design, teaching process design, student work example design, evaluation gauge design, implementation of unit teaching plan, evaluation and feedback. Changes in the concept and mode of education in law schools must have a “material foundation” of informatized teaching design. Without the guarantee of computerized instructional design, integrating information technology and law courses can only be an empty promise. From the current situation of law schools, the theory and practice of informatization teaching design have yet to be developed, coupled with the high skill requirements of law courses, which bring many difficulties and higher requirements to the informatization teaching design of law schools. Informatized instructional design requires that teachers in law schools not only know how to use a variety of media tools, but also must make full use of the informatized teaching environment, focusing on cultivating students’ information ability, critical thinking ability, problem solving ability and innovation ability.
The development of a teaching mode that is compatible with the integration of the law curriculum is the key to realizing “integration”, and a reasonable choice of teaching mode can better bring into play the advantages of information and technology and improve the efficiency of classroom teaching. At present, the reform of the integrated teaching mode of the law curriculum to achieve two goals: first, to break through the single teaching mode, so that information technology has truly become a means of cognition and inquiry and problem-solving tools for students to use independently. The second is to use information technology to build a teaching environment for students’ independent learning and inquiry learning, and to improve students’ ability to acquire information, process, organize, apply and disseminate information independently.
According to the two aspects of teaching and learning, the teaching mode of legal curriculum integration can be divided into two categories: the demonstration-type teaching mode, which focuses on the use of information technology by teachers, and the self-directed learning mode, which focuses on the use of information technology by students, and the latter, which, according to the degree of openness of the content of the study, can be further divided into the mode of self-directed learning centered on the content of the textbook and the mode of self-directed learning in an open learning environment.
The construction of an educational model can be carried out separately from the creation of context and the design of teaching strategies, and through a mutually coordinated cycle of design, a stable teaching model will eventually be formed. Contextualization facilitates the transfer of knowledge and competencies by placing learning tasks in authentic problem situations. Built-in cognitive tools (including conversational and collaborative tools) facilitate independent and cooperative learning. The abundance of built-in information resources makes it easier to comprehend problems and come up with viable solutions. The model of legal education based on information technology is shown in Figure 1.
Law education mode based on information technology
Case selection
In the practice of law teaching, the application of VR technology breaks through the limitations of the traditional simulation court in case selection and progress control [31–32].
First of all, the teacher can supervise and control the progress of the case trial, make suggestions for adjustment at any time according to the actual situation, and at the same time make a scientific and reasonable evaluation of the students’ performance in the classroom. This requires that teachers are not only familiar with the content of substantive and procedural law, but also have a wealth of experience, a good grasp of the internal structure and operation of the judicial system, familiar with the relevant norms of the legal profession, and be able to flexibly apply in the classroom. Secondly, the traditional moot court uses cases that are mostly resolved by litigation, and with the introduction of VR technology, students can independently choose the method of resolving legal disputes. Students can choose the solution independently after studying the case, which will accumulate experience for students to engage in non-litigation legal practice in the future.
Role Assignment
The use of VR technology in the practice of legal education prompts the simulation court to have more social characteristics. In the preparation of the case simulation script to set the characters, each character is endowed with socialized personality characteristics, the image of three-dimensional vivid and full, so that the simulation court is more in line with the actual. Students participating in simulation teaching can use a variety of channels to understand and utilize the content of the scenario, so as to achieve a favorable situation for themselves during the trial process.
In the practice of legal education, VR virtual simulation situation, the design of the role is not fixed, students can interchange roles at different stages of the trial, so that students can experience different professional identities by trying out different roles, in the process of accumulating experience and exercising their own ability to analyze and solve problems by using legal expertise.
Curriculum
The application of VR technology in the practical teaching of legal education breaks the limitations of the traditional moot court with its openness and mobility, where the place is fixed and the participants are limited. The use of information technology to build an information platform that allows participants to receive instructions from the teacher at any time, view case information, legal documents and other information, not only greatly improves the efficiency of teaching, but also the uncertainty in the simulated courtroom helps to exercise the students’ ability to improvise.
VR curriculum is arranged in the senior stage, the students at this stage complete the law course, fully grasp the theoretical knowledge of law, at the same time, they have internship experience also have a certain internship experience, very familiar with the process of court hearings, but also skilled in the writing skills of legal documents, which helps to better adapt to the VR virtual simulation training. In addition, the class time can be adjusted to accommodate the VR characteristics. For example, the VR simulation court can be 2 weeks a class. It is recommended that during the interval between each class, the teacher summarizes and evaluates the students’ performance in stages.
Critical thinking is an inevitable requirement for the reform of legal education in colleges and universities. Critical thinking is trainable, but critical thinking, especially the tendency to think critically, is difficult to acquire through short-term training. Critical thinking education is a long-term process. Critical thinking education and legal education reform in colleges and universities are mutually beneficial. The reform of legal education in colleges and universities promotes the curricularization of critical thinking and promotes the development of critical thinking education, while critical thinking education triggers and deeply promotes the reform of legal education in colleges and universities, which is conducive to preventing the reform of college and university law from remaining on the surface of the superficial active shallow level. In the current period of active promotion of legal education reform in colleges and universities, we should deepen the research on critical thinking education, increase the support of national policies, and promote critical thinking education in depth, so as to provide further support for the reform of legal education in colleges and universities.
This paper constructs a legal education evaluation index system and calculates the weights of the system through hierarchical analysis. The evaluation index system for legal education is shown in Table 1.
Law education evaluation index system
| Primary index | Weight | Secondary index | Weight | Tertiary index | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teaching background (A) | 0.101 | Teaching target (A1) | 0.209 | Learning diagnosis (A11) | 0.215 |
| Teaching content (A12) | 0.206 | ||||
| Core literacy cultivation (A13) | 0.376 | ||||
| Target basic attribute (A14) | 0.203 | ||||
| Teacher ability (A2) | 0.379 | Occupational ethics (A21) | 0.210 | ||
| Teaching ability (A22) | 0.406 | ||||
| Professional literacy (A23) | 0.384 | ||||
| Student attitude and ability (A3) | 0.412 | Learning ability (A31) | 0.359 | ||
| Learning motivation (A32) | 0.304 | ||||
| Self-efficacy (A33) | 0.337 | ||||
| Class teaching input (B) | 0.236 | Teaching scheme planning (B1) | 0.297 | Learning and practice combination (B11) | 0.416 |
| Teaching resource application (B12) | 0.318 | ||||
| Teaching method rationality (B13) | 0.266 | ||||
| Student input (B2) | 0.345 | Pre-class preparation (B21) | 0.254 | ||
| Theoretical knowledge development (B22) | 0.327 | ||||
| Post-class activity participation (B23) | 0.419 | ||||
| School resource input (B3) | 0.358 | Organizational training (B31) | 0.187 | ||
| Teaching research (B32) | 0.203 | ||||
| Human resource utilization (B33) | 0.175 | ||||
| Post-class activity organization (B34) | 0.234 | ||||
| Extracurricular competition (B35) | 0.201 | ||||
| Teaching process (C) | 0.374 | Teacher behavior (C1) | 0.312 | Class routine (C11) | 0.194 |
| Guide and demonstration (C12) | 0.206 | ||||
| Information technology application (C13) | 0.207 | ||||
| Moot court creation (C14) | 0.211 | ||||
| Class atmosphere (C15) | 0.182 | ||||
| Student behavior (C2) | 0.336 | Observation and learning (C21) | 0.326 | ||
| Viewing and evaluation (C22) | 0.357 | ||||
| Skill practice (C23) | 0.317 | ||||
| Teacher and student interaction (C3) | 0.352 | Question and answer (C31) | 0.248 | ||
| Learning and practice combination (C32) | 0.752 | ||||
| Class teaching effect (D) | 0.289 | Student literacy improvement (D1) | 0.362 | Law ethics cultivation (D11) | 0.254 |
| Professional ability cultivation (D12) | 0.384 | ||||
| Good habit cultivation (D13) | 0.362 | ||||
| Teacher development and evaluation (D2) | 0.325 | Teaching effect (D21) | 0.355 | ||
| Teaching reflection (D22) | 0.213 | ||||
| Teaching efficiency improvement (D23) | 0.247 | ||||
| Teaching ability development (D24) | 0.185 | ||||
| Class overall effect (D3) | 0.313 | Sustainability (D31) | 0.384 | ||
| Extensibility (D32) | 0.213 | ||||
| Innovation (D33) | 0.403 |
Diagnosis of scores of first-level indicators
Questionnaires are distributed to the classes that adopt the legal education model of this paper for law teaching, and the scores of the indicators at all levels are collected to get the students’ evaluation of the legal education model of this paper. Table 2 displays the contribution rate of the scores of the first-level indicators.
According to Table 2, it can be found that the overall score of this paper’s legal education model is 92.03, and the comprehensive evaluation grade is “excellent”. 94.15 of the four level 1 indicators, 94.70 of the teaching background, 94.70 of the teaching process, and 91.66 of the classroom teaching effect indicators have reached 90 points, but the indicator of the classroom teaching input of 87.43 points is slightly weak. The ratio of the actual contribution rate/theoretical contribution rate of teaching background and teaching process is greater than 1, and the ratio of the actual contribution rate/theoretical contribution rate of classroom teaching input and classroom teaching effect is less than 1, which means that teaching background and teaching process belong to the strengths of this paper’s model of legal education, while the two links of classroom teaching input and classroom teaching effect are relatively weak.
Diagnosis of secondary indicator scores
The secondary indicator scores are shown in Figure 2. Advantageous links are the indicators with scores higher than the average of 90.87, and disadvantageous links are the secondary indicators located in the scores lower than 90.87. The advantageous indicators of this paper’s legal education model are mainly teaching objectives, teacher’s ability, student’s attitude and ability, student’s commitment, student’s literacy improvement, teacher’s development evaluation, and overall classroom effect, which account for 58.33% of the number of the secondary indicators. The teaching objectives of this paper’s legal education model are more reasonably designed, the students’ pre-course preparations are more adequate, and it achieves a better teaching effect. Indicators in the disadvantageous link mainly include the development of teaching programs (B1), the input of school resources (B3), teacher behavior (C1), student behavior (C2), teacher-student interaction (C3) five indicators, the disadvantageous indicators accounted for 41.67% of the number of all the second-level indicators, these five indicators in the overall evaluation of the legal education model played a “dragged back” effect.
Tertiary Indicator Score Diagnosis
The scores of the tertiary indicators are shown in Table 3, and the evaluation system of legal education model constructed in this study contains a total of 41 tertiary indicators, with a total of 7 indicators below 80 points. There are 18 tertiary indicators belonging to the five secondary indicators of the development of teaching programs (B1), input of school resources (B3), teacher behavior (C1), student behavior (C2), and teacher-student interaction (C3), of which there are 6 indicators scoring less than 80 points, accounting for 85.71% of the indicators scoring less than 80 points, which are the use of teaching resources (B12), organization of training (B31), organization of after-school activities (B34), and use of information technology (C13), viewing and evaluation (C22), and questions and answers (C31).
Secondary index score
Primary index score contribution rate
| Primary index | Theoretical contribution | Theoretical contribution rate | Real contribution | Real contribution rate | Real/theoretical contribution rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teaching background (A) | 10.10 | 10.10% | 9.51 | 10.33% | 1.023 |
| Class teaching input (B) | 23.60 | 23.60% | 20.62 | 22.41% | 0.950 |
| Teaching process (C) | 37.40 | 37.40% | 35.41 | 38.48% | 1.029 |
| Class teaching effect (D) | 28.90 | 28.90% | 26.49 | 28.78% | 0.996 |
| Total | 100 | 100% | 92.03 | 100% | 1 |
Tertiary index score
| Primary index | Secondary index | Tertiary index | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teaching background (A) | Teaching target (A1) | Learning diagnosis (A11) | 91.22 |
| Teaching content (A12) | 90.18 | ||
| Core literacy cultivation (A13) | 88.28 | ||
| Target basic attribute (A14) | 78.06 | ||
| Teacher ability (A2) | Occupational ethics (A21) | 89.24 | |
| Teaching ability (A22) | 95.45 | ||
| Professional literacy (A23) | 87.31 | ||
| Student attitude and ability (A3) | Learning ability (A31) | 86.83 | |
| Learning motivation (A32) | 92.97 | ||
| Self-efficacy (A33) | 90.51 | ||
| Class teaching input (B) | Teaching scheme planning (B1) | Learning and practice combination (B11) | 92.25 |
| Teaching resource application (B12) | 79.18 | ||
| Teaching method rationality (B13) | 85.92 | ||
| Student input (B2) | Pre-class preparation (B21) | 93.62 | |
| Theoretical knowledge development (B22) | 90.62 | ||
| Post-class activity participation (B23) | 94.77 | ||
| School resource input (B3) | Organizational training (B31) | 78.31 | |
| Teaching research (B32) | 91.37 | ||
| Human resource utilization (B33) | 95.01 | ||
| Post-class activity organization (B34) | 77.78 | ||
| Extracurricular competition (B35) | 95.01 | ||
| Teaching process (C) | Teacher behavior (C1) | Class routine (C11) | 86.18 |
| Guide and demonstration (C12) | 88.50 | ||
| Information technology application (C13) | 76.51 | ||
| Moot court creation (C14) | 89.58 | ||
| Class atmosphere (C15) | 93.51 | ||
| Student behavior (C2) | Observation and learning (C21) | 94.91 | |
| Viewing and evaluation (C22) | 78.69 | ||
| Skill practice (C23) | 89.04 | ||
| Teacher and student interaction (C3) | Question and answer (C31) | 79.15 | |
| Learning and practice combination (C32) | 87.90 | ||
| Class teaching effect (D) | Student literacy improvement (D1) | Law ethics cultivation (D11) | 91.20 |
| Professional ability cultivation (D12) | 86.68 | ||
| Good habit cultivation (D13) | 92.18 | ||
| Teacher development and evaluation (D2) | Teaching effect (D21) | 94.73 | |
| Teaching reflection (D22) | 87.51 | ||
| Teaching efficiency improvement (D23) | 94.54 | ||
| Teaching ability development (D24) | 90.16 | ||
| Class overall effect (D3) | Sustainability (D31) | 87.25 | |
| Extensibility (D32) | 91.72 | ||
| Innovation (D33) | 93.10 |
In order to investigate the effect of information technology-based legal education reform and education model on the cultivation of students’ critical thinking ability, two classes in the third year of the Law School of S School will be used as experimental subjects, the experimental group and the control group of 50 people each, the experimental group adopts this paper’s information technology-based legal education model for law teaching, and the control group adopts the conventional teaching mode, the experiment lasts for one semester.
The examination of students’ critical thinking ability was divided into seven dimensions (search for truth, open-mindedness, analytical ability, systematization ability, self-confidence in critical thinking, curiosity, and cognitive maturity). The results of the comparative analysis of critical thinking ability between the experimental group and the control group before the experiment are shown in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, before the beginning of the experiment, in the measures of truth-seeking, open-mindedness, cognitive maturity, and total score, the students in the experimental group were higher than the students in the control group by 1.46, 0.08, 1.67, and 1.34, respectively, but there was no significant difference (P>0.05). In the measurements of analytical ability, systematization ability, self-confidence in critical thinking, and intellectual curiosity, the students in the experimental group were lower than the students in the control group by 1.49, 0.03, 0.32, and 0.03, respectively, but again, there was no significant difference (P>0.05).
Comparison of critical thinking ability of two groups before the experiment
| Dimension | M±SD | T | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | Control group | |||
| Truth-seeking | 37.74±8.92 | 36.28±7.98 | 0.845 | 0.605 |
| Open mind | 36.31±8.30 | 36.23±6.46 | 0.426 | 0.765 |
| Analysis ability | 35.28±9.05 | 36.77±7.53 | -0.745 | 0.755 |
| Systematization ability | 37.03±7.57 | 37.06±9.59 | -0.268 | 0.695 |
| Confidence of critical thinking | 37.81±6.63 | 38.13±7.84 | -0.433 | 0.885 |
| Thirst for knowledge | 38.06±6.16 | 38.09±8.37 | -0.521 | 0.755 |
| Cognitive maturity | 38.88±8.78 | 37.21±7.62 | 0.647 | 0.865 |
| Total | 261.11±27.49 | 259.77±29.84 | 0.862 | 0.935 |
In summary, the preexperimental data show that there is no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group in the initial measurement data of the seven dimensions of critical thinking ability and the total score (P>0.05). This indicates that before the experiment was carried out, the experimental group and the control group had basic homogeneity in students’ critical thinking ability, which met the basic conditions for implementing the experiment.
The results of the comparative analysis of the critical thinking skills of the experimental and control groups after the experiment are shown in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, at the end of the experiment, in the measure of critical thinking ability, the students in the experimental group were much higher than the students in the control group in all dimensions, and there was a highly significant difference (P<0.01). The students in the experimental group were higher than the control group in truth-seeking, open-mindedness, analytical ability, systematization ability, self-confidence in critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, cognitive maturity, and total scores by 8.96, 10.90, 10.81, 12.62, 11.50, 10.25, 11.18, and 76.22, respectively.
Comparison of critical thinking ability of two groups after the experiment
| Dimension | M±SD | T | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | Control group | |||
| Truth-seeking | 46.95±9.66 | 37.99±8.95 | 3.845 | 0.000 |
| Open mind | 49.32±14.93 | 38.42±7.95 | 2.644 | 0.000 |
| Analysis ability | 48.45±12.34 | 37.64±9.56 | 2.745 | 0.000 |
| Systematization ability | 48.98±10.33 | 36.36±7.37 | 3.498 | 0.000 |
| Confidence of critical thinking | 49.66±11.02 | 38.16±7.32 | 2.151 | 0.000 |
| Thirst for knowledge | 46.63±9.35 | 36.38±7.72 | 1.643 | 0.000 |
| Cognitive maturity | 46.57±10.94 | 35.39±6.17 | 2.546 | 0.000 |
| Total | 336.56±39.08 | 260.34±28.48 | 5.662 | 0.000 |
To conclude, the legal education model in this paper has a positive impact on enhancing students’ critical thinking skills.
The changes in the critical thinking ability of the experimental group before and after the experiment are shown in Table 6. As seen in Table 6, the scores of the seven dimensions of critical thinking ability after the experiment are higher than the scores of 9.21, 13.01, 13.17, 11.95, 11.85, 8.57 and 7.69 before the experiment, and the critical thinking ability of the experimental group after the experiment has been improved by 75.45 points, and all of them have very significant differences (P<0.01).
Critical thinking ability of experimental group before and after the experiment
| Dimension | M±SD | T | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | |||
| Truth-seeking | 37.74±8.92 | 46.95±9.66 | 3.488 | 0.000 |
| Open mind | 36.31±8.30 | 49.32±14.93 | 7.485 | 0.000 |
| Analysis ability | 35.28±9.05 | 48.45±12.34 | 7.264 | 0.000 |
| Systematization ability | 37.03±7.57 | 48.98±10.33 | 5.263 | 0.000 |
| Confidence of critical thinking | 37.81±6.63 | 49.66±11.02 | 5.784 | 0.000 |
| Thirst for knowledge | 38.06±6.16 | 46.63±9.35 | 3.041 | 0.000 |
| Cognitive maturity | 38.88±8.78 | 46.57±10.94 | 2.546 | 0.000 |
| Total | 261.11±27.49 | 336.56±39.08 | 12.154 | 0.000 |
After the educational experiment for the legal education model of this paper, the experimental group showed significant improvement in all seven dimensions of the critical thinking ability test.
The results of the control group’s critical thinking skills comparison before and after the experiment are shown in Table 7. From Table 7, it can be found that the control group improved -1.71, -2.19, -0.87, 0.70, -0.03, 1.71, 1.82, and -0.57 points in the dimensions and total scores of critical thinking ability after the experiment compared with the preexperiment, respectively. The control group achieved an improvement only in systematization ability, inquisitiveness and cognitive maturity, but the improvement was very limited and did not exceed 2 points, while a degradation was observed in truth-seeking, open-mindedness, analytical ability, self-efficacy in critical thinking, and total score.
Critical thinking ability of control group before and after the experiment
| Dimension | M±SD | T | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | |||
| Truth-seeking | 36.28±7.98 | 37.99±8.95 | -1.478 | 0.864 |
| Open mind | 36.23±6.46 | 38.42±7.95 | -2.117 | 0.745 |
| Analysis ability | 36.77±7.53 | 37.64±9.56 | -0.874 | 0.883 |
| Systematization ability | 37.06±9.59 | 36.36±7.37 | 0.748 | 0.766 |
| Confidence of critical thinking | 38.13±7.84 | 38.16±7.32 | -0.412 | 0.729 |
| Thirst for knowledge | 38.09±8.37 | 36.38±7.72 | 1.522 | 0.833 |
| Cognitive maturity | 37.21±7.62 | 35.39±6.17 | 1.847 | 0.751 |
| Total | 259.77±29.84 | 260.34±28.48 | -0.752 | 0.972 |
The control group of students who underwent the conventional mode of instruction showed both gains and degradation in the dimensions of critical thinking skills, and none of them reached a statistically significant difference (p>0.05).
This paper uses information technology to reform traditional legal education and constructs a legal education model that is based on technology. Construct an evaluation index system for legal education and implement it. Utilizing the experimental teaching method to explore the legal education reform and the impact of this paper’s legal education model on students’ critical thinking ability.
The overall score of this paper’s legal education model is 92.03, and the comprehensive evaluation grade is “excellent”. 4 first-level index scores are 94.15 for the teaching background, 94.70 for the teaching process, 91.66 for the classroom teaching effect, and 87.43 for the classroom teaching inputs. 7 advantageous indicators in the second-level indexes, and 7 indicators below 80 in the third-level indexes. There are 7 indicators that have scores below 80.
There was no significant difference between the two groups before the experiment (P>0.05), and after the experiment the experimental group was higher than the control group in the 7 dimensions of critical thinking skills and total score by 8.96, 10.90, 10.81, 12.62, 11.50, 10.25, 11.18, and 76.22, respectively, and the P-value of all of them was <0.01, which was significant. The difference between the 7 dimensions of critical thinking skills and the total score of the experimental group before and after the experiment were 9.21, 13.01, 13.17, 11.95, 11.85, 8.57, 7.69, and 75.45, respectively, and the scores of the post-experiment were higher than those of the pre-experiment, demonstrating a highly significant difference (P<0.01). In contrast, the control group’s P-value on all dimensions before and after the experiment was >0.05, and there was little difference in critical thinking skills before and after the experiment.