[
1. Anna, B-E., (2019). Discipline Context Shapes Meaningful Teaching: A Case Study of Academic Law. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43, pp. 508–517.10.1080/0309877X.2017.1377162
]Search in Google Scholar
[
2. Anne, H-M., Heidi, H., Tarja, T., Sakari, M., (2022). Law students’ descriptions of legal reasoning. The Law Teacher. DOI: 10.1080/03069400.2022.2057754
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
3. Boyer, A., (1985). Legal writing program reviewed: Merits, flaws, costs, and essentials. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 62(1), pp. 23–54.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
4. Chloe, W., (2018). The Pedagogy of Legal Reasoning: Democracy, Discourse and Community. The Law Teacher, 52, pp. 260–262.10.1080/03069400.2017.1395656
]Search in Google Scholar
[
5. Fleurie, N., (2013). The Worked Example and Expertise Reversal Effect in Less Structured Tasks: Learning to Reason about Legal Cases. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, pp. 118–19.10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.12.004
]Search in Google Scholar
[
6. Françoise, D. L. D, Jonathan, W., (2005). What Is Competence?. Human Resource Development International, 8, pp. 27–39.10.1080/1367886042000338227
]Search in Google Scholar
[
7. Harner, M. M., (2011). The value of “thinking like a lawyer”. Maryland Law Review, 70(2), pp. 101–130.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
8. James, N., Burton, K., (2017). Measuring the critical thinking skills of law students using a whole-of curriculum approach. Legal Education Review, 27, pp. 1–20.10.53300/001c.6087
]Search in Google Scholar
[
9. James, S., (2002). When Law Students Read Cases: Exploring Relations between Professional Legal Reasoning Roles and Problem Detection. Discourse Processes, 34, pp. 57–60.10.1207/S15326950DP3401_3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
10. Liesbeth, B., Lotte, R., (2011). Comparing Students Perceived and Actual Competence in Higher Vocational Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, pp. 385–387.10.1080/02602938.2011.553274
]Search in Google Scholar
[
11. LLB Curriculum, (2015). Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. https://hec.gov.pk/english/services/universities/RevisedCurricula/Documents/2014-15/Final%20Curriculum%20%20LLB.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2022].
]Search in Google Scholar
[
12. Melissa, W., (2014). Stargate: Malleability as a Threshold Concept in Legal Education. J Legal Educ, 63, pp. 689–689.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
13. Nancy, S., (1992). How Do Lawyers Really Think?. J Legal Educ, 42, pp. 57–60.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
14. Natt Gantt, L., (2007). Deconstructing thinking like a lawyer: Analyzing the cognitive components of the analytical mind. Campbell Law Review, 29(3), pp. 413–481.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
15. Nievelstein, F., Van Gog, T., Boshuizen, H.P.A., (2010). Effects of Conceptual Knowledge and Availability of Information Sources on Law Students’ Legal Reasoning”. Instr Sci, 38, pp. 23–35.10.1007/s11251-008-9076-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
16. Rice, S. M., (2015). Leveraging logical form in legal argument: The inherent ambiguity in logical disjunction and its implication in legal argument. Oklahoma City University Law Review, 40(3), pp. 551–596.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
17. Spreng, J. E., (2015). Spirals and schemas: How integrated courses in law schools create higher-order thinkers and problem solvers. University of La Verne Law Review, 37(1), pp. 37–102.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
18. Stephen, W., (1998). Is Learning to ‘Think like a Lawyer’ Enough?. Yale L & Pol’y Rev, 17, pp. 583–587.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
19. Steven, B., (1995). An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning, 2nd edition. Little, Brown and Company.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
20. Venter, C. M., (2006). Analyze this: Using taxonomies to “scaffold” students’ legal thinking and writing skills. Mercer Law Review, 57(2), pp. 621–644.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
21. William, T., David, M., (2010). How to Do Things with Rules, 5th Edition. CUP, pp. 337–38.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
22. Wiseman, P., (2006). When you come to a fork in the road, take it and other sage advice for first-time law school exam takers. Georgia State University Law Review, 22(3), pp. 653–664.
]Search in Google Scholar
