Developing Undergraduate Law Students’ Legal Reasoning through Authentic Case-Based Instruction
Case-based legal education often treats cases as illustrations of settled doctrine, giving students little opportunity to determine facts, identify disputes, or justify competing interpretations. This article examines how authentic cases can be used to develop legal reasoning among undergraduate law students. It organizes training around four linked tasks: reconstructing legally relevant facts, defining disputed issues, interpreting and applying legal rules, and defending conclusions in oral and written form. Staged release of case materials, adversarial questioning, and legal writing exercises support these tasks. Effective implementation requires careful case selection, anonymization of case information, and assessment focused on students’ reasoning processes.
[1] Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, Commission for Political and Legal Affairs of the CPC Central Committee, 2011, Opinions on Implementing the Education and Training Program for Outstanding Legal Professionals, visited on July 4, 2026, https://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A08/moe_739/s6550/201112/t20111223_168354.html.
[2] He R, Li S, Zhao Z, 2020, From Case-Based Teaching to Case-File-Based Instruction: Exploration and Reflections on Reforming the Criminal Practice Course at Wuhan University Law School. Research on Legal Education, (4): 70–80.
[3] Lei L, 2022, Facts and Their Objectivity in Judicial Decision-Making. Modern Law Science, 44(6): 3–23.
[4] Lei L, 2019, From Visible Justice to Articulable Justice: An Interpretation and Critique of the Supreme People’s Court’s Guiding Opinions on Strengthening and Regulating the Explanation and Reasoning of Judicial Decisions. Law Science, (1): 173–184.
[5] Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, 2018, Guiding Case No. 93: Yu Huan Intentional Injury Case, visited on July 4, 2026, https://www.court.gov.cn/shenpan/xiangqing/104262.html.
[6] Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, 2012, Guiding Case No. 1: Shanghai Zhongyuan Property Consultancy Co., Ltd. v. Tao Dehua (Dispute over an Intermediation Contract), visited on July 4, 2026, https://www.court.gov.cn/shenpan/xiangqing/4214.html.
[7] Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 2021, Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, visited on July 4, 2026, https://www.cac.gov.cn/2021-08/20/c_1631050028355286.htm.
