Logo PTI Logo FedCSIS

Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS)

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 43

SHARE: An Interactive Learning System for Improving Legal Consultation Services and Training

, , , ,

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2025F6250

Citation: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS), M. Bolanowski, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki, D. Ślęzak (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 43, pages 13–24 ()

Full text

Abstract. Providing citizens with transparent, efficient, and consistent legal advice is a critical challenge to uphold governmental fairness in societies. However, this remains a tall order for already overburdened organizations. This paper proposes an interactive learning system that seeks to address these challenges through an organizational learning lens, in collaboration with the Legal Desk in the Netherlands. This system, called SHARE, serves the dual purpose of supporting legal consultations and enhancing the training of legal advisors. SHARE captures and stores strategic decision-making knowledge from experienced legal advisors and facilitates its transfer to less experienced advisors. We explain in this case study the system's approach, prototype design, and evaluation through exploratory user tests. Our findings suggest that this prototype has the potential to contribute towards improved knowledge management for conducting legal consultations within the Legal Desk. To conclude, we discuss the outlook and broader implications of this approach in knowledge-driven work environments.

References

  1. J. Han, J. kang Lu, Y. Xu, J. You, and B. Wu, “Intelligent practices of large language models in digital government services,” IEEE Access, 2024.
  2. W. J. Pieterson and W. E. Ebbers, “Channel choice evolution: An empirical analysis of shifting channel behavior across demographics and tasks,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 3, p. 101478, 2020.
  3. P. C. Brayer, “A law clinic systems theory and the pedagogy of interaction: creating a legal learning system,” Conn. Pub. Int. LJ, vol. 12, p. 49, 2012.
  4. Het juridisch loket jaarverslag 2023. Stichting Het Juridisch Loket. [Online]. Available: https://media.production.juridischloket-dev.nl/JL_JAARVERSLAG_2023_ONLINE_6a4ed0a716.pdf
  5. H. W. Rittel and M. M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning,” Policy sciences, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 155–169, 1973.
  6. M. Easterby-Smith, M. Crossan, and D. Nicolini, “Organizational learning: debates past, present and future,” Journal of management studies, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 783–796, 2000.
  7. C. Argyris, “Double loop learning in organizations,” Harvard business review, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 115–125, 1977.
  8. I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, “The knowledge-creating company,” Harvard business review, vol. 85, no. 7/8, p. 162, 2007.
  9. S. C. Goh, “Toward a learning organization: The strategic building blocks,” SAM Advanced Management Journal, vol. 63, pp. 15–22, 1998.
  10. J. Lave and E. Wenger, “Communities of practice,” 1996.
  11. E. Wenger, “Communities of practice: The key to knowledge strategy,” in Knowledge and communities. Routledge, 2009, pp. 3–20.
  12. S. Borzillo, S. Aznar, and A. Schmitt, “A journey through communities of practice: How and why members move from the periphery to the core,” European Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 25–42, 2011.
  13. S. Kurtz, M. Wylie, and N. Gold, “Problem-based learning: An alternative approach to legal education,” Dalhousie LJ, vol. 13, p. 797, 1990.
  14. A. Lynch, “Why do we moot-exploring the role of mooting in legal education,” Legal Educ. Rev., vol. 7, p. 67, 1996.
  15. D. I. Thomson, “Defining experiential legal education,” J. Experiential Learning, vol. 1, p. i, 2014.
  16. V. Bouki, D. Economou, and P. Kathrani, ““gamification” and legal education: A game based application for teaching university law students,” in 2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL2014). IEEE, 2014, pp. 213–216.
  17. N. J. Knauer, “Learning communities: A new model for legal education,” Elon L. Rev., vol. 7, p. 193, 2015.
  18. F. Delgado, S. Yang, M. Madaio, and Q. Yang, “The participatory turn in ai design: Theoretical foundations and the current state of practice,” in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, 2023, pp. 1–23.
  19. J. Gregory, “Scandinavian approaches to participatory design,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 62–74, 2003.
  20. J. Simonsen and T. Robertson, Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge, 2012.
  21. C. A. Le Dantec and S. Fox, “Strangers at the gate: Gaining access, building rapport, and co-constructing community-based research,” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing, 2015, pp. 1348–1358.
  22. B. Cooke and U. Kothari, Participation: The new tyranny? Zed books, 2001.
  23. E. B.-N. Sanders and P. J. Stappers, “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design,” Co-design, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 5–18, 2008.
  24. M. Steen, “Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination,” Design issues, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 16–28, 2013.
  25. C. Frayling, “Research in art and design (royal college of art research papers, vol 1, no 1, 1993/4),” 1994.
  26. J. McNiff, Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge, 2013.
  27. C. L. Larson, J. Aronoff, and E. L. Steuer, “Simple geometric shapes are implicitly associated with affective value,” Motivation and Emotion, vol. 36, pp. 404–413, 2012.
  28. M. Novak and S. Schwan, “Does touching real objects affect learning?” Educational Psychology Review, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 637–665, 2021.
  29. I. Pyrko, V. Dörfler, and C. Eden, “Thinking together: what makes communities of practice work?” Human relations, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 389–409, 2017.
  30. B. H. Banathy, Designing social systems in a changing world. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
  31. M. M. Crossan, H. W. Lane, and R. E. White, “An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution,” Academy of management review, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 522–537, 1999.
  32. F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS quarterly, pp. 319–340, 1989.
  33. J. Hughes, “krippendorffsalpha: An r package for measuring agreement using krippendorff’s alpha coefficient,” arXiv preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.12170, 2021.
  34. D. A. Kolb, Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press, 2014.
  35. S. Tan, W. Aartsen, D. van Hamersveld, and C. Jonker, “Towards hybrid intelligence in learning organizations,” Hybrid Human-AI conference, 2025.