Socratic Method

For some teachers and administrators, just asking a lot of questions in class is considered Socratic method. However, the term is more specifically applied to an array of teaching methods that developed over the last century. The Socratic method, when applied to reach specific goals and objectives, can be called teacher-directed, or curriculum-directed. In the student-centered, or seminar method, the teacher must give up the didactic role of know-all lecturer and transition toward becoming an equal participant in a conversation. Even when teachers are able to use seminars on a regular basis, many issues arise, such as meeting state standards while still giving students intellectual and academic freedom.

Keywords Dialogues; Dialogic Instruction; Fishbowl Dialogue; (Junior) Great Books Seminar; Harkness Table; Literature Circles; Paideia Seminar; Plato; Seminar; Socrates; Socratic Circles; Socratic Seminar

Teaching Methods > The Socratic Method

Overview

As Moeller and Moeller (2002) indicated, there is not an official definition of Socratic method. The term is derived from Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher, who was made famous in Plato's Dialogues for asking questions, and especially for answering questions with more questions. The Socratic method was not passed down from ancient Athens across continents and millennia (Schneider, 2013). It is traditionally seen as an experiential learner-centred pedagogy that values creativity and intellectual independence (Gorry, 2011). On a simple level, the term refers to constantly asking questions in order to further investigate core issues and ideas. The Socratic method can be used for all ages, although some, like, Strong (1997) suggested different frequency and length for various ages.

For some teachers and administrators, just asking a lot of questions in class is considered Socratic method. However, the term is more specifically applied to an array of teaching methods that developed over the last century. According to Strong (1997) the term "Socratic Seminars" was first coined by Scott Buchanan in 1937 and has evolved ever since through St. John's College, the University of Chicago, the Great Books Foundation, and the Paideia program. In particular, authors like Strong (1997), Copeland (2005) and Tredway (1995) trace much of the proliferation of the Socratic method to Mortimer Adler's 1982 Paideia Proposal.

Questioning for Deeper Investigation

Questions are central to any application of the Socratic method, but crucial differences emerge when considerations such as how the questions are asked and under what circumstances they are being asked are taken into account. These differences become clear when the applications and purposes are examined. A brief look at Plato's Dialogues can reveal the idea that Socrates, despite asking questions, was actually steering his students toward a pre-determined goal. Whether this was the case or not, teachers wishing to use the Socratic method face a crucial fork in the road: Are the students being guided by the questions to a specific destination or are they free to explore their own interests?

This distinction is best illustrated by the difference between dialogue or conversation on one hand, and discussion on the other. Dialogue and conversation are meant to be free flowing and may or may not lead to any resolution. In this sense, they can be considered student-centered, since the students themselves follow what interests them. Discussions are meant to arrive at specific answers, and, therefore, can be considered teacher-directed or curriculum-directed. Copeland (2005) considered dialogue an inductive process that produced more questions and ideas, whereas discussion was a deductive process that led to fewer questions and ideas.

Applications

Traditional Teacher-Directed (Discussion) Method

The Socratic method, when applied to reach specific goals and objectives, can be called teacher-directed, or curriculum-directed. In this situation, the students are guided by the questions the teacher asks in order to reach pre-determined destinations. The students are not free to explore in the sense that there is a specific point to be made or a lesson to be learned by the conversation. The teacher knows most or all of the answers to the questions he or she poses in this application, creating or perpetuating the teacher-knows-all dynamic.

In the teacher-directed application, the teacher retains intellectual authority over the classroom and the material, even when asking questions. In other words, the students view the teacher as the dispenser of knowledge who has the final say in conversation. These teachers often endorse and encourage certain answers and ask leading questions where the answer is embedded in the question. Moeller and Moeller (2002) referred to these teachers as pseudo-Socratic teachers who actually practice nothing more than disguised lectures.

There are benefits to the teacher-directed application. Teachers who want to break away from straightforward lecturing may find asking questions more interesting, not only for themselves but for the students as well. After all, questions invite dialogue and encourage new ideas. Teachers may be pleasantly surprised to hear what their students are actually thinking, rather than hearing a steady stream of regurgitated information. Students may find the experience more engaging since their ideas are being voiced.

The real benefit of Socratic method comes in a seminar format, when the students are empowered to explore what they feel is important, when they are taught how to think, not what to think.

Student-Centered (Socratic Seminar) Method

Most of these applications of Socratic method are student-centered. Hence, the term "seminar" will be used in this paper to generically refer to the many variations of the student-centered approach. These include, but aren't limited to:

• Touchstones™ Seminars,

• Junior Great Books™ Seminars,

• Paideia Seminars,

• Harkness Table,

• Socratic Seminars,

• Socratic Circles,

• Literature Circles, and

• The fishbowl method.

Although each has its own set of specific rules, they all share similar ideas.

In the student-centered, or seminar method, the teacher must give up the didactic role of know-all lecturer and transition toward becoming an equal participant in a conversation. This can be a difficult process for some teachers. The dialogue in such seminars is not driven to resolution by the teacher or by the curriculum, but instead is steered by the students and their interests in an open-ended way. From the students' perspective, seeing the teacher as a learner as well can be extremely beneficial. Since the teacher doesn't have all of the answers, as not all issues have resolution, learning appears as more a process than a product.

Because the structure of a student-centered Socratic method encourages students to do the work of thinking and analysis in a cooperative manner, there are a large number of benefits. Strong (1997) and Copeland (2005) list many of the typical virtues of Socratic method:

• Increased critical thinking and reading skills

• Increased speaking and listening skills

• Greater teamwork and politenes

• Increased honesty and integrity

• More willingness to accept criticism

In addition, Tredway (1995) indicated that Socratic seminars also build self-esteem, since students are engaged in significant work. The emphasis for many seminars, then, is skills, rather than content.

Although there is not yet a lot of specific research on Socratic method, Strong (1997), for one, has shown that the students in two separate schools made significant gains in critical thinking skills as measured by the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal.

Getting Started

Teachers wishing to start a student-centered version of the Socratic method, or seminar, should first establish classroom expectations and procedures for having conversations. This includes general things, like being polite and courteous, and specific recommendations, such as disagreeing with ideas rather than people. Many seminar programs, like those from Touchstones and Junior Great Books, have clear and useful recommendations.

At first, teachers may need to take measures for creating artificial dialogue by using talking sticks, raising hands, and taking turns around in circles. However, seminar practitioners like Strong (1997) and Copeland (2005) have suggested shedding the constraints as soon as possible, to create more natural conversation. Two strangers meeting on a sidewalk, after all, will not raise their hands to speak to each other.

Participants, including the teacher, should be arranged in a circle, so that all may see one another. In the case of large classes, an inner and outer circle can be formed. Ball and Brewer (2000) have suggested a horseshoe shape for the outer circle, so that there are no students seated behind the teacher. There are several techniques, such as the fishbowl and Socratic Circles, for engaging the inner and outer circles. Copeland (2005) has also suggested changing the lighting in the classroom, in order to help students transition into dialogue mode.

There are six basic components of a seminar conversation:

• The pre-seminar activity,

• The text,

• The opening question,

• The facilitator,

• The students involved, and

• The post-seminar activity.

Pre-Seminar Activity

Pre-seminar activities are for preparing the students for the actual dialogue of the seminar. Often students must read and annotate the text in order to participate in a seminar. Moeller and Moeller (2002), Copeland (2005), and Ball and Brewer (2000) all share strategies for annotating texts. Journaling, free writing and other techniques for connecting to prior knowledge can be useful as well.

The Text

The text is a general term for the central focus of the seminar. A "text" can be a poem, a short story, a painting, a primary resource, song lyrics, or anything else that the students and the teacher wish to explore thoroughly. The text can be read ahead of time for homework, or at the beginning of class.

Text selection is extremely important. A poorly chosen text can fall flat, failing to engage students, whereas a well-chosen text can carry conversation through several class periods. A text should be rich in ideas and able to produce numerous questions that have no right answers. In the beginning shorter pieces are better, since they allow students to move line by line and learn to construct meaning. According to Strong (1997), the ideal text is "one in which students know the meaning of each word individually but have no understanding of the paragraph as a whole," (p. 21). Longer texts can be used, but often anything longer than a few pages will generate too much dialogue and may not be focused enough to be useful for most teachers. Poems, which tend to be short but dense with ideas, may be a good place for many teachers to begin. Riddles, on the other hand, which often appear to have a right answer, tend not to work well. For those who are unsure where to begin with text selection, Copeland (2005) and Ball and Brewer (2000) provide lists of selections that have worked well.

There are mixed views on text selection. Some, like Copeland (2005), suggested the most important reason for choosing a text has to do with connecting it to the curriculum, whereas others, like Strong (1995), are more interested in the conversation that the text produces. Teachers may find that establishing their purpose for using Socratic methods may help clarify the process of selecting texts.

The Opening Question

The opening question starts the actual seminar itself. Because it is meant to promote useful dialogue, the opening question should not have a right answer. Instead, it should challenge students to find evidence, formulate ideas, and converse with others. Copeland (2005, p. 61) defined a good starting question as one that had specificity, was based in opinion, was focused on the meaning the writer was trying to convey, and had the potential to produce multiple answers. Zeiderman (1989) insisted that the question should be short and simple. Moeller and Moeller (2002) included an evaluative checklist that can help teachers frame better questions.

The Facilitator

The facilitator of a student-centered Socratic method must move away from didactic instruction and toward constructivist or dialogic instruction. Here, the teacher is more of a coach or tutor, rather than a lecturer. The general rule is to say as little as possible, letting the students do the work of thinking and analysis. As Copeland (2005) wrote, "Ultimately, the less the teacher participates, the more ownership, control, and investment students feel for the conclusions their conversation draws" (p. 32).

Taking a backseat to the process does not mean that a seminar facilitator has it easy. On the contrary, the seminar facilitator has multiple roles that must be juggled in order for the seminars to be as successful as possible. Copeland (2005), for example, suggested four specific roles for Socratic Circles:

• Selecting text;

• Keeping inner circle dialogue moving;

• Directing feedback of the outer circle; and

• Assessing the students and the seminar.

Over time, the role of the facilitator can undergo subtle changes. Strong (1997) suggested five roles that are roughly sequential:

• Justifier of the activity;

• Socratic questioner;

• Provider of synthesis and clarification;

• Process coach; and

• Genuine participant.

Each step moves the seminar facilitator closer to the student-centered model, where finally, the teacher is a participant as well as a student.

The Students

The students, or participants, must share responsibility for the quality of the seminar. They should be taught how to participate effectively, including: annotating the text, actively listening to one another, speaking clearly and succinctly, and working cooperatively. Students generally lack these skills in the beginning of a seminar process, but can develop them over time through reflection, direction instruction, and, most importantly, practice.

Post-Seminar Activity

Post-seminar activities typically consist of writing activities in one form or another. Quizzes, essays, and journal entries are often assigned, both as a means of assessing the student's participation in the seminar, but also to gauge the student's comprehension of the concepts involved.

Reflecting on the seminar itself is also extremely important, since it provides an opportunity for students to improve. Billings and Roberts (2006) in a yearlong study of the Paideia Seminar method in one teacher's classroom concluded "that teaching practice only improves when it takes place consistently within a full Teaching Cycle of deliberate planning, careful practice, and thoughtful assessment" (p. 2). Copeland (2005), Ball and Brewer (2000) and others provide reflection forms that can be useful for reflecting on the quality of the seminars.

Issues

Many issues are raised when a teacher wishes to endeavor a student-centered Socratic methods class. For starters, many teachers will not find adequate examples in their own histories as students to inform their practice as teachers. This can leave teachers in an exploratory mode, and, unsure of the benefits or values of seminar, they only try one once in a while. Since seminar methods are most valuable developed over time, sampling them unsystematically will not reveal their true potential or value.

Classroom Management

Even when teachers are able use seminars on a regular basis, many issues arise. Concerns about making connections to district or state standards face most teachers, especially those in particular years when standardized tests are administered. Related to this is the concern about relinquishing the reins of authority. Giving up control of the classroom and taking a back seat to the proceedings can be scary even for veteran teachers.

Seminar methods rely heavily on questions, starting with a great deal of importance placed on the opening question. With many teachers experiencing the unpleasant silence that follows a confusing or poorly phrased question, the idea of an entire seminar's success being contingent on asking "good" questions can be intimidating. Add to this a typical restriction that the facilitator's role is to just ask questions and the pressure can be too much.

Even when a teacher can make sufficient connections to the curriculum and is confident in his or her own ability to ask questions, there are still issues with the students and how they participate. Some students will attempt to dominate the conversation, while others may not speak at all. Some students will search for opportunities to argue a point just for the sake of arguing, while others will struggle to voice their opinions. Some students will cite the text effectively, while others will tell loosely connected anecdotes. Teachers will want to track and manage student participation, but this process can be very time consuming.

Seminar methods are often about developing critical thinking and reading skills and these both raise issues about assessment. Trying to measure the quality of a student's thinking or speaking skills is not only difficult, but may seem remarkably arbitrary as well. Many questions arise: When is a comment "good"? Are questions worth more than statements? What about a comment that at first seems off task and irrelevant but leads to the most fruitful dialogue in the entire seminar? How does talking a lot compare to listening well? These and other questions make assessment extremely complicated.

Curriculum Connections

For many teachers, the biggest challenge to using student-centered Socratic methods will be in making connections to a required curriculum. Since seminars attempt to pass responsibility over to the students and their interests, specific curriculum goals can be difficult to achieve. If possible, the easiest way to use seminar methods is to find shared goals and purposes, such as critical thinking, critical reading, cooperative learning, and so on. According to Copeland (2005) "Critical reading, critical thinking, discussion skills, listening skills, team-building skills, vocabulary improvement, and student ownership are all valid reasons for including Socratic circles in the classroom" (p. 3). If these goals are also part of the mandatory curriculum, then the seminars themselves can be the focus, rather than the content, freeing teachers to use whatever texts will inspire the students. When student-centered Socratic methods cannot be the goal in and of themselves, they can be connected to a curriculum.

Relinquishing the Reins

As Tredway (1995) indicated, the process of letting go makes many teachers feel like the discussion might not have enough direction. Students, though, do not often get opportunities in school to dialog about issues that concern them, so they often eagerly embrace seminars. When anchored by a text and with clear seminar expectations, students can stay focused on the conversation quite easily.

A teacher wishing to try a student-centered Socratic method should be prepared to give up a lot of control of the dialogue. (This should not be confused with classroom authority that has to do with enforcing school rules, etc.). It may be tempting at times for seminar teachers to interject with the correct answer, but this undermines the whole idea of the seminar being student-centered. This is perhaps why some programs recommend that the teacher only ask questions.

Teachers should let the students discover meaning for themselves, even if it means suffering through long, awkward pauses. By letting go of the reins, the teacher sets up a situation in which the students are actively engaged and doing the work of thinking.

Asking Questions/Facilitating

Relinquishing the reins and letting the students do all the work is one thing, but keeping them actively engaged is another. As Ball and Brewer (2000) pointed out, seminars are great for block periods of 60-90 minutes since conversations about texts can productively fill the time. But the idea of keeping students engaged in a single conversation for that long can be intimidating, especially to teachers who do not feel clever enough or spontaneous enough to ask fruitful questions.

Effective facilitation starts with quality text selection and preparing powerful opening questions. Sometimes these alone are enough for entire seminars. Other times, the opening questions fall flat or fizzle out and more are needed. Simple follow-up questions such as, "Why?" and "Where in the text makes you say that?" can work miracles for almost any teacher. Not only do follow-up questions extend dialogue, but they force students to dig deeper as well. Some teachers may find that many of their questions are too similar. Moeller and Moeller (2002) suggested teachers use three types of questions, factual, interpretation and evaluation, to help create more variety.

In terms of facilitating, teachers must first remember to stick to the standard rules of their school and classroom. Misbehavior is misbehavior in and out of seminars. As mentioned earlier, teachers in seminar should be careful about providing answers, but they should also be mindful of making procedural comments, such as, "We should move on now." Comments like this can imply to the students that there really is a specific goal in mind for the seminar. In the beginning, however, students may need nudging as they get stuck on repeating ideas, telling long anecdotes or debating. Teachers should gently intervene in the beginning, but over time should pass those responsibilities over to the students.

Participation

From the teacher's perspective, tracking and managing student participation is important in reflecting on the success of the seminar and in student assessment. Studies on students' preferences for course attributes indicate students prefer classes that rely less on lecture and more on participatory engagement through class activities and related experiences (O’Connor, 2013). A seminar may fall flat because the opening question was poorly phrased, because certain students dominated the conversation, because students didn't cite the text enough, or numerous other reasons. Many teachers use a simple tracking system of making tally marks whenever a student participates. Ball and Brewer (2000) and Copeland (2005) included more complicated systems of tallying types of contributions.

From a student's perspective, participation can be intimidating, since it involves so many possible tasks: reading, annotating, listening, citing, reasoning, speaking and more. For students who are concrete thinkers, open-ended dialogue in a seminar can seem like a whirlwind of activity without clear goals. Clarifying student roles, therefore, becomes extremely important. Daniels (1994) created specific job sheets that delineate concrete tasks, such as "illustrator," "scene setter," and "summarizer," for students in Literature Circles that can be used in seminars. Ball and Brewer (2000) proposed four categories of student responsibility, along with specific descriptions. Moeller and Moeller (2002) also provide job sheets that help to clarify student roles.

Assessment & Grading

Tracking participation is primarily quantitative, whereas assessment and grading are more qualitative. Like any assessment that strives to measure quality, assessing a seminar can be difficult. Teachers should decide if they want to assess individual students or not. Because seminars often supplement and enhance other curricula, some teachers simply grade the seminar itself and not students themselves. The individual grades are instead produced from quizzes, tests, papers and so on. No single method is comprehensive, so many teachers use a variety of techniques, including rubrics, self-assessments, classroom disposition checklists, observations, note taking, writing assignments, and follow-up projects.

Terms & Concepts

Dialogic Instruction: A method where the students and the teacher create meaning together around a central text, issue or idea.

Fishbowl Dialogue: A classroom dialogue method with an inner and outer circle, where only the inner circle may speak. The outer circle participants may enter the inner circle to speak using various procedures.

(Junior) Great Books Seminar: A classroom dialogue method using the principles and structure created by the Great Books Foundation.

Harkness Table: A classroom dialogue method around an oval table (Harkness table) developed at Phillips Exeter academy.

Literature Circle: A classroom dialogue method where students are assigned concrete jobs in order to facilitate participation.

Paideia Seminar: A classroom dialogue method using the principles and structure created by the National Paideia Center.

Seminar: The term used in this paper to generically describe student-centered Socratic methods.

Socratic Circles: A classroom dialogue method with an inner and outer circle, where only the inner circle may speak. The outer circle participants typically observe and assess the inner circle participants and help to reflect on the seminar.

Socratic Seminar: A classroom dialogue method where the teacher attempts to become an equal participant and shares responsibility for the quality of the seminar with the students.

Bibliography

Adler, M. J. (1982). The Paideia proposal. New York: MacMillan.

Ball, H. W. & Brewer, P. (2000). Socratic seminars in the block. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.

Billings, L. & Roberts, T. (2006). Planning, practice, and assessment in the seminar classroom. High School Journal, 90 , 1-8. Retrieved October 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22557951&site=ehost-live

Copeland, M. (2005). Socratic circles: Fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and high school. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in the student-centered classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Educational Leadership, 53 , 26-29. Retrieved October 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9509246479&site=ehost-live

Gorry, J. (2011). Cultures of learning and learning culture: Socratic and Confucian approaches to teaching and learning. Learning & Teaching (1755-2273), 4, 4-18. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=78163193&site=ehost-live

Moeller, J. V. & Moeller, V. M. (2002). Socratic seminars and literature circles for middle and high school English. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc.

O'Connor, K. J. (2013). Class participation: Promoting in-class student engagement. Education, 133, 340-344. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88141902&site=ehost-live

Schneider, J. (2013). Remembrance of things past: A history of the Socratic method in the United States. Curriculum Inquiry, 43, 613-640. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91914714&site=ehost-live

Strong, M. (1997). The habit of thought: From Socratic seminars to Socratic practice. Chapel Hill, NC: New View Publications.

Tredway, L. (1995). Socratic seminars: Engaging students in intellectual discourse.

Zeiderman, H. (1989). A guide for leading discussions using touchstones, Volume I. Annapolis, MD: Touchstones.

Suggested Reading

Adler, M. J. (1983). Paideia problems and possibilities. New York: MacMillan.

Adler, M. J. (1984). The Paideia program. New York: MacMillan.

Armstrong, H. W. (1995). Study is hard work. Jaffrey, NH: David R. Godine, Publisher.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David McKay.

Boghossian, P. (2006). Socratic pedagogy, critical thinking, and inmate education. Journal of Correctional Education, 57 , 42-63. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20990642&site=ehost-live

Carter, M. & Holden, J. (1997). The Paideia seminar: A constructivist approach to discussion. Teaching and Change, 5 , 32-49.

Garlikov, R. The Socratic method: teaching by asking instead of by telling. Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html.

Garlikov, R. Teaching effectively: Helping students absorb and assimilate material. Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://www.garlikov.com/teaching/absorb.html.

Kasachkoff, T. (Ed). (1998). In the Socratic tradition: Essays on teaching philosophy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Postman, N. & Weingartner, C. (1969). Teaching as a subversive activity. New York: Dell Publishing.

Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.