In his Phys-L post of 13 Nov 2002 14:59:34-0500 titled "Socratic
Method" Brian Blais wrote:
I am intrigued by the Socratic Method, but is there a good
introduction of the use of this (and perhaps other) methods for
teaching a physics course?
In his response of 13 Nov 2002 21:59:54-0600, Texas John Clement wrote:
"The Socratic method can be implemented by using Hake's Socratic Dialog Labs
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>. These have proven to be very
effective. However, they may seem intimidating for an initial jump
into novel pedagogy."
I agree with John that SDI (Socratic Dialogue Inducing) labs have
proven to be very effective. However I totally disagree that "they
may seem intimidating for an initial jump into novel pedagogy."
In Hake (1998), Sect. 5 "Available Resources" I wrote:
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE--HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE--HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
"For those wishing to try SDI Labs, we recommend starting with SDI Lab #1,
Section I . . . .("How to Draw a Force Vector," How to Determine the
Newton's Third Law Action-Reaction pair," "Idealized Models," "How to
Learn as You Proceed";
and Section III . . . .("Forces Exerted on a Disk by Your Hand -
while at rest, moving the disk vertically upward at constant speed,
moving the disk vertically upward at uniformly increasing speed,
carrying the disk at a constant horizontal velocity. . . . .
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE--HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE--HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
How could such juvenile activities be of any value? Nick Steph
(1991) (new, at the time, to novel pedagogy) of Franklin College
wrote:
STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH
The efficacy of these labs . . .(SDI #1 & 2) is truly remarkable. To
read them cold, they seem so simple, even trivial. To observe an SDI
lab, with no sound, it looks like not much is being accomplished; no
fancy equipment, just a few masses being moved and shoved about. But,
turn on the sound and you hear the big difference: the students in
each group are talking and discussing, often with great animation,
their interpretation of the experiments. The labs are well crafted to
elicit the major student misunderstandings such as "forces of
motion," as . . . described in Hake (1992). . . , as well as the
difference in use and meaning of the three laws. The first time I
tried these labs was an amazing experience. After getting the
students started, I left the room for about fifteen minutes. When I
returned, I found the room was filled with sixteen modern day
Aristotles, each arguing eloquently that if an object is moving there
must be a force on it. And this was AFTER two lectures on Newton's
Laws. Then many Socratic dialogues ensued and slowly the students
came over to the Newtonian description of force, WITH understanding.
They finally understood that action-reaction forces of the third law
act on different bodies and, perhaps best of all, force is an
interaction between two bodies and not a thing that may be possessed
by a body.
STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH-STEPH
Phys-L's own discerning critic Jack Uretsky (1993) wrote:
URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY
"The GOOD NEWS is that SDI labs are fun to teach and require much
less grading time than conventional labs. The labs can be closely
coupled to the course subject matter and focus on concepts rather
than distracting details. Also, individual students who show a
failure to grasp concepts in their homework or classroom discussions
can be invited repeatedly to confront the concepts during the labs.
Furthermore, I have a sense that the harmony between the classroom
and lab work led to more convivial relationships between students and
teacher than in my previous experiences. The BAD NEWS is that the
Indiana version of the labs need extensive revision for use in a
community-college or an advanced high-school physics course. My
students could have spent an entire quarter going through even one of
the five. . .(there are now 9). . . Indiana manuals. . . ."(My CAPS.)
URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY-URETSKY
In answer to Jack's criticism, since those early days the manuals
have, in fact, been extensively revised to make them more suitable
for community-colleges and advanced high-school physics courses.
A high school teacher recently wrote to me:
"I have tried the SDI labs now with my Year 11 class, I like them.
They have definitely forced the students to think a bit deeper and
have created a much better level of understanding. I would be
interested in the other Labs and guides."
In Hake (1998) I wrote:
"The manuals provide blank quadrille-ruled spaces for student
sketches and answers. Manuals and experiments can be modified by
instructors to suit local tastes or circumstances and CONSIDERABLE
SELECTIVITY CAN BE EXERCISED since most of the manuals each contain
more material than can be adequately covered in two two-hour lab
periods." The sketches referred to above are "snapshot sketches at
sequential clock-readings showing (a) color-coded vectors to indicate
ALL the forces acting ON the BODY - labeled as vector F on A by B,
where A is the BODY and B is some other interacting body; (b)
color-coded velocity and acceleration vectors "if they exist."
BTW: Many list subscribers appear to be unaware that the marvelous
LISTSERV archive search engines of Phys-L, Phys-LrnR, and Physhare
(but not AP-Physics :-( ) provide goldmines of information on physics
education. For example, using the PhysLrnR search engine at
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=physlrnr&X=-> and
typing (in each case without the quotes and with hit numbers as of 14
Nov 2002 10:25:00-0800):
a. "Socratic" onto the "subject" slot yields 5 hits.
b. "Socratic" into the "Search for" slot yields 52 hits, the most
recent of which is Hake (2002), giving 10 references to the Socratic
method and SDI labs.
For more references on the Socratic Method see ref. 39 of Hake
(1998b) [see that article for references other than Morse (1994) and
Swartz (2000)]:
HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE--HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE--HAKE-HAKE-HAKE-HAKE
The Socratic method has been sadly neglected by physics instructors .
. .[and Physics Education Researchers - e.g., the exclusion of SDI
from Redish & Rigden (1997)]. . . , despite its demonstrated
effectiveness. Possible reasons are:
(1) the competing allure of the quick high-tech fix (rather than slow
deep-thought redesign) of science education,
(2) the degree of understanding and commitment required of instructors,
(3) unfamiliarity with and misunderstanding of the method.
That method, employed so successfully (see Table II and refs. 20-22,
34, 35, 43d) is NOT derived from the CLASSIC Socrates of Plato's
"Meno," as implied by Morse (1994) and Swartz (2000), but rather from
the HISTORICAL Socrates as researched by G. Vlastos, private
communication and "Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher" (Cornell
Univ. Press, 1991), esp. Chap. 2 "Socrates contra Socrates in Plato."
The essence of Socrates was set forth by Howard Gardner in "The
Academic Community Must Not Shun the Debate Over How to Set National
Educational Goals," "The Chronicle of Higher Education," 8 Nov. 1989:
"If Confucius can serve as the Patron Saint of Chinese education, let
me propose Socrates as his equivalent in a Western educational
context - a Socrates who is never content with the initial
superficial response, but is always probing for finer distinctions,
clearer examples, a more profound form of knowing. Our concept of
knowledge has changed since classical times, but Socrates has
provided us with a timeless educational goal - ever deeper
understanding."
For good discussions of the Socratic method, including an attempt to
encapsulate it in "production rules" see A. Collins, "Processes in
Acquiring Knowledge," in "Schooling and Acquisition of Knowledge,"
ed. by R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro, and W.E. Montague (Lawrence
Erlbaum, 1977); A. Collins and A.L. Stevens, "Goals and strategies
for inquiry teachers," in "Advances in Instructional Psychology,"
vol. II, ed. by R. Glaser (ibid., 1982); A. Collins and A.L. Stevens,
"A cognitive theory of interactive teaching," in "Instructional
Design Theories and Models: An Overview," ed. by C.M. Reigeluth
(ibid., 1983). For a neural-network justification of the dialectic
method see D. Hestenes in ref. 37a.
Socratic dialogue is not a panacea, but is most useful for finding
out what and how students are thinking, guiding them to construct
their own understanding of difficult physics concepts, and for
conveying scientific approaches and reasoning skills (see Arons in
ref. 43d, p. 325). For less difficult instructional tasks, other
methods may be more efficient. The complementarity of Socratic,
didactic, and coaching instruction is discussed by D. Perkins, "Smart
Schools" (Free Press, 1992).
REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 1992. "Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics lab."
Phys. Teach. 30: 546-552; updated version (4/27/98) online as ref. 3
at <http://physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74 (1998); online as ref. 5a at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," on the Web as ref. 5b at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/> and SUBMITTED on 6/19/98 to
the "Physics Education Research Supplement to AJP" (PERS). In this
sadly unpublished (PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH HAS NO ARCHIVAL
JOURNAL!) crucial companion paper to Hake (1998a): average pre/post
test scores, standard deviations, instructional methods, materials
used, institutions, and instructors for each of the survey courses of
Hake (1998a) are tabulated and referenced. In addition the paper
includes: (a) case histories for the seven IE courses of Hake (1998a)
whose effectiveness as gauged by pre-to-post test gains was close to
those of T courses, (b) advice for implementing IE methods, and (c)
suggestions for further research.