***************************************
ABSTRACT: The "Socratic Method" (SM) means different things to
different people. I discuss three interpretations: the SM of (a) the
historical Socrates as advocated by Arons, (b) Plato as illustrated
in the "Meno," and (c) most law schools. Although the Socratic
Method of the historical Socrates has been demonstrated to be
relatively effective in enhancing students' understanding of the
conceptually difficult Newtonian mechanics, it 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
concepts, and for conveying fruitful approaches and reasoning skills.
***************************************
If you reply to this long (28 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROLOGUE: I realize that bracket lines (such as "AAAAA. . . ."
surrounding the Arons quote below) are unorthodox and confusing to
some readers, but they do serve to:
(a) avoid (in most cases) awkward quotes within quotes ". . .
.'........'. . . .", and
(b) "clearly indicate who said what, unlike the ambiguous marginal
angle brackets ">", ">>", ">>>". . . . . that befoul many posts.
Therefore I shall continue their use in the present post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responding to my post "Re: Review article on electronic instructional
polling?" [Hake (2007)], a POD subscriber wrote to me privately:
"[In your post on electronic polling Hake (2007)] you referred to . .
. . [Re: 'Socratic Method Misunderstood' (Hake, 2004a)]. . . . As a
law-school survivor and faculty developer, I would like to read this
piece, but couldn't find the reference in the bibliography at the end
of your post. Would you mind providing the reference for me?
The reference Hake (2004a) is as indicated below under REFERENCES.
As discussed in Hake (2004a), the "Socratic Method" (SM) means at
least three (I, II, and III) different things to different people:
I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
I. HISTORICAL SOCRATES.
The late Arnold Arons (1973, 1974, 1985, 1993, 1997) described his
version of SM as follows (Arons (1985, my CAPS):
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
One must learn to ask simple, sequential questions, leading students
in a deliberate Socratic fashion. After each question, *ONE MUST SHUT
UP AND LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THE RESPONSE.* [It is the tendency of
most inexperienced questioners to provide an answer, or to change the
question, if a response is not forthcoming within one second.] One
must learn to wait as long as four of five seconds, and one then
finds that the students, having been given a chance to think, will
respond in sentences and truly reveal their lines of thought. As
students respond to such careful questioning, one can begin to
discern the errors, misconceptions, and missteps in logic that are
prevalent. One learns nothing by giving students "right answers" or
"lucid explanations."
As a matter of fact, STUDENTS DO NOT BENEFIT FROM SUCH ANSWERS OR
EXPLANATIONS; THEY SIMPLY MEMORIZE THEM. Students are much more
significantly helped when they are led to confront contradictions and
inconsistencies in what they say and then spontaneously alter their
statements as a result of such contradiction.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
In his addendum to "Toward Wider Public Understanding of Science,"
Arons (1974) had this to say regarding the benefit of Socratic
Dialogue to the teacher and to education:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I am deeply convinced that a statistically significant improvement
would occur if more of us learned to listen to our students . . . By
listening to what they say in answer to carefully phrased, leading
questions, we can begin to understand what does and does not happen
in their minds, anticipate the hurdles they encounter, and provide
the kind of help needed to master a concept or line of reasoning
without simply 'telling them the answer'.. . . .Nothing is more
ineffectually arrogant than the widely found teacher attitude that
"all you have to do is say it my way, and no one within hearing can
fail to understand it.". . . . Were more of us willing to relearn our
physics by the dialogue and listening process I have described, we
would see a discontinuous upward shift in the quality of physics
teaching. I am satisfied that this is fully within the competence of
our colleagues; the question is one of humility and desire.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Following Arons [Hake (1991, 2004b)], I developed "Socratic Dialogue
Inducing" (SDI) Labs as described in "Promoting student crossover to
the Newtonian world" [Hake (1987), "Professors as physics students:
what can they teach us?" [Hake (1988)], "Socratic pedagogy in the
introductory physics lab" [Hake (1992)], "Socratic Dialogue Inducing
Laboratory Workshop" [Hake (2002)], and on the SDI website
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>.
Rigorous pre/post testing has demonstrated that instruction
incorporating SDI labs is relatively effective in promoting students'
understanding of Newtonian mechanics [see the average normalized
gains <g> listed in Table 1c of Hake (1998b)].
That SDI labs, as inspired by Arons, are in tune with the HISTORICAL
Socrates of Gregory Vlastos (1991, 1994) was indicated by Vlastos
(1990) who wrote to me "Though Socrates was not engaged in physical
inquiry, your program . . . . . "Socratic pedagogy in the
introductory physics lab" [Hake (1992)]. . . . . is entirely in his
spirit."
For a neural-network justification of the dialectic method see
"Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction" [Hestenes (1987)].
II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II-II
II. "MENO" [Plato (380 B.C.)]
Anthony Rud (1997) in "The Use and Abuse of Socrates in Present Day
Teaching," comments on Plato's version of the Socratic method as
follows:
RuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRu
SOCRATIC PEDAGOGY IN THE MENO
. . . . . perhaps we can turn to one place where many have looked
when they speak of Socratic teaching, Plato's dialogue Meno. An old
man drawing geometric figures in the sand for a young slave boy is a
powerful image of what many believe Socratic teaching to be. . . . .
. . . . . . . Socrates begins his lesson by putting words in the
mouth of the slave boy (82B f.). Is this a convincing display of
pedagogy? Leaving aside the blatant (to my eyes at least) problems
of power and dominance of an elderly Greek citizen teaching a slave
boy, this example of teaching has always left me cold. It is not
apparent at all that teaching has occurred though it is a convincing
display of inference as R. E. Allen (1959) has pointed out. It is
not made clear in the dialogue that the slave boy is somehow capable
of using his knowledge. He appears more like a sounding board for
Socrates, who here seems to be just a mouthpiece for the theories of
recollection (anamnesis) and innate knowledge.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRu
Physics education researcher Robert Morse (1994) provides an
insightful parody of the Meno in his "The Classic Method of Mrs.
Socrates."
Philosophers Denis Phillips & Jonas Soltis (1998) regard the Meno as
strictly an illustration of Plato's view that knowledge is innate in
students' minds and only needs to be drawn out by dialogue. Likewise
philosopher George MacDonald Ross (1993) writes: "Most of our
knowledge of Socrates comes from Plato's dialogues; yet Plato used
Socrates as the mouthpiece for his own views. So how can we
disentangle the historical Socrates from the amalgam of Socrates and
Plato we find in the texts?"
Disentangling the historical Socrates from Plato's Socrates was the
life's work of Vlastos. In Chapter 2, p. 52-53, Vlastos (1990)
describes the divergence of Plato in his middle and later dialogues
from the historical Socrates of the early dialogues as follows (my
CAPS):
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
We must assume that philosophical inquiry was the "primum mobile" in
the composition of those earlier dialogues, no less than of any he .
. . . . (Plato) . . . . was to write thereafter, and that throughout
this first phase of his writing Plato remains convinced of the
substantial truth of Socrates' teaching and of the soundness of his
method. But the continuing harmony of the two minds, though vital is
not rigid: the father image inspires, guides, and dominates, but does
not shackle Plato's philosophical quest.
So when he finds compelling reason to strike out along new paths, he
sees no need to sever the personal bond with Socrates. And when
these lead him to new, unSocratic and antiSocratic conclusions, AS
THEY VISIBLY DO BY THE TIME HE COMES TO WRITE THE MENO, the
dramatist's attachment to his protagonist, replicating the man's love
for the friend and teacher of his youth, survives the ideological
separation. And so, as Plato changes, the philosophical persona of
his Socrates is made to change, absorbing the writer's new
convictions, arguing for them with the same zest with which Socrates
of the previous dialogues had argued for the views the writer had
shared with the original of that figure earlier on.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III-III
III. LAW SCHOOL
Anthony Rud (1997) writes:
RuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRu
THE DARK SIDE OF THE SOCRATIC LEGEND
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I shall suggest the importance, though with qualifications, of the
dark side of the Socratic spirit by turning to some first-hand
accounts of legal pedagogy, and the use of the "Socratic method" in
law schools. In spite of Adler's . . . .[see, e.g., Adler (1988)]. .
. inroads into the nation's schools, the popular image of Socratic
teaching often comes from the so-called "Socratic method" used in law
schools. I gleaned insight from colleagues from graduate school who
hold the doctoral degree in philosophy and have also studied law.
Many of us have never entered a law class, but we feel that we know
what goes on there. We have seen John Houseman's portrayal of
Professor Kingsfield in the film and television show, "The Paper
Chase." Houseman's depiction of an unforgiving taskmaster asking his
often-timid students withering questions is the beginning and the end
of legal pedagogy for most of us, and for our perceptions on how
Socrates is used in legal teaching. In consulting two colleagues who
have experienced legal pedagogy, I was able to deepen my
understanding of Socratic legal teaching beyond this popular image.
Peter Suber (1990), professor of philosophy at Earlham College, holds
both the PhD and JD degrees from Northwestern University. His
description of a law class is truly harrowing:
"Incorrect answers, undue delays in answering, or overt signs of
nervousness are punished with sardonic jibes or withering glances.
The atmosphere is humiliation; the punishment is humiliation...The
consensus among students is that the method is not 'educational' in
any traditional sense. It does not help one learn cases or legal
reasoning. It is sadistic."
Suber sees ample evidence in the dialogues to think that Socrates
behaved similarly. Furthermore, Suber believes that the so-called
legal Socratic method is used in different ways in law schools of
different levels of prestige. In the most prestigious category,
students behave in the "Paper Chase" fashion, reciting the facts and
attendant arguments while standing and attempting to answer the
professor's questions.
RuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRuRu
And James Rhem (2004), editor of the "National Teaching and Learning
Forum,' comments on the law school's Socratic method in his review of
Michael Strong's (1996) "The Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars
to Socratic Practice":
RhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRh
NO PAPER CHASE
Early in my interview with Michael Strong, I shared with him my
long-standing disgust with the association of Socratic practice with
the kind of student abuse portrayed so well by John Housman as
Professor Kingsfield in the 1970s film "The Paper Chase." He laughs.
Law schools have been describing this kind of thing as "Socratic" for
so long, he says, that we're not likely to get them to give it up. He
compares Kingsfield's approach to the violent martial arts versus the
more philosophical or "softer" ones: Karate versus Tai Chi. Strong
sees Socratic practice as essentially "softer." While some see an
aggressive devil's advocate in the Socrates of Plato's Dialogues,
Strong sees a playful imp committed to teasing out the implications
of thought, to seeing the unseen assumptions and implications of what
we say we think. "If the Dialogues were staged, I can imagine
Socrates being played either way depending on the passage," says
Strong.
RhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRhRh
Stanford's Rob Reich (1998) in "Confusion about the Socratic Method:
Socratic Paradoxes and Contemporary Invocations of Socrates," writes:
RiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRi
In the few places where the Socratic method is self-avowedly
practiced - some law schools, for example - it has been morphed
beyond recognition. The law professor, seated at a lectern with a
seating chart, "cold-calls" on students, eliciting factual
information and analytical comments on demand. The infamous Professor
Kingston of "The Paperchase" fame has become the stereotypical image
of the Socratic law school professor. This is the image of the
Socratic method that Lani Guinier. . . .[et al. (1997)]. . . . rails
against as excessively competitive and ultimately gender-biased in
her recent book "Becoming Gentlemen." But, of course, this is a
woefully impoverished understanding of the Socratic method, for
cold-calling bears no resemblance to Socrates' pedagogical activities
in the dialogues.
RiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRiRi
Returning to the Socratic Method of the historical Socrates (SMHS),
as advocated by Arons, it should be emphasized that SMHS 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 concepts, and for conveying fruitful approaches and
reasoning skills [Arons (1997)].
Teachers, to be effective, need to use different approaches (e.g.,
didactic lectures, coaching, collaborative discussions, and Socratic
dialogue) to fit the classroom occasions and diverse natures of their
students. Each method has its strengths and weaknesses for each type
of student, but in the hands of a *skilled teacher* each can be made
to compliment the other methods so as to advance *every* student's
learning. A skilled teacher might *lecture* on material that can be
rote memorized, *coach* skills such as typing or playing a musical
instrument, and use *Socratic dialogue or collaborative discussions*
(or some other "interactive engagement" method) to induce students
to construct their conceptual understanding of difficult
counter-intuitive material such as Newton's Laws. The complementarity
of various pedagogical methods is insightfully discussed by David
Perkins (1995) in "Smart Schools."
"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."
Howard Gardner (1989)
REFERENCES [Tiny URL's courtesy <http://tinyurl.com/create.php>.]
Adler, M.J. 1988. "The Paideia Program: An Educational Syllabus."
Touchstone Books.
Allen, R. E. 1959. "Anamnesis in Plato's Meno and Phaedo," Review of
Metaphysics XIII(1), 165-74.
Arons, A.B. 1985. "'Critical Thinking' and the Baccalaureate
Curriculum," Liberal Education 71(2): 141-157. Reprinted in Arons
(1997) as Chapter 13, "Critical Thinking."
Arons, A.B. 1997. "Teaching Introductory Physics." Wiley. Amazon.com
information at <http://tinyurl.com/3cqlnf>. Note the "Search inside
this book" feature.
Gardner, H. 1989. "The Academic Community Must Not Shun the Debate
Over How to Set National Educational Goals," The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 8 November.
Guinier, L., M. Fine, & J. Balin 1997. "Becoming Gentlemen: Women,
Law School, and Institutional Change" Beacon Press. Amazon.com
information at <http://tinyurl.com/2z85zn>. Note the "Look Inside"
feature.
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; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/ajpv3i.pdf> (84 kB).
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/IEM-2b.pdf> (108 kB) - a crucial
companion paper to Hake (1998a).
Hake, R.R. 2002. "Socratic Dialogue Inducing Laboratory Workshop,"
Proceedings of the UNESCO-ASPEN Workshop on Active Learning in
Physics, Univ. of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2-4 Dec. 2002; online at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Hake-SriLanka-SDIb.pdf> (44 kB).
Hake, R.R. 2004a. "Re: Socratic Method Misunderstood," PhysLrnR post
of 7 Nov 2004 15:49:04-0800; online at <http://tinyurl.com/24pzkd>.
One must subscribe to PhysLnrR to access it archives but that takes
only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> ,and then
clicking on "Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're
busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous."
Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post
messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
Phillips, D.C. & J.F. Soltis. 2003. "Perspectives on Learning."
Teachers College Press, fourth edition, esp. Chapter 2, "Classical
Theories" with regard to Plato. Amazon.com information at
<http://tinyurl.com/24zrcb>.
Reich, R. 1998. "Confusion about the Socratic Method: Socratic
Paradoxes and Contemporary Invocations of Socrates," in Yearbook of
the Philosophy Of Education 1998, online at
<http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/pes-yearbook/1998/reich.html>.
Rhem, J. 2004. Review of Strong (1996); National Teaching and
Learning Forum (NTLF) 13(6); online to subscribers of NTLF at
<http://www.ntlf.com/FTPSite/issues/v13n6/thought.htm>. If your
institution doesn't have a subscription, then, in my opinion, it
should.
Ross, G.M. 1993. "Socrates versus Plato: the Origins and Development
of Socratic Thinking", Aspects of Education 49: 9-22; reprinted in
Thinking: The Journal of Philosophy for Children 12/4, 1996, 2-8;
online at
<http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/homepage/socplat.html>.
Rud, A.G. 1997. "The Use and Abuse of Socrates in Present Day
Teaching," Education Policy Analysis Archives 5(20), online at
<http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n20.html>. Rud, as most education
specialists (and even most physicists), is evidently unaware of
Socratic pedagogy in physics. I thank Gene Glass for informing me of
Rud's paper.
Strong, M. 1997. "The Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to
Socratic Practice." New View Publications. Amazon.com information at
<http://tinyurl.com/2phd3e>. Note the "Look Inside" feature. Strong
is primarily concerned with K-12 education.
Suber, P. 1990. January). Private communication to Anthony Rud.
Vlastos, G. 1990. Private communication to R.R. Hake, September 17.
Vlastos, G. 1991. "Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher." Cornell
Univ. Press and Cambridge University Press, esp. Chap. 2, "Socrates
contra Socrates in Plato." Cambridge University Press information is
at
<http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521314503>: