I would like to second the description of Socratic Method given by
Jack Uretsky, (11/28 Phys-L Digest) elements of which I have copied
below.
<< snip >>
... what the [Socratic Dialogue ] labs are all about... as I
see it, is asking students questions that require them to think,
observe, discuss, analyze and verbalize conclusions.
<< end snip >>
I would only add that the goal of the questioning is also to generate
consistent reasoning based on the combination of abstract theorizing
and testing against observations and phenomena common to the student
experience. Hence the teaching tip proposed by Jack (if I may be so
informal) of creating an analogous situation with an amplified element
as part of the discussion is essential.
<< snip >>
One of my favorites is a question about why water doesn't fall out
of a filled bucket that is being rotated in a vertical circle at the end
of a rope. When the students ask for help I stand in front of them,
probably talking about free-body diagrams, "absent mindedly" placing a
coin in the palm of my hand and slapping the coin down on a desk top.
<< end snip >>
Here, Jack has used the motion of the coin (I interpret the
description to mean the hand is accelerating the coin a bit more than
9.8 m/s2 downward) to demonstrate the direction of the net force on
the bucket required to keep the water from appearing to fall away from
the bucket. Students are required to use the evidence of a phenomenon
to test (or inform) theories about a related phenomenon. The teacher
provides a significant hint (after all, we do not have all year to
wait for the kids to generate the appropriate description of
centripetal forces through unguided discussion!) but does not lecture
an answer.
Jack goes on to "admit" the students are pretty well trained at
picking up on his "deviousness". I wouldn't be a bit surprised to
learn that during the first few weeks/months of the course, Jack
experiences a bit of resistance from the students ("You need to tell
us the answer..."). And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Jack
has very positive end-of-course student evaluations. My sense is
students come to enjoy the give and take of well constructed Socratic
Dialogues. That is, if the Dialogue has a certain momentum and the
students trust the teacher, students will rise to the bait with a
great deal of enthusiasm. Aimless multiple day discussions are hard
on student motivation.
This is all a long winded way of saying Socratic Dialogue is a very
difficult teaching technique which requires a deep awareness of the
current thinking by students. This awareness, in my experience,
cannot be biased by such teacher thoughts as "I know the answer was in
last night's reading, so they will easily get this question right."
The awareness can be enhanced by a teacher listening to the ongoing
patterns of student discussion. The teaching plan, of course, needs
to be precise (it needs to fit in with yesterday and tomorrow) but
Socratic methods demand it be fluid to accept the opportunity for
spontaneously generated examples and discussion direction. It helps
a great deal to have a storeroom contiguous with the teaching room!
My interest in all of this is really to ask a difficult question: how
do those who practice Socratic Dialogue as a main element of their
teaching plan lessons and guide the discussions? What sorts of
physical hints have worked in various situations? What are areas of
significant success and, heaven forbid, significant frustration with
Socratic Dialogue? I think it would be a service to many teachers to
generate in the list Archives a collection of Socratic Dialogue "Best
Practices."
Ed Eckel
The Bullis School
Potomac MD
This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.