SOCRATIC SEMINARS
There are many teachers who have attained fame outside their profession, Buddha, Bronson Alcott, Confucius, Horace Mann, but, at least in the western world the most famous-all because his pupil, Plato, wrote about him-is Socrates, the ancient Greek teacher, philosopher and citizen. One of his gifts to the world is his method of teaching which relied almost entirely on asking questions. Through his persistent practice of questioning his pupils, the students worked out-to be sure under guidance-the problems they themselves had posed. All Socrates did was ask the questions.
Much information must be disseminated by telling, that is what lectures and
demonstrations and stories are for. But a great deal can be learned through
a process of discovery led by questioning. Our term "Socratic seminars"
is somewhat of a misnomer. No one person is asking questions. In another sense,
though, the term is quite apropos. The students are doing the talking, discovering,
observing and evaluation, and in a sense they each are answering unasked,
unarticulated questions posed by a short text. In that way it is certainly
Socratic. Here is how it works:
The day before the seminar, I will mark a passage in a work I distribute or name. The students read the essay in its entirety, then closely reread-at least once-the marked passage taking notes on meaning, diction, syntax, tone, style and concrete detail (do not worry if you do not yet know for certain what these are).
Next day, the class will be arranged in two concentric circles, the inner circle and the outer circle. Half of the students will sit in the inner circle, half in the outer. The inner circle will introduce the passage reading it and, then, discuss the passage in terms of on meaning, diction, syntax, tone, style and concrete detail. The outer circle observes only. This goes on for exactly ten minutes.
At the end of the first discussion, the outer circle-for exactly ten minutes-feeds back, not on content but on process. This means that the outer circle comments, not on what was said, but on how the group worked to find a solution.
What did the inner circle do? How did they proceed? Did one person do all the talking? Who was silent? How did the discussion move from one person to another? How were disagreements handled? Was the group inclusive? Exclusive? How did the group move toward understanding? What methods of discovery were used? Did new ideas emerge early, in the middle, or late? How did the group "keep going?"
The rules are: the outer group cannot use "you" in reference to an individual-use the persons name-nor can any one in the outer group enter the inner group discussion during or after the discussion. Likewise the inner group cannot enter the outer group discussion.
After the outer group discussion, the groups swap circles. The outer group becomes the inner, the inner the outer, and the process is repeated in ten minute increments.
My role is three fold. I organize the readings and the groups. I keep time, and, only if the discussion is becoming dangerous, getting far off topic or flagging entirely, I interject a question, topic or advisory through one of the group members, either inner or outer. I do not enter the discussion; the discussion belongs to the students.
Why do this? Beside the fact that this is sound learning theory (now called cooperative learning - but don't let that bother you), I think it will become evident that it is, yes, serious, but that there will be room for humor, imagination, fun, and exploration.
{Message}
