relationship between socratic method and critical thinking

The Institute for Learning and Teaching

College of business, teaching tips, the socratic method: fostering critical thinking.

"Do not take what I say as if I were merely playing, for you see the subject of our discussion—and on what subject should even a man of slight intelligence be more serious? —namely, what kind of life should one live . . ." Socrates

By Peter Conor

This teaching tip explores how the Socratic Method can be used to promote critical thinking in classroom discussions. It is based on the article, The Socratic Method: What it is and How to Use it in the Classroom, published in the newsletter, Speaking of Teaching, a publication of the Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL).

The article summarizes a talk given by Political Science professor Rob Reich, on May 22, 2003, as part of the center’s Award Winning Teachers on Teaching lecture series. Reich, the recipient of the 2001 Walter J. Gores Award for Teaching Excellence, describes four essential components of the Socratic method and urges his audience to “creatively reclaim [the method] as a relevant framework” to be used in the classroom.

What is the Socratic Method?

Developed by the Greek philosopher, Socrates, the Socratic Method is a dialogue between teacher and students, instigated by the continual probing questions of the teacher, in a concerted effort to explore the underlying beliefs that shape the students views and opinions. Though often misunderstood, most Western pedagogical tradition, from Plato on, is based on this dialectical method of questioning.

An extreme version of this technique is employed by the infamous professor, Dr. Kingsfield, portrayed by John Houseman in the 1973 movie, “The Paper Chase.” In order to get at the heart of ethical dilemmas and the principles of moral character, Dr. Kingsfield terrorizes and humiliates his law students by painfully grilling them on the details and implications of legal cases.

In his lecture, Reich describes a kinder, gentler Socratic Method, pointing out the following:

• Socratic inquiry is not “teaching” per se. It does not include PowerPoint driven lectures, detailed lesson plans or rote memorization. The teacher is neither “the sage on the stage” nor “the guide on the side.” The students are not passive recipients of knowledge.
• The Socratic Method involves a shared dialogue between teacher and students. The teacher leads by posing thought-provoking questions. Students actively engage by asking questions of their own. The discussion goes back and forth.
• The Socratic Method says Reich, “is better used to demonstrate complexity, difficulty, and uncertainty than to elicit facts about the world.” The aim of the questioning is to probe the underlying beliefs upon which each participant’s statements, arguments and assumptions are built.
• The classroom environment is characterized by “productive discomfort,” not intimidation. The Socratic professor does not have all the answers and is not merely “testing” the students. The questioning proceeds open-ended with no pre-determined goal.
• The focus is not on the participants’ statements but on the value system that underpins their beliefs, actions, and decisions. For this reason, any successful challenge to this system comes with high stakes—one might have to examine and change one’s life, but, Socrates is famous for saying, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
• “The Socratic professor,” Reich states, “is not the opponent in an argument, nor someone who always plays devil’s advocate, saying essentially: ‘If you affirm it, I deny it. If you deny it, I affirm it.’ This happens sometimes, but not as a matter of pedagogical principle.”

Professor Reich also provides ten tips for fostering critical thinking in the classroom. While no longer available on Stanford’s website, the full article can be found on the web archive:  The Socratic Method: What it is and How to Use it in the classroom

• More Teaching Tips
• Tags: communication , critical thinking , learning
• Categories: Instructional Strategies , Teaching Effectiveness , Teaching Tips

Socratic Questioning in Psychology: Examples and Techniques

Condemned to death in 399 BC and leaving no written works, we rely extensively on the writings of his pupil, philosophical heavyweight Plato (Honderich, 2005).

Perhaps Socrates’ most significant legacy is his contribution to the art of conversation, known as Socratic questioning. Rather than the teacher filling the mind of the student, both are responsible for pushing the dialogue forward and uncovering truths (Raphael & Monk, 2003).

And yet, what could a 2500-year old approach to inquiry add to the toolkit of the teacher, psychotherapist, and coach?

Well, it turns out, quite a lot.

In this article, we explore the definition of Socratic questioning and how we apply it in education, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and coaching. We then identify techniques, examples of good questions, and exercises that promote better, more productive dialogue.

Before you read on, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free . These science-based exercises explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology, including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.

This Article Contains

Socratic questioning defined, what is socratic questioning in cbt and therapy, how to do socratic questioning, 15 examples of socratic questioning, using socratic questioning in coaching, applications in the classroom: 2 examples, 3 helpful techniques, 4 exercises and worksheets for your sessions, 5 best books on the topic, a take-home message, frequently asked questions.

Many of us fail to recognize questioning as a skill. And yet, whether in education or therapy, vague, purposeless questions have a rather aimless quality, wasting time and failing to elicit useful information (Neenan, 2008).

The Socratic method, often described as the cornerstone of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) , solves this inadequacy by asking a series of focused, open-ended questions that encourage reflection (Clark & Egan, 2015). By surfacing knowledge that was previously outside of our awareness, the technique produces insightful perspectives and helps identify positive actions.

“I know you won’t believe me, but the highest form of human excellence is to question oneself and others.”

Socratic questioning involves a disciplined and thoughtful dialogue between two or more people. It is widely used in teaching and counseling to expose and unravel deeply held values and beliefs that frame and support what we think and say.

By using a series of focused yet open questions, we can unpack our beliefs and those of others.

In education, we can remove, albeit temporarily, the idea of the ‘sage on the stage.’ Instead, the teacher plays dumb, acting as though ignorant of the subject. The student, rather than remaining passive, actively helps push the dialogue forward.

Rather than teaching in the conventional sense, there is no lesson plan and often no pre-defined goal; the dialogue can take its path, remaining open ended between teacher and student.

The Socratic method is used in coaching, with, or without, a clear goal in mind, to probe our deepest thoughts. A predetermined goal is useful when there are time pressures but can leave the client feeling that the coach has their own agenda or nothing to learn from the discussion (Neenan, 2008).

In guided discovery , the absence of a clear goal leads to questions such as “ can you be made to feel inferior by someone else’s laughter?”  asked with genuine curiosity. Here, the coach gently encourages the client to look at the bigger picture and see other options for tackling an issue.

Ultimately, both approaches have the goal of changing minds. One is coach led, and the other is client led; the coach or therapist may need to move on a continuum between the two.

Indeed, in CBT, where the focus is on modifying thinking to facilitate emotional and behavioral change, the technique is recognized as helping clients define problems, identify the impact of their beliefs and thoughts, and examine the meaning of events (Beck & Dozois, 2011).

The use of the Socratic method by CBT therapists helps clients become aware of and modify processes that perpetuate their difficulties. The subsequent shift in perspective and the accompanying reevaluation of information and thoughts can be hugely beneficial.

It replaces the didactic, or teaching-based, approach and promotes the value of reflective questioning. Indeed, several controlled trials have demonstrated its effectiveness in dealing with a wide variety of psychological disorders.

While there is no universally accepted definition of the Socratic method in CBT, it can be seen as an umbrella term for using questioning to “ clarify meaning, elicit emotion and consequences, as well as to gradually create insight or explore alternative action ” (James, Morse, & Howarth, 2010).

It is important to note that the approach, when used in CBT, must remain non-confrontational and instead guide discovery, in an open, interested manner, leading to enlightenment and insight (Clark & Egan, 2015).

You will find that Socratic questions usually have the following attributes (modified from Neenan, 2008):

Above all else, it is essential to remember that Socratic questioning should be confusion-free.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Enhance wellbeing with these free, science-based exercises that draw on the latest insights from positive psychology.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

A fruitful dialogue using Socratic questioning is a shared one, between teachers and students or therapists and clients.

Each participant must actively participate and take responsibility for moving the discussion forward.

The best environment, according to professor Rob Reich, is one of ‘productive discomfort,’ but in the absence of fear and panic (Reis, 2003).

There should be no opponents and no one playing ‘devil’s advocate’ or testing the other.

Instead, it is best to remain open minded and prepared to both listen and learn.

Some guidance is suggested to perform Socratic questioning effectively.

For a student or client, it is useful to understand what is expected.

To be the ideal companion for Socratic questioning, you need to be genuinely curious, willing to take the time and energy to unpack beliefs, and able to logically and dispassionately review contradictions and inconsistencies.

When used effectively, Socratic questioning is a compelling technique for exploring issues, ideas, emotions, and thoughts. It allows misconceptions to be addressed and analyzed at a deeper level than routine questioning.

You will need to use several types of questions to engage and elicit a detailed understanding.

Students and clients should be encouraged to use the technique on themselves to extend and reinforce the effect of Socratic questioning and promote more profound levels of understanding.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Coaching is “ the art of facilitating the performance, learning, and development of another” (Downey, 2003). To reach a deeper understanding of a client’s goals, core values , and impediments to change, a coach must elicit information that is relevant, insightful, and ultimately valuable.

And yet, not all questions are equally useful in coaching.

Vague or aimless questions are costly in terms of time and will erode the client’s confidence in the coaching process (Neenan, 2008).

Asking open-ended questions helps clients reflect and generate knowledge of which they may have previously been unaware. Such insights result in clients reaching new or more balanced perspectives and identifying actions to overcome difficulties.

Coaches should avoid becoming ‘stuck’ entirely in the Socratic mode. Complete reliance on Socratic questions will lead to robotic and predictable sessions. Indeed, at times, the therapist may require closed questions to push a point and offer some direction (Neenan, 2008).

The student is asked to account for themselves, rather than recite facts, including their motivations and bias upon which their views are based.

Discussion is less about facts or what others think about the facts, and more about what the student concludes about them. The underlying beliefs of each participant in the conversation are under review rather than abstract propositions.

And according to science, it works very well. Research has confirmed that Socratic questioning provides students with positive support in enhancing critical thinking skills (Chew, Lin, & Chen, 2019).

1. Socratic circles

Socratic circles can be particularly useful for gaining an in-depth understanding of a specific text or examine the questioning technique itself and the abilities of the group using it:

• Students are asked to read a chosen text or passage.
• Guidance is given to analyze it and take notes.
• Students are arranged in two circles – an inner one and an outer one.
• The inner circle is told to read and discuss the text with one another for the next 10 minutes.
• Meanwhile, the outer circle is told to remain silent and observe the inner circle’s discussion.
• Once completed, the outer circle is given a further 10 minutes to evaluate the inner circle’s dialogue and provide feedback.
• The inner circle listens and takes notes.
• Later the roles of the inner and outer circles are reversed.

Observing the Socratic method can provide a valuable opportunity to learn about the process of questioning.

2. Socratic seminars

Socratic seminars are the true embodiment of Socrates’ belief in the power of good questioning.

• The teacher uses Socratic questions to engage discussion around a targeted learning goal, often a text that invites authentic inquiry.
• Guidelines are provided to the students to agree to fair participation, including example questions and behaviors for thinking, interacting, and listening within the group.
• Learning is promoted by encouraging critical analysis and reasoning to find deep answers to questions.
• The teacher may define some initial open-ended questions but does not adopt the role of a leader.
• Once over, a review of the techniques and the group’s effectiveness at using them should be performed and learnings fed into future seminars.

It takes time to learn and use the Socratic method effectively and should be considered a necessary part of the group’s overall journey.

1. The five Ws

At times we all need pointers regarding the questions to ask. The misleadingly named  five Ws – who, what, when, where, why, and how – are widely used for basic information gathering, from journalism to policing.

The five Ws (and an H) provide a useful set of open questions, inviting the listener to answer and elaborate on the facts.

2. Socratic method steps

Simply stated, Socratic questioning follows the steps below.

• Understand the belief. Ask the person to state clearly their belief/argument.
• Sum up the person’s argument. Play back what they said to clarify your understanding of their position.
• Upon what assumption is this belief based?
• What evidence is there to support this argument?
• Challenge their assumptions. If contradictions, inconsistencies, exceptions, or counterexamples are identified, then ask the person to either disregard the belief or restate it more precisely.
• Repeat the process again, if required. Until both parties accept the restated belief, the process is repeated.

The order may not always proceed as above. However, the steps provide an insight into how the questioning could proceed. Repeat the process to drill down into the core of an issue, thought, or belief.

3. Best friend role-play

Ask the client to talk to you as though they were discussing similar experiences to a friend (or someone else they care about.)

People are often better at arguing against their negative thinking when they are talking to someone they care about.

For example, “ Your best friend tells you that they are upset by a difficult conversation or situation they find themselves in. What would you tell them? Talk to me as though I am that person .”

1. Socratic question types

The Socratic method relies on a variety of question types to provide the most complete and correct information for exploring issues, ideas, emotions, and thoughts.

Use a mixture of the following question types for the most successful engagement.

2. Cognitive restructuring

Ask readers to consider and record answers to several Socratic questions to help challenge their irrational thoughts.

3. Life coaching questions

Refer to the 100 Most Powerful Life Coaching Questions on our blog for in-depth examples of open-ended questions for use as a coach.

4. Art of Socratic questioning checklist

While observing others leading Socratic discussions, use this questioning checklist to capture thoughts and provide feedback.

17 Top-Rated Positive Psychology Exercises for Practitioners

Expand your arsenal and impact with these 17 Positive Psychology Exercises [PDF] , scientifically designed to promote human flourishing, meaning, and wellbeing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

To learn more about Socratic questioning and good questioning in general, check out these five books available on Amazon:

• The Socratic Method of Psychotherapy – James Overholser ( Amazon )
• The Thinker’s Guide to Socratic Questioning – Richard Paul and Linda Elder ( Amazon )
• Thinking Through Quality Questioning: Deepening Student Engagement – Elizabeth D. Sattes and Jackie A. Walsh ( Amazon )
• Techniques for Coaching and Mentoring – Natalie Lancer, David Clutterbuck, and David Megginson  ( Amazon )
• The Art of Interactive Teaching: Listening, Responding, Questioning – Selma Wassermann ( Amazon )

Socratic questioning provides a potent method for examining ideas logically and determining their validity.

Used successfully, it challenges (possibly incorrect) assumptions and misunderstandings, allowing you to revisit and revise what you think and say.

However, like any tool, it is only as good as the person who uses it.

Socratic questioning requires an absence of ego and a level playing field for all who take part. If you are willing to use logical, open questions without a fixed plan, and are prepared to practice, the technique is an effective way of exploring ideas in depth.

The theory, techniques, and exercises we shared will help you to push the boundaries of understanding, often into uncharted waters, and unravel and explore assumptions and misunderstandings behind our thoughts.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free .

Socratic questioning is a method of inquiry that seeks to explore complex ideas, concepts, and beliefs by asking questions that challenge assumptions, clarify meaning, and reveal underlying principles.

The five Socratic questions are:

• What do you mean by that?
• How do you know?
• Can you give me an example?
• What are the consequences of that?
• What is the counterargument?

The Socratic method is a form of inquiry that involves asking questions to stimulate critical thinking and expose the contradictions in one’s own beliefs.

The method involves a dialogue between two or more people in which the participants seek to understand each other’s beliefs and uncover the truth through a process of questioning and examination.

• Beck, A. T., & Dozois, D. J. (2011). Cognitive therapy: Current status and future directions. Annual Review of Medicine, 62 , 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-052209-100032
• Chew, S. W., Lin, I. H., & Chen, N. S. (2019). Using Socratic questioning strategy to enhance critical thinking skills of elementary school students. Paper presented at the 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Maceió, Brazil. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2019.00088
• Clark, G. I., & Egan, S. J . (2015). The Socratic method in cognitive behavioural therapy: A narrative review. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39 (6), 863–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-015-9707-3
• Downey, M. (2003). Effective coaching: Lessons from the coach’s coach (2nd ed.). Thomson/ Texere. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1587991721/
• Honderich, T. (2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford University Press. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199264791/
• James, I. A., Morse, R., & Howarth, A. (2010). The science and art of asking questions in cognitive therapy. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 38 (1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S135246580999049X
• Lancer, N., Clutterbuck, D., & Megginson, D. (2016).  Techniques for coaching and mentoring  (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://www.amazon.com/dp/113891374X/
• Neenan, M. (2008). Using Socratic questioning in coaching. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 27 (4), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-007-0076-z
• Overholser, J. (2018).  The Socratic method of psychotherapy . Columbia University Press. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0231183291/
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2016).  The thinker’s guide to the art of Socratic questioning.  The Foundation for Critical Thinking. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0944583318/
• Raphael, F., & Monk, R. (2003). The great philosophers. Routledge. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DIL3NIO/
• Reis, R. (2003). The Socratic method: What it is and how to use it in the classroom. Tomorrow’s Professor Postings. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/810
• Walsh, J. A., & Sattes, E. D. (2011). Thinking through quality questioning: Deepening student engagement (1st ed.). Corwin. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1412989027/
• Wasserman, S. (2017). The art of interactive teaching: Listening, responding, questioning (1st ed.). Routledge. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1138041173/

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Useful to challenge students to think

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

How to Keep a Healthy Mind While Aging: 8 Easy Strategies

With 1 in 5 people likely to be over 60 by 2050 (Ballesteros, 2022), it is becoming increasingly essential to understand why our cognitive powers [...]

Existential Crisis: How to Cope With Meaninglessness

Recent statistics suggest that over a quarter of UK nationals feel a deep sense of meaninglessness (Dinic, 2021). In the wake of multiple global economic, [...]

9 Powerful Existential Therapy Techniques for Your Sessions

While not easily defined, existential therapy builds on ideas taken from philosophy, helping clients to understand and clarify the life they would like to lead [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (22)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (37)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

Download 3 Free Meaning Tools Pack (PDF)

3 Meaning Exercises Pack (PDF)

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Understanding Socratic Questioning: A Comprehensive Guide

FG Trade/E+/Getty

What Is Socratic Questioning?

• Socratic Questioning in History
• The 4 Stages
• The 6 Types

Examples of Socratic Questions

• Practical Guidelines

Some people leave a very long mark on the world, and Socrates is definitely one of those people. He was a Greek philosopher from the 5th century BC, but still today, we use some of his teachings.

Socratic questioning is one example of how Socrates lives on. What exactly is it, and why is it still so widely used in our world?

At a Glance

You may remember Socratic questioning from past or current school days—and not fondly. It's the method of communication by which someone intentionally challenges others—such as their students—through open-ended questioning.

Often, there is no clear answer to the line of questioning, and no clear answer is intended. Frustrating, right? But the goal is ultimately to stimulate deep thoughts and to explore what we know—and don't know—about ourselves or about a given subject of study. It may be used by teachers, therapists, or even by us in the course of our daily lives.

Clinical and forensic psychologist Dr. Leslie Dobson tells us that Socratic questioning is a communication style that allows a person to stimulate another person's thinking through open-ended questions.

The questions are meant to push someone "slightly outside of their comfort level, so that they have to think about their thoughts, behaviors and feelings, building their awareness, and in turn allow them to feel more in control." By asking thought provoking questions, we can have deeper interactions. This is helpful in settings both clinical and casual.

The History and Philosophy Behind Socratic Questioning

Socratic questioning is a part of the Socratic method, the broader style of teaching and communication that Socrates introduced. There is debate over whether we have continued to use the teachings of Socrates nonstop since his time, or if they left and were reintroduced in more recent years. One thing we can be certain of, though, is that Socrates' work has played a role in modern communication.

The philosophy behind Socratic questioning is both to help us understand others better and to help people understand themselves better. Says Dobson, "Once we are able to name what is going on in us (i.e., emotions, thoughts, behaviors), we have the ability to take the reins and lead our lives." A deeper style of questioning that opens up our minds more than casual conversation could benefit everyone, including the asker.

What Are the 4 Stages of Socratic Questioning?

The four stages of Socratic questioning are also known as "guided discovery." As you may expect, this practice has four stages.

• Asking questions centered around receiving information
• Attentively listening and reflecting back what you've heard
• Providing a summary of the information you've heard
• Asking more questions, specifically with the intent of applying the answers you heard to the person's original thoughts

What Are the Six Types of Socratic Questioning?

In order to probe further into a subject, there are different question styles used. These get people thinking in bigger ways than other questions might.

• Clarification : You may ask why a person gave the response they did, or how it relates to the topic at hand.
• Challenge assumptions : Someone may be asked how what they've said proves their initial assumptions to be true, or disproves them.
• Look for evidence : You'll ask questions that help prove a point, such as requesting examples or looking for causes.
• Perspective : These questions make someone step back and see a situation from a differing point of view.
• Discover consequences : Asking how something ties into a different topic, or what the ramifications of what's been asserted are, help someone think more deeply about an issue.
• Question the question: Further attempting to add depth, you may ask what the other person thinks the point of your questions are, or what the situation at large really means.

It may seem like an abstract concept, but in reality we use Socratic questions in many different areas of day to day life. Here are some examples.

Socratic questioning is a valuable psychotherapeutic tool. "Socratic questioning is very helpful when a client is new and closed off, when a client is stuck in their thought process or memory, and also when a client is stuck in an emotion ," explains Dobson. She uses Socratic questioning right at the start of a new client relationship, employing the questions to discern why someone is seeking therapy and what the purpose of it will be for them.

This questioning style can be used throughout therapy, and offers a way to facilitate communication and forward progression. "When a client is stuck in their thought process or memory, Socratic questioning is very helpful to help them think about other aspects of their memory," says Dobson. "For example, when somebody is having recurring visual flashbacks of a trauma and severe emotional reactions, Socratic questioning is very helpful to start grounding the reality of the memory by exploring our thoughts around it and the emotions that come up."

Socratic questioning is particularly useful in therapy when other methods have stalled and a client is having trouble moving through an issue. "Socratic questioning allows us to explore assumptions around how we think we should feel and the evidence that lends to how we determine it's okay to feel this way and to stay this way," says Dobson.

News Interviews

We tune into the news to not just hear about what's going on in the world, but also to gain an understanding of it. Dobson explains, "the reporter will ask an open ended question to an individual, "How did you feel when that happened?" and then follow up with questions that clarify the answer, probe for more details, explore the areas of the person's reaction, push alternative viewpoints or perspectives (commonly seen in high profile interview guests), and then take a moment to reflect on the conversation and offer closure." This is the entirety of the Socratic questioning method, step by step.

The legal system is an arena that's full of Socratic questioning. "A great example is when a lawyer asked me, "So Dr. Dobson, can you explain to the jury how trauma forms? Can you provide an example? How do you know this is true? Do you have data? If this is true, what does it mean for a person who also has anxiety? If it is not trauma, what else could it be? Why does talking about trauma matter in this case?" recalls Dobson.

Benefits of Applying Socratic Questioning

As you can see, Socratic questioning has a variety of uses. It also has numerous benefits in the world. In therapy, it helps people move through challenging issues. In media , it is used to give us deeper understanding of important events and the mindsets of the people involved in them.

Additionally, it allows everyone to better understand their own thoughts and feelings. By asking probing questions that force us to think more thoroughly through why we feel and behave the ways we do, we're able to gain more understanding of ourselves and others.

Potential Challenges with Socratic Questioning

Socratic questioning isn't perfect, and it can't necessarily solve all problems or help everyone through every challenge. The biggest problem with it is that it relies on a person being able to clearly articulate their thoughts and feelings, and some people have a hard time with that.

It could also lead a person to feel attacked, if the questions are too probing. And sometimes, people aren't ready to think of a situation from someone else's perspective, or able yet to gain understanding of what the implications or consequences are of an event. Socratic questioning needs to be used at the right time, and in appropriate situations, for it to be useful.

Practical Guidelines for Using Socratic Questioning

If you find yourself interested in this method of communication, you can begin employing it at any time. Here are some guidelines for adding Socratic questioning into your day to day life.

• Listen and reflect : Pay attention to what others tell you, and validate their voice by reflecting their words back to them.
• Ask better questions : Rather than just asking someone what happened in a situation, delve deeper by asking for their feelings about it and motivations .
• Get outside your own mind : Think of situations from others' perspectives, and encourage those you know to do the same.
• Look for evidence: Challenge your assumptions and those of others by seeking evidence for why someone holds the perspective they do.

Therapy Tip

Dobson reminds us that when using Socratic questioning in therapy, "it is important to check in with your client verbally and also pay attention to their behavioral cues." That's because "you may be coming off as too assertive , or the client may not have the cognitive capacity to grasp your questions." She reminds us that Socratic questioning is a communication style, not a therapeutic modality, and should be used accordingly.

Schneider J. Remembrance of things past: a history of the socratic method in the united states.   Curriculum Inquiry . 2013;43(5):613-640.

Guided_Therapy.

By Ariane Resnick, CNC Ariane Resnick, CNC is a mental health writer, certified nutritionist, and wellness author who advocates for accessibility and inclusivity.

Critical Thinking and the Socratic Method

This chapter starts by answering the question, “What is critical thinking?” As it turns out, not everyone agrees on what critical thinking is. Nevertheless, researchers agree that critical thinking allows many people to reason together for solutions to complex problems. Also, in this chapter, the authors look at how computing capabilities enhance Socratic problem solving. A computer-based Socratic problem-solving system can keep problem solvers on track, document the outcome of a problem-solving session, and share those results with participants and a larger audience. In addition, Socrates DigitalTM can also help problem solvers combine evidence about their quality of reasoning for individual problem-solving steps and the overall confidence level for the solution.

• Related Documents

Visualizing complexity

In this paper, we look at experienced problem solvers who are experts in their own domains and who visually model the processes people use when they solve complex problems. Our hope is that improved problem models can inform software development teams and lead to better problem solving software. We discuss what to model – the interdependent data ordeals, wayfinding, and sense-making activities that make up patterns of inquiry. We propose a model, which describes how experts explore problem landscapes, putting information and their own conclusions together in different ways in order to satisfy contending goals and agendas.

The Development Higher Order Thinking Skill (Hots) As Questions In Chemistry Study (Solubility And Solubility Product Constant)

The significance of critical thinking as one of the 21st  century skills makes the Indonesian Ministry of  Education  and  Culture  integrate  Higher  Order Thinking  Skill  (HOTS)  in the  latest national curriculum. Students critical thinking skills to working on HOTS assessment are fundamental, especially in learning chemistry lessons. The research purpose is to analyze the quality of HOTS chemistry questions/ assessment and to observe the teachers and students responses to computer-based test instruments developed using Wondershare Quiz Maker Software (WQM). The research method used Research And Development (R & D) Borg & Gall model. The sample was determined by Random Sampling Technique in total 104 students from several high school in Banda Aceh, it is SMAN 4, SMAN 5, SMAN 8 and SMAN 11. The data analysis technique was through calculating the percentage score of the assessment quality and analyzing the question items quantitatively such as validity, reliability, difficulty level of the questions, differential question power tests and distracting question power using proanaltes. The results showed that the quality of HOTS in chemical questions tested (for the solubility subject and the solubility product constant in terms of qualitative analysis of the items) in the validation test gained average score, it is 98.1%, means the items are qualified categories. In terms of quantitative analysis question items, it reached 95% valid and 5% invalid and the reliability test score was 0.740, are in high category. The questions difficulty covers 95% medium and 5% are in difficult level. The questions differential power for each category is 65% good, 30% medium and 5% less. The teachers and students response to the development of the computer-based HOTS test instrument using WQM software was positive and show good result. The teacher response positively on score strongly agreed was 83.3% and agreed 16.7%, while the students response on score strongly agreed was 27.2% and 63.3% agreed. The research conclusion there is significant  students critical thinking skills improved  (in learning the solubility and the solubility product constant chapter) by using HOTS assessment using Wondershare Quiz Maker software.

CO-OPERATIVE LEARNING : AN EFFICIENT TECHNIQUE TO CONVERT STUDENTS INTO ACTIVE LEARNERS IN CLASSROOMS

This paper discusses the need of co-operative learning in Indian classrooms in order to promote active participation of all students in the classroom. In order to prepare the students for life and higher education, the gaining and improvement of important mental skills such as the effective usage of the mind, critical thinking, and problem solving are necessary so that they can face the challenges of life actively. In recent years, teaching has been confronted by demands for higher standards and better pupil achievement in several parts of the world. Researchers have suggested a shift from teacher-centred instruction towards more active participatory learning methods as one way to improve the quality of the learning process. The search on co-operative learning is overwhelmingly positive, and the co-operative approaches are appropriate for all curriculum areas. The present paper reflects that co-operative learning makes teaching–learning more satisfying, momentous, enjoyable and effective.

The Road Ahead

This chapter notes that most discussions around critical thinking and Socratic problem solving before this book was published described interactions between humans. However, as shown in this chapter, computers can not only automate the Socratic problem-solving process but can enhance its advantages for individuals, teams, and organizations in ways that only a computer can do. This chapter looks at eight ways that Socrates DigitalTM can be enhanced to create better solutions for problem solvers in less time.

Problem-Solving With Data and Information

This chapter begins by looking at how humans learn and solve problems with data and information. However, the authors note that the actual steps for problem-solving remain a mystery to most problem solvers. They also look at learning and problem solving with technology in this chapter. This chapter also presents digital advisors as a breakthrough technology for assisting humans in problem solving. While promising, this approach relies on humans to ask the right questions. At the end of this chapter, the authors saw that computer-based Socratic problem solving addresses this shortcoming by guiding the user through all the “right” questions needing answers to solve the problem at hand.

Online Learning with the Use of WebVT Vista

The primary goal of this chapter is to offer reflections on various aspects of the use of WebCT Vista in onlinebusiness education at Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia, U.S.A.. The chapter argues that with theproper systems in place, including adequate technology and support and the cooperation of educational administrators, WebCT Vista can augment current educational systems in remarkable ways. The chapter also argues that the use of WebCT strongly contributes to theeffectiveness of distance learning by improving the quality of students’ learning in the areas: of critical thinking; problem solving, decision-making, attention to detail, written communications, and organizational and analytical skills. The assessment tool presented in this chapter wasused to obtain students’ feedback concerning their learningoutcomes with and without the use of WebCT Vista. In general, most students positively evaluated the effect of WebCT Vista on their learning within areas such as critical thinking, problem solving, decision-making ability, oral communication, written communication, knowledge of information, and the ability to organize and analyze. As theresults of the above analysis indicate, almost all students benefited from using WebCT.

Deep Flow: Scientific Schema for Complex Problem Solving

Complex problem solvers are occasionally able to solve the problem by framing the problem properly and by engaging deeply to solve them. But there are times when the solvers experience an impasse and the problem just can’t be solved. We propose this as a pivoting point in complex problem solving, which requires the solver to, counter-intuitively, detach from the problem (instead of spending more effort in framing the problem and/or focusing on solving it). This disengagement prepares the ground for willful synthesis of both processed and unprocessed information streams – either automatically or through an interactive process. The outcome of synthesis is an aggregated solution which transcends the impasse and enables the solver to find an innovative and complete solution. This is often accompanied with a feeling of attunement, an intuitive sense of completeness. While it is possible to solve complex problems in an ad-hoc way, we outline a scientifically underpinned schema that governs this process. This process, which we refer to as Deep Flow, has four steps: (1) Frame, (2) Engage, (3) Disengage and (4) Synthesize. Deep Flow culminates in a feeling of attunement and creates positive affect. As solvers intentionally engage with Deep Flow, they can invoke the necessary steps at will. It empowers solvers to solve complex complex problems efficiently; also, the sense of attunement inspires them to tackle more complex problems in a comprehensive manner.

KEMAMPUAN MAHASISWA PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA DALAM MEMECAHKAN MASALAH DI AWAL DAN AKHIR SEMESTER PERTAMA

Problem solving ability is main goal of students in learning mathematics. Lectures should be able to improve the ability. This reasearch aimed to describe ability ofstudents at the beginning and end of first semester academic year 2016/2017 in solving mathematical problems. The research subjects were 71 students of mathematicseducation program class of 2016 from one of the universities in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. At the beginning and the end of first semester, each subject was given sixmathematical problems. The problems at the beginning and the end of semester were similar only differently in numbers. The result showed that average score of the students at the beginning and the end of first semester were 7.97 and 9.18 (scale 0 - 24), respectively. The scores increased significantly with a 95% confidence level. Theincreasng caused 8.4% of the students who were classified as naive problem solvers increased their ability becomed routine problem solvers. No students have improved their ability becomed good problem solvers.

Latin American Philosophers: Some Recent Challenges to Their Intellectual Character

For Latin American philosophers, the quality of their own philosophy is a recurrent issue. Why hasn’t it produced any internationally recognized figure, tradition, or movement? Why is it mostly unknown inside and outside Latin America? Although skeptical answers to these questions are not new, they have recently shifted to some critical-thinking competences and dispositions deemed necessary for successful philosophical theorizing. Latin American philosophers are said to lack, for example, originality in problem-solving, problem-making, argumentation, and to some extent, interpretation. Or does the problem arise from their vices of “arrogant reasoning?” On my view, all of these answers are incomplete, and some even self-defeating. Yet they cast some light on complex, critical-thinking virtues and vices that play a significant role in philosophical thinking.

Developing the student worksheet with problem-solving approach to improve critical thinking skills and the concept understanding of physics

The study aimed to investigate the quality of the developed student worksheet with a problem-solving approach in line to the determined criteria and the improvement of students’ critical thinking skills and the conceptual understanding of physics by implementing the student’s worksheet. This study was a research and development study by applying the development model by Borg & Gall. The try out subjects of validation product were students of grades X and XI of MAN (Islamic High School) Yogyakarta III. The data collection techniques used validation sheets, observation sheets, evaluation sheets of student’s worksheet, and tests. The product of this research was student’s worksheet with a problem-solving approach on the topic of optical instruments for grade X of senior high school. The evaluation of student’s worksheet by experts, teachers, peer reviewers, and students are at the best categories for learning, construct, and technical aspects. The gained standard score of students’ conceptual understanding and students’ critical thinking skills for grade X who learned through student’s worksheet with a problem-solving approach, called treatment class, were higher than students who learned without student’s worksheet with a problem-solving approach, called control class.

Export Citation Format

Share document.

Fostering Critical Thinking Skills using the Socratic Method

Return to: ETAP 623 Spring 2020 (Zhang) | Jonah Schumacher

Overview and Purpose

The Socratic Method is an ancient form of instruction that requires few, if any, external resources and because of this, it has seen wide usage in all levels of education from elementary to law school.

The purpose of this course is to introduce educators (of all levels, backgrounds, and disciplines) to the Socratic Method, ultimately providing the understanding and know-how to be able to add the method to one's teaching toolkit.

The course will consist of 3 units taking the following format:

Unit 1: Provides an introduction to the Socratic Method with examples. Unit 2: Provides a more in-depth breakdown of the Method. Unit 3: Consists of information and exercises on how to make use of the Method no matter the discipline or level of the learners.

Needs Assessment

Critical thinking (CT) skills are integral for success in and out of school. Promoting higher-level thinking and CT is often a focus at all levels of education in every discipline (Karami et al. 2012). In addition to the benefits of academic success, CT skills are necessary to thrive in the current pluralist, information-saturated world. One must be able to work and engage with others, teach themselves new skills, and be able to make rational decisions as well as quickly determine the validity of arguments and information one finds on the internet. (Vieira et al. 2011).

CT is a buzzword in education and business (Nappi. 2017). Despite the significance placed on the term, there still seems to be room to improve in this area of education as identified by the quote,

• “One of the obstacles is the fact that teachers do not have a clear idea about critical thinking because the meaning ascribed to critical thinking in different contexts is rarely explicit.” (Vieira et al. 2011. P. 43).

If educators are uncertain about specific modes or qualities of CT then it would be difficult for them to pass these coveted skills on to students.

The purpose of this course is to introduce educators to one of the oldest, most versatile, and easily implemented ways to foster CT skills: the Socratic method.

What is to be Learned

Throughout the course, one will become familiar with the purpose and process of the Socratic method. Once one has an understanding of this method, suggestions of how one can implement the method in different settings will be discussed (such as f2f and asynchronous).

The Learners

Though this course will be targeting educators of all levels of academia (though K-12 educators may specifically draw more benefit). Anyone looking to gain a new perspective has the potential to gain from this course. The Socratic method can also be adapted and applied to every discipline.

Learner Analysis

Learners will likely mostly consist of K-12 educators who wish to foster CT skills in their classrooms. No prior knowledge of the Socratic method is necessary to benefit from the course, however should one wish to teach the method, prior educational experience would be advantageous.

Context for Instruction

This course will be delivered online making access to the internet necessary. A computer, laptop, or tablet would be best, as some resources may not translate well on mobile devices.

Preformance Objectives

Overall Course Objective: Those who complete the course will be able to make use of the Socratic Method in their own courses.

Objectives completed along the way to achieving the course objective:

1) Explain how the Socratic Method fosters critical thinking.

2) Evaluate whether a situation may be suited for implementing the Socratic Method.

3) Be able to distinguish the different elements of the Socratic Method.

Course Units

Unit 1: An Introduction to the Socratic Method

Unit 2: The Socratic Method: Step-by-Step

Unit 3: How can I use the Socratic Method in my classroom?

Curriculum Map

Map of the course units and objectives of each

• Dialogic teaching
• Thinking training
• Early learning
• Elementary grades
• Middle school
• High school
• Toggle limited content width

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Educ
• PMC10026783

Thinking more wisely: using the Socratic method to develop critical thinking skills amongst healthcare students

Yueh-ren ho.

1 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

2 School of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Bao-Yu Chen

3 Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Chien-Ming Li

4 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, Zhonghua Raod No.901, Yongkang District 710, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Associated Data

Due to conditions on participant consent and other ethical restrictions, the datasets used and analysed in the current study are not publicly available. If you have any database data requirements, please contact the corresponding author of this study.

In medicine, critical thinking is required for managing and tolerating medical uncertainty, as well as solving professional problems and treating diseases. However, the core of Confucianism, teacher-centered and exam-oriented settings in middle and high school education may pose challenges to developing critical thinking in Han Chinese or Taiwanese students. Students may be adversely affected by these pedagogies since student-centered settings were more effective in stimulating their critical and reflective thinking, as well as a sense of responsibility, in the ever-changing world. Therefore, guiding students with less stable foundations of critical thinking might require a different approach. A review article highlighted the potential utility of the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking in the healthcare field. The method involves posing a series of questions to students. More importantly, medical students and residents in clinical teaching are familiar with the method. Almost all healthcare students must complete a biochemistry laboratory course as part of their basic science training. Thus, we aimed to train students to develop critical thinking in the biochemistry laboratory course by using learning sheets and teacher guidance based on the Socratic method and questioning.

We recruited second-year students from a medical school, of whom 32 had medical science and biotechnology majors (MSB), 27 had pharmaceutical science majors (PS), and 85 were medical undergraduate (MU) students. An exercise in critical thinking was conducted during a biochemistry laboratory course, which consisted of five different biochemical experiments, along with learning sheets that contained three or four critical thinking questions. Then, the teacher evaluated the students’ ability to think critically based on nine intellectual dimensions (clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fairness, and significance) based on the universal intellectual standards developed by Prof. Linda Elder and Richard Paul. In the following analysis, regression models and multivariate analysis were used to determine how students improved over time, and trajectory analysis were carried out in order to observe the trends in students’ critical thinking skills construction.

Clarity and logic dimensions were identified as the key elements to facilitate the development of critical thinking skills through learning sheets and teacher guidance in students across all three different healthcare majors. The results showed that metacognitive monitoring via Socratic questioning learning sheets have demonstrated potential encourage students to develop critical thinking skills in all dimensions. Another unique contribution of current study was present the heterogeneous learning patterns and progress trajectories of clarity and logic dimensions within classes.

Using the Socratic learning model could effectively develop students’ critical thinking skills so they can more effectively care for their patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04134-2.

Introduction

Emerging trends in information technology requires that the new generation of medical students become critical thinkers [ 1 ]. The General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom encourages teachers to facilitate the acquisition of critical thinking skills by students in the medical and health professions [ 2 ]. Decades of research have proven that critical thinkers can present dispositions like flexibility, persistence, and willingness when faced with a range of tasks; they display meta-cognitive monitoring and a willingness to self-correct to seek long-term consensus[ 3 ]. Although, critical thinking is constructed from childhood in most Western countries and are valued by higher education as a necessary skill for coping with society [ 4 ]. However, critical thinking constructing and teaching has attracted little attention in Eastern education systems until recently [ 5 , 6 ].

Aside from the development of critical thinking skills is a key component of educational systems, recent educational philosophy also emphasizes both thinking processes as well as metacognitive integration skills [ 7 ]. Metacognitive monitoring includes making ease-of-learning judgments (i.e., processing fluency and beliefs), judgments of learning, feeling-of-knowing judgments (i.e., assessing the familiarity of the cue and the question itself or the domain of the question), and having confidence in the retrieved answers [ 8 , 9 ]. It is an adaptive skill of personal insight that health-profession students need to succeed in the rapidly changing and challenging healthcare industry [ 2 , 10 ]. Despite this, higher education curriculum does not emphasize on teaching these skills [ 7 ]. Additionally, any attempts to change the standards in higher education are generally met with resistance and challenges since they are require to encourage teachers to create new curriculum and change the current teaching content by researchers in current study who have more than 40 years’ teaching experience observaions. Healthcare curriculum, in general, remains conservative; Taiwan is not an exception.

Critical thinking is a fundamental component of innovative thinking and has thus become the fundamental skill for cultivating innovative talents in Western education [ 11 ]. Western scholars have asserted that teaching critical thinking should start at an early age and that its foundations should be laid in elementary and secondary schools. There are many ways to define critical thinking. A leading educational expert, Prof. Dewey, defined critical thinking as inclusive of reflective thinking and argued that the thinking process should also be taken as one of the objectives of education [ 12 ]. There are a few general dispositions that an ideal critical thinker would present according to Prof. Ennis’ observation of the constitutive abilities, such as (1) provide a clear statement of the conclusion or question; (2) provide clear reasons and be specific about their relationships with each other; (3) try to be well informed; (4) always seek and use credible sources, observations and mention them frequently; (5) consider the entire situation; (6) be mindful of the context’s primary concern; (7) be aware of alternative options; (8) be open-minded toward other points of view and refrain from making a judgment when there are insufficient evidence and reasons; (9) be willing to change your position when sufficient evidence and reasons support it; (10) seek as much precision as the nature of the subject admits; (11) whenever possible, seek the truth, and more broadly, strive to “get it right”; and (12) utilize their critical thinking abilities and dispositions [ 13 – 16 ]. In the eyes of Profs. Dewey and Ennis, critical thinking is a process of careful thought and reflection before a decision is made [ 17 ].

Nevertheless, the measurement or evaluation of critical thinking skills and abilities does not seem easy. Based on another perspective on critical thinking, intellectual standards are evolving [ 18 ]. According to Profs. Elder and Paul, critical thinking is the ability to use the most appropriate reasoning in any situation [ 18 ]. To evaluate these abilities, they established nine dimensions of critical thinking to represent different aspects of critical thinking: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, and fairness [ 18 ]. As Profs. Elder and Paul concluded, those who possess discipline and critical thinking skills would make use of intellectual standards every day; thus, people should target these standards when they ask questions during the thinking process [ 18 , 19 ]. As a result of teachers’ regular introduction of the tools of critical thinking in their classrooms, the Socratic questioning and discussions become more productive and disciplined, thereby enabling students to realize the significance of questioning during the learning process [ 20 – 22 ].

According to a review article, teaching critical thinking to healthcare students (primarily medical and pharmacy students) through Socratic methods is more effective in developing critical thinking for a number of reasons [ 23 ]. In particular, Socratic questioning provides students with the opportunity to justify their own preconceived beliefs and thoughts after a series of specific, targeted inquiries [ 24 ]. Using Socratic questioning can also assist healthcare students, interns, or residents in thinking critically by understanding the “deep structure” of the question, i.e., deconstructing the question and understanding its true meaning [ 23 ]. The effectiveness of Socratic questioning lies in ascertaining the current knowledge of the students [ 25 ] and establishing a foundation for teaching at their level [ 26 ]. The teacher can accomplish this probing by asking progressively more challenging questions until the limits of the students’ knowledge are discovered [ 25 , 27 , 28 ], as well as by allowing students to express their existing knowledge, which in turn will allow them to synthesize new knowledge [ 26 ], and the dialogue represents the Socratic method [ 29 ]. Alternatively, a critical thinker is more likely to engage in certain established metacognitive strategies under the Socratic paradigm and/or channel the intellectual dimensions of critical thinking [ 17 ].

Unfortunately, Han Chinese students have struggled with learning critical thinking, which is thought to be part of their characterological profile [ 30 ]. This struggle has been faced by students studying abroad [ 11 ] and in students enrolled in the Han Chinese education system, which mainly cultivates Confucianism [ 31 ]. There are at least two types of problems with developing critical thinking in Han Chinese or Taiwanese education. The first involves the core of Confucianism, where foreign teachers have tried to promote critical thinking in elementary and high schools but sensed ethical concerns from the students who refused to participate. This is likely because if they chose to participate, they would have felt obligated to express disagreement and negative feelings to the instructor. The Han Chinese culture values harmony and “not losing face,” emphasizing a holistic perspective and collective good. Thus, students would feel uncomfortable because disagreeing with someone’s opinion in public is consciously or often avoided [ 30 ]. Therefore, encouraging the student to participate in healthy discussions and respectfully challenge their teachers is the starting point for promoting critical thinking in students enrolled in the Han Chinese educational system.

Second, in the Western education approach, learners take an active role in and are responsible for their learning process. On the contrary, the Han Chinese and Taiwan education systems are teacher-centered and exam-oriented; students are expected to follow their teachers’ instructions and perform well in class. More importantly, the textbook or teacher-centered framework lacks half of Ennis’s twelve constitutive abilities for critical thinking [ 13 – 15 ], such as judging the credibility of a source, observing and judging observation reports, drawing explanatory conclusions (including hypotheses), making and judging value judgments, and attributing unstated assumptions. As a result, Han Chinese students may find it difficult to develop critical thinking skills and present key traits and dispositions that are indicative of an ideal critical thinker. Hence, guiding and evaluating critical thinking in students might not be implemented through the same approach in Eastern educational circumstances as in the West. By understanding the difficulties that Han Chinese students face in developing critical thinking, the current study aims to design a set of critical thinking models that are suitable for Han Chinese students as a starting point for reform teaching.

Research questions, hypotheses and objectives

Research has shown that the laboratory class is not just limited to a step-wise approach to experimentation. It also allows students to develop their critical thinking skills by repeatedly engaging a simple learning framework [ 32 ]. To explore this further, the current study’s primary purpose is to use Socratic questioning in a biochemistry laboratory course with specifically designed learning sheets and feedback from teacher to guide students to improve their critical thinking skills. The learning sheets were evaluated following the universal intellectual standards for critical thinking developed by Prof. Elder and Paul [ 19 , 33 ]. For this study, we hypothesized that students with different healthcare majors might present different improvement trajectories in their intellectual dimensions according to the years of teaching observations in the three healthcare majors. Based on the research and rationale described above, the intervention effect of Socratic questioning in a biochemistry laboratory course was hypothesized as follows (see Fig.  1 ):

Socratic method framework and structure of the research hypotheses behind the biochemistry laboratory course

• Pre-intervention critical thinking abilities are different amongst students of different healthcare majors, especially in each intellectual dimension (H1a). Post-intervention critical thinking abilities would develop in students from each healthcare major after using the Socratic method (H1b).
• Critical thinking abilities differs significantly between pre- and post-assessments of the intellectual dimensions of students with the three different healthcare majors (H2).
• After clarifying the relation of Socratic method interventions in the class, we aim to scrutinize the trajectories of students between majors further to understand the learning style in class (Aim 1). Furthermore, we also aim to identify the key intellectual dimensions that could lead to an overall improvement in the critical thinking of students in each major (Aim 2). Additionally, we observed improvement trajectories of specific intellectual dimensions within major (Aim 3).

Literature review

Critical thinking engagement in the eastern and western medical education.

Over the last decade, medical education has been undergoing a variety of approaches for effectiveness teaching and transformation [ 34 ]. Many paradigms of active teaching/learning methodologies have been adopted in both Eastern and Western medical education systems, some of which are used partially (actual or conceptual similar) Socratic questioning to challenge students’ critical thinking. In this regard, the primary philosophy of case-based learning (CBL) established in the 1920s by Harvard Medical School is to guide students to apply their acquired knowledge base via critical thinking to make clinical decisions to solve the problems that they may encounter in the healthcare environment [ 35 ]. A meta-analysis study of China’s dental education reported that the CBL was a practical pedagogical method across the Chinese dental education system [ 36 ]. The results showed that the CBL method significantly increased knowledge scores, skill scores, comprehensive ability scores, and teaching satisfaction compared with the traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) mode in 2,356 dental students. Hence, there is an urgent need to change the traditional didactic lecture or teacher-centered classroom setting in which students are passive listeners instead of active participants.

Healthcare professionals are also required to solve complex problems and efficiently integrate didactic preclinical knowledge into actual clinical application in patient care [ 35 ]. On the other hand, the design thinking process may enhance both creativity and innovation so that healthcare professionals can respond to clinical problems effectively [ 37 , 38 ]. Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach widely accepted in medical education. It promotes active learning and results in better outcomes [ 39 – 41 ]. PBL focuses on active lifelong learning by triggering problems, directing student focus, and facilitating tutor involvement [ 39 , 42 – 44 ]. However, it is noteworthy that some hybrid PBL models have become less effective over time, as well as less aligned with the intended philosophy of student-centered learning [ 45 ]. Another alternative blended learning approach of PBL is team-based learning (TBL), which allows medical educators to provide students with pre-class work, in-class initial tests with immediate feedback, and real clinical problem-solving activities [ 46 ]. In the year-one studies of the Sydney Medical Program, a greater level of engagement in learning, a deeper understanding of concepts, and a sense of responsibility were shown among the medical students working in a TBL setting than among those in a PBL setting [ 47 , 48 ].

Medical educators face another significant challenge with the millennial generation, which has ubiquitous information technology access throughout its education. Thus, it is extremely important to improve students’ motivation to learn through hands-on instruction or teacher–student interaction and then stimulate students’ thinking and learning. In recent years, gamification has been successfully integrated into medical and scientific endeavors, enhancing motivation, participation, and time commitment across a variety of settings [ 49 – 51 ]. Another healthcare curriculum reform to stimulate active learning is flipped classroom (FC), which assigns learners didactic material, creating opportunities of longitudinal and interprofessional learning experiences for students during class participation [ 52 ] to encourage extracurricular learning, such as critical thinking. As part of the FC model, medical educators also develop formative and diagnostic assessments to identify learning gaps. According to these teaching modules, encouraging students to participate, emphasizing their learning, and observing their development trajectory are the core ideas in recent educational designs [ 53 ].

Although most of above-mentioned studies have been performed in the Eastern and Western education systems, however, without mentioning the differences between cultures and learning styles. Most importantly, the cultivation and foundations of critical thinking neglect the fact that Eastern and Western education systems emerged from very different learning and thinking patterns. Moreover, clinical reasoning and decision achievements depend on established critical thinking skills, therefore, it becomes more important to construct critical thinking early and comprehensively [ 54 ]. While Han Chinese students are not familiar with the core of critical thinking, the most effective approach to teaching critical thinking is still a highly debated topic in medical schools. Taken Taiwan medical education as an example, most clinical courses focuses on professional skills, problem solving, and disease treatment rather than construct critical mindset and metacognitive skills. Education strategies often emphasize the outcome while neglecting the process. Nevertheless, medical educators should also emphasize the process of forming students’ critical thinking when instructing and guiding them in this regard. Consequently, using metacognitive monitoring to enhance critical thinking in healthcare education would be appropriate, especially for Han Chinese systems with a Confucianist outlook. Thus, critical thinking via metacognitive monitoring is important in healthcare education, especially in Han Chinese systems with a Confucianist background.

Proficiency in the art of socratic questioning to enhance students’ critical thinking

Socratic questioning is a disciplined method of engaging in content-driven discourse that can be applied for various purposes: analyzing concepts, finding out the truth, examining assumptions, uncovering assumptions, understanding concepts, distinguishing knowledge from ignorance, and following the logical implications of thought. The scholars who established the intellectual standards of critical thinking have consistently indicated that “The key to distinguishing it from other types of questioning is that the Socratic questioning is systemic, disciplined, and deep and usually focus on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems [ 20 – 22 ].” In short, the Socratic method is a questioning method that stimulates personal understanding. More importantly, the core principle of learning from the unknown fits best within healthcare environments.

Numerous studies have consistently urged teachers to develop Socratic dialogue in their classrooms, regardless of their learning stages and situations [ 55 – 57 ]. Using enhancement exercises in an elementary school, a study introduced a Socratic questioning strategy to provide guidance and hints to students so that they could think more deeply about an issue or problem before sharing their thoughts [ 55 ]. The lecturer of a speech course in higher education demonstrated how Socratic questioning could help students learn when confronted with a series of questions [ 56 ]. The process improves students’ ability to ask and answer questions and helps them overcome some obstacles related to their lack of self-confidence. In the book Socratic circles: Fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and high school , Dr. Matt Copeland stated that, in middle and high schools, teachers must facilitate discussions by asking questions [ 58 ]. Furthermore, this method could be applied not only to elementary school, middle school, high school but also to higher education classes [ 59 ]. During the Covid-19 pandemic, synchronous discussions in online learning demonstrated that the Socratic questioning strategy successfully improves students’ critical thinking skills [ 57 ].

The incorporation of Socratic questioning in healthcare education curriculum is under development, including for general medical education [ 60 ], medical [ 61 ], pharmacy [ 54 , 62 ], and nursing students [ 63 ]. A review article of revisiting the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking in healthcare professions revels few advantages of Socratic questioning [ 23 ]. Three type of Socratic questions were mention and could commonly used in different clinical situations [ 23 ], such as procedure question would use in those with correct answers (e.g., Which of the following medications has antithrombotic function? ); preference question can apply in those with no correct answers (e.g., What type of consultation is most suitable for this patient? ); judgment question would be the most challenge critical thinking within a Socratic paradigm by integrating different domain knowledge and skills (e.g., Does this patient require antibiotic treatment? ). It is necessary to apply and analyze information in a logical manner as well as self-regulate and use critical thinking in order to achieve the best outcome for patients. For medical doctors, pharmacists or clinical laboratory technicians to provide high quality health care across all disciplines, critical thinking is inherently required.

In medical school, the emphasis is laid on training learners in meta-capabilities, such as self-driven pattern recognition, ideally as part of an apprenticeship under the supervision of an expert diagnostician [ 61 ]. An in-depth study of the current trends in developing critical thinking amongst medical students demonstrated the use of dialogue for proper questioning and how it directs the learner’s thinking [ 64 ]. Moreover, another study confirmed that critical thinking occurs only when students are motivated and challenged to engage in higher-level thought processes [ 65 ]. In the pharmacy classroom, educators can play a significant role in influencing their students’ mindsets.  Growth mindsets can be cultivated through the creation of an environment that encourages it. [ 62 ]. The Socratic questioning method can facilitate critical thinking in nursing education. One study showed that problem solving using critical thinking skills can be facilitated in both educational and practice settings by using Socratic inquiry [ 63 ].

The Socratic method has been adapted in different ways to different domains, but it has become closely associated with many areas, such as basic scientific thinking training, legal dialectical guidance, and clinical teaching. Some adaptations are helpful, some are not. The adaptations can be looked at through reasoning-focused lenses with varying degrees of magnification —a high-magnification adaptation rigorously and precisely tracks or guides the path of reasoning. Thus, how to use the Socratic method to direct students onto the path of critical thinking with appropriate guidance, but not revealing answers becomes an art that tests instructors’ teaching experience and proficiency in questioning.

Critical thinking and reflection exercises in the laboratory course

Medical schools have increasingly encouraged students to become life-long, self-directed learners because of the continual changes in the evidence-based healthcare environment. Science is often applied in everyday life, including translating knowledge from scholarly fields [ 66 ]. However, there is a vast gap between what is taught in medical schools and what is actually required in practice has increasingly widened in this information era. The majority of healthcare professionals are not considered to be real scientists. [ 2 ]. Nevertheless, they need to know how to apply scientific knowledge to their practice. Therefore, a science curriculum in medical school, such as a biochemistry laboratory course, should provide an opportunity to learn scientific methods and conceptual frameworks. It should also promote critical reasoning, providing healthcare students with problem-solving skills.

Medical educators need to accept that critical thinking is important for healthcare students and know how to teach it effectively [ 67 ]. Medical educators are now faced with a dilemma: should they develop a new course or adapt old course to develop critical thinking skills?  An effective learning model should promote and stimulate students’ development of such skills [ 67 ]. One of the most common compulsory courses for healthcare students is the biochemistry laboratory course [ 68 , 69 ]. These courses are specifically designed to introduce students to prescribed experiments, requiring them to complete stepwise protocols by themselves [ 68 , 70 ]. The students are expected to understand the concepts behind the methods, procedures, and assays. However, this type of curriculum construction often fails to provide students with adequate opportunities to monitor their critical thinking and thus reduces the chances of developing problem-solving skills [ 70 ]. In order to provide students with more opportunities to think critically, previous studies have also adapted laboratory, basic science, and science fusion courses to help students develop critical thinking skills [ 67 , 68 , 71 – 73 ].

Several studies have demonstrated that students need critical thinking skills to interpret data and formulate arguments. Thus, science education, particularly in the laboratory setting, is designed to teach quantitative critical thinking (i.e. interpretation and critical evaluation of statistical reports), but the evidence has suggested that this is seldom, if ever, achieved [ 74 – 79 ]. By providing multiple opportunities for students to participate in critical thinking in the physics laboratory classes at Stanford University, scholars engaged the students to improve the experiment and modify the model repeatedly [ 32 ]. Additionally, a simple learning framework using decision-making cycles and demonstrating experts’ critical thinking significantly improved students’ critical thinking. We thus argue that students should engage in critical thinking exercises with repeated comparisons, decisions, and teacher guidance that are meant to construct their critical thinking in each of their disciplines.

Participants

This research was conducted during the 2017–2018 academic year. The participants were second-year students in the College of Medicine at the National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) of Taiwan. A total of 144 students participated in this study, of whom 32 had medical science and biotechnology majors (hereafter, MSB), 27 had pharmaceutical science majors (hereafter, PS), and 85 were medical undergraduate (hereafter, MU) students. The biochemistry laboratory course was compulsory for these three majors.

For each biochemistry laboratory class, the teacher assembled five to six groups of four to five students each. The course contained five different biochemical experiments: (1) Plasmid DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) extraction and purification; (2) restriction enzyme digestion and electrophoresis of plasmid DNA; (3) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of plasmid DNA; (4) recombinant protein expression in Escherichia coli ; and (5) quantification of recombinant protein. The experimental learning sheets included three or four critical thinking questions (Table S1 ), encouraging students to explore experimental principles and alternative explanations further. To facilitate discussion, students were organized into small groups of four to five students seated around a single table, discussing and answering the questions. At this time, the students would pen down their first answers to the critical thinking questions, and the teacher would grade them based on the universal intellectual standards (learning sheets, first evaluation).

Furthermore, according to the students’ answers, the teacher offered a response by asking more questions according to the Socratic method to encourage students to think deeper rather than provide the correct answers. At the following week’s class, the teacher returned the learning sheet and supervised the ongoing activity, clarifying any questions raised by students and encouraging them to re-discuss and re-answer the critical thinking questions according to the teacher’s suggestions. The objective was to create a highly interactive environment to engage students in learning the relevant principles of each laboratory, including troubleshooting experiments and formulating critical concepts and skills. After the discussion, the teacher reexamined the students’ responses and assessed them based on the universal intellectual standards for subsequent grading (learning sheets, second evaluation).

The biochemistry laboratory courses and the Socratic method in current study are performed and taught by a senior biochemistry teacher (PhD in Institute of Basic Medical Science, NCKU) who has 40 years teaching experience. The teacher has long focused on teaching critical thinking skills to students, and also offers four senior clinical case related courses by practicing the Socratic method, such as clinical concept, critical thinking in medicine, clinical reasoning and special topics in clinical reasoning with more than 20 years of experience. Therefore, in the course, teacher will often ask a series of questions for students to think about the relevance of biochemical science and clinical practice.

Assessment development

The research team designed the learning sheets to guide discussion on the key issues concerning five biochemical experiments. The learning sheets were assessed according to the universal intellectual standards for critical thinking [ 33 ]. However, the assessment was adapted to include nine intellectual dimensions to assess student reasoning [ 19 , 33 ]: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fairness, and significance (Table S2 ). Each dimension was evaluated using a binary score (0 = does not present the skill; 1 = presents the skill) for each question in the learning sheets for both the first and second evaluations. The students received the teacher’s guidance following the first evaluation, providing them with the opportunity to reconsider their reasoning and revise their answers. Our goal was to improve our students’ learning by stimulating the teaching process; at the same time, we were committed to allowing students to speak freely so that we could more effectively facilitate prospective discussions. Thus, the critical thinking scoring system based on nine intellectual dimensions was only for the purpose of the research, without consequences on students’ study progress. In this regard, students were not able to know their intellectual scores. As a result, their course grades were not determined by the learning sheets; rather, they were determined by the general operation, experiment report, and the learning attitude demonstrated during the experiments.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics and variable tests.

We calculated the differences between the performance means for the first and second evaluations using paired t -tests. The mean differences between the students from the three majors were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). For the improvement slope for each universal intellectual dimension, we used the second evaluation scores of each experiment as the point with which to construct a quadratic equation curve in one variable (dimension) and then access the slope to represent the students’ improvement. The higher the slope score, the greater the students’ progress on that dimension.

Multivariate analysis

We used traditional analytical methods to observe and analyze the students’ improvement in the five experiments. Data from the second evaluation scores of each experiment served as the multi-time point measurement data. The Cox regression model for multivariate analysis was used to investigate the effect of several variables upon the time during which a specified outcome happened [ 80 ]. For each dimension, the model’s outcome determined that a student’s improvement slope was defined as minor progress if it was lower than the improvement slopes of their peers in the same major overall. However, if the student’s improvement slope was higher than the overall progress intercept of their peers, then it was defined as greater progress. The Cox regression models’ outcomes for each dimension were divided into two groups: minor and more progress. For this model’s outcome, (1) we calculated all dimensions’ slopes mean from each major (MSB: 0.369; PS: 0.405; MU: 0.401); (2) then compared the mean slope of the individual students with the mean slope of major; (3) if the student’s individual improvement slope was lower than mean slope of major, then defined as minor progress; if the student’s individual improvement slope was higher than mean slope of major, then defined as greater progress. From the analysis at this point, we understood that teacher could help students from different majors develop the different dimensions of critical thinking with the use of Socratic methods and simple repeated thinking framework practice. Additionally, we wanted to represent the improvement of intellectual dimensions between the students of different majors and their heterogeneity in critical thinking.

Dimension identification and comparison

To understand which intellectual dimensions were most representative of student improvement across majors, the analysis was divided into three sections: (1) to identify the progress percentage of all nine intellectual dimensions; (2) to identify the progress percentage of statistically significant intellectual dimensions; (3) to compare the differences among all nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions. This analysis offered a better understanding of what dimensions represented the overall improvement of students’ critical thinking. Our first step was to calculate the percentage of improvement for each experiment by determining the results of the first and second evaluations for each intellectual dimension. Second, we took average percentage of improvements for each dimension. Finally, we used Student’s t -test to compare the differences among the average of all nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions.

Trajectory analysis

In this study, we also hypothesized that each student’s learning and progress trajectories were heterogeneous across different majors. Depending on the major, there may also be differences between students in the same class. To focus our observations on the students’ use of the clarity and logic dimensions, we used a trajectory-tracking analysis [ 81 , 82 ] and categorized the students into two groups based on the participants’ improvement levels within the same major.

Descriptive data

We recruited 144 second-year students from three majors in the College of Medicine, among which 32 were MSB, 27 were PS, and 85 were MU students. All participants’ first and second evaluations were compared in all five biochemistry experiments. The statistically significant between-group differences in the mean initial evaluation results for each dimension are presented in Table  1 .

Description of the participants and their performance in the evaluations of their learning sheets (N = 144)

† Students were divided into groups of 4–5 participants to complete the exercises. However, the learning sheets scores were filed individually. # The difference between groups in their performance in the second evaluation was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

‡ The subscales in the learning sheets are scored on a scale of 1–4 for each dimension.

* The difference in performance between the first and second evaluations was compared using paired t -tests, p  < 0.05.

a Medical laboratory science and biotechnology vs. pharmaceutical students, p  < 0.05.

b Pharmaceutical vs. undergraduate medical students, p  < 0.05.

c Medical laboratory science and biotechnology vs. undergraduate medical students, p  < 0.05.

Overall improvement from the initial to second evaluations throughout the five experiments (H1, H2, and Aim 1)

Table  1 presents the mean results of the first and second evaluations; the five experiments exhibited statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05) across all study groups and dimensions. More detailed analyses revealed significant differences in performance in the second evaluation between the groups after all five biochemistry experiments in the clarity ( p  = 0.0019), depth ( p  = 0.0097), breadth ( p  < 0.0001), logic ( p  = 0.0371), and significance ( p  = 0.0037) dimensions. However, for some of the dimensions (clarity, accuracy, precision, logic, and fairness), the initial evaluation results differ significantly between the MU and the MSB students, but this was not the case for the secondary evaluation results. The MSB students exhibited the best progress (2nd mean score minus 1st mean score) in the clarity dimension across all experiments. The PS students exhibited the best performance in the logic dimension ( p  < 0.05) in the second evaluation after the five experiments.

The results of the MSB students improved steeply in most dimensions in the five experiments, especially depth (slope: 0.472), logic (0.455), and clarity (0.410) (Table  2 ). Time had a stronger effect on several of the dimensions in the multivariate analysis, specifically clarity ( p  = 0.0012), relevance ( p  = 0.0007), and logic ( p  < 0.0001). By contrast, the PS students showed a significant overall improvement in the clarity (slope: 0.212, p  < 0.0001), accuracy (0.539, p  = 0.0063), precision (0.381, p  = 0.0085), relevance (0.216, p  < 0.0001), breadth (0.426, p  = 0.0045), and logic (0.515, p  = 0.0027) dimensions over the observation period (Table  3 ). Finally, the MU students showed a significant overall improvement in six dimensions: clarity (slope: 0.277, p  < 0.0001), accuracy (0.520, p  = 0.0003), depth (0.459, p  = 0.0092), breadth (0.356, p  = 0.0100), logic (0.544, p  = 0.0190), and significance (0.327, p  = 0.0225) (Table  4 ).

Medical laboratory science and biotechnology students’ overall improvement throughout the five experiments (N = 32)

* p  < 0.05, paired t -tests comparing the evaluations for the first and second learning sheets.

† Slopes are rates of improvement calculated using the fifth learning sheet and the second evaluation scores for the final assessment of improvement. The second evaluation scores for all the other learning sheets were used as linear function factors to plot a quadratic function for each dimension.

Pharmaceutical students’ overall improvement throughout the five experiments (N = 27)

Undergraduate medical students’ overall improvement throughout the five experiments (N = 85)

Trajectory tracking of the overall, significant, and reciprocal dimensions (Aim 2 and Aim 3)

Figure  2 a illustrates the overall improvement of students across the three majors in all nine dimensions, as assessed via trajectory analysis. The trajectory-tracking algorithm revealed that the significant dimensions for each group were as follows: MSB students—clarity, relevance, and logic; PS students—clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, breadth, and logic; and MU students—clarity, accuracy, depth, breadth, logic, and significance (Tables  2 , ​ ,3 3 and ​ and4; 4 ; Fig.  2 b). The comparison of each group’s average percentage of improvement between the nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions (clarity and logic) is summarized in Fig.  2 c. Figure  2 d–i depicts the students’ improvement in clarity and logic within the different majors using group-based trajectory modeling.

Overall improvement comparison between the students of three majors using a trajectory-tracking analysis approach . ( a ) The mean evaluation scores from the second evaluation minus those from the first evaluation for the nine dimensions were considered an improvement. They were converted to percentages to compare them to the performance in the first evaluation. ( b ) The mean evaluation scores from the second evaluation minus those from the first evaluation for the significant dimensions (within the students of each major, Tables  2 – 4 ) were considered to represent improvement and were converted to percentages to compare them to the performance in the first evaluation. ( c ) Comparison of the average percentage improvement among all nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions (i.e., clarity and logic). ( d ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of medical laboratory science and biotechnology students in the clarity dimension. ( e ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of pharmaceutical students in the clarity dimension. ( f ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of undergraduate medical students in the clarity dimension. ( g ) Trajectory analysis to identify the progress of the two subgroups of medical laboratory science and biotechnology students in the logic dimension. ( h ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of pharmaceutical students in the logic dimension. ( i ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of undergraduate medical students in the logic dimension

Empirical contributions

The Han Chinese educational system relies on the passive transmission of knowledge, as evidenced by the years of preparation by students’ through paper-based exams. By adopting this approach during teaching and learning, students do not develop a critical thinking mindset. Our experience has shown that when we encounter first-year students who have just graduated from high school, their previous education failed to develop critical thinking skills. Many foreign and Western teachers have the same experience when they encounter Asian students studying abroad for the first time. Thus, this research aims to provide clinical teachers with guidance on reducing the blind spots that students face when introduced to critical thinking. Moreover, this research aims to provide teachers with a simple teaching model and structure to guide students with less stable foundations in critical thinking. For the teaching structure and process, please refer to the procedure paragraph in the methods section and the teaching flow chart in Fig.  1 . Furthermore, the scoring system shown in the assessment development paragraph in the methods, as well as the scoring rubric is presented in Table S1 .

To our knowledge, this is the first study that uses the Socratic method and the universal intellectual standards to assess and improve critical thinking skills in biochemistry laboratory courses across different healthcare majors. We also used a novel design for teaching critical thinking, with multi-timepoint assessments and trajectory-tracking analysis to observe the students’ process and the improvement intheir critical thinking. This Socratic method, combined with critical thinking-based learning sheets, significantly improved the students’ critical thinking in all nine dimensions of the universal intellectual standards, according to the first and second evaluations conducted in each of the five sessions. Another unique contribution of this study is that it analyzed the progression results at multiple time points in the critical thinking performance of students across different majors. According to the results of comparing the average percentage improvement between all nine dimensions, the significant and reciprocal dimensions (i.e., clarity and logic) do not significantly differ from each other statistically speaking. By reducing the nine intellectual dimensions scoring system, medical educators can focus more on establishing clarity and logic skills in students. In sum, our most important finding was the identification of the clarity and logic dimensions as key elements that facilitate the development of critical thinking skills via the Socratic method in students across three different healthcare majors.

The trajectories of outcomes for students of medical science and biotechnology majors

Understanding what we learn has been identified as the starting point in the professional-development journey [ 2 ]. In principle, if thinking and decision making can be taught, educational intervention is possible. Nevertheless, for a science class like biochemistry, abductive reasoning requires a deep understanding of knowledge, and thinking must be inspired through stimulation.

In this study, the evaluation scores for MSB students did not improve significantly in almost any dimension at the beginning of the course. At first, most students felt uncomfortable with criticizing others, disagreeing with others, or challenging teacher’s knowledge and authority when they spoke their minds. Other MSB students believed that their ability to find answers and make decisions was inadequate and expected the teacher to provide the correct answers. However, preclinical medical technologists must gradually develop their critical thinking skills. Thus, the teacher provided critical thinking cues during the class and monitored the group discussions.

On the other hand, teachers must encourage these types of students, enabling them to accomplish simpler learning goals by providing them with easier-to-attempt clues. The joy of discovering answers on their own rather than the frustration of not achieving high goals should be encouraged. This coaching process improved the MSB students’ willingness to think and explore, leading to greater relevance and breadth of coverage.

The teacher used generation, conceptualization, optimization, and implementation [ 33 ] with the Socratic method to stimulate critical thinking in a four-step cycle in the five experiments. When the spontaneous discussion started in the generation phase, they tried to clarify their knowledge of the theme and identify the problem from the learning sheet. The following step was to conceptualize the problem, and the students drafted all of the possibilities and problems. Teacher frequently asked the students, ‘ What are other possible reasons? ’ Finally, the teacher provided feedback to help the MSB students reach a proper solution and implement it. The teacher would also ask the students leading questions like ‘ What relevant theories can be confirmed more precisely? ’ These guiding processes sharpened their logic and helped them better understand what they had learned. In sum, the benefits of this process included an enhanced ability to think logically, clarification of questions and knowledge gaps, and improvements in the thought process about the theme discussed.

The steady improvement of critical thinking in the students of pharmaceutical science

Currently, pharmacists are seeing their roles and responsibilities shift to becoming patient counselors and educators on the rational use of medicine. Pharmacists are trained to focus on patient-centered care and resolve current and potential drug-related problems [ 83 , 84 ]. Critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and decision-making skills are needed to solve these problems. Nowadays, pharmacists are not just responsible for carrying out doctor’s orders, while there are always alternative treatment options available for them to recommend. Teacher therefore repeatedly emphasized the link between critical thinking and pharmacist practice and encouraged students to ask questions and find out the best alternative through Socratic method in the classroom.

During class, the PS students were required to exert considerable mental effort to conduct an inquiry to solve the learning sheet questions. Instead of providing students with clues or information to help them solve the problems, the teacher guided the PS students on how to seek the information they needed for themselves. The question for the PS students was be ‘ What are the possibly executable strategies? ’ The teacher also joined the students in discussion, using the Socratic method to stimulate critical thinking and draw out ideas and underlying suppositions. In high-quality cooperative argumentative dialogue, teacher should not direct or refer learning, nor should they ask students for the correct answers as in a traditional classroom. The hints that teacher would provide were more like ‘ The narrative explanation can be more precise. ’ Thus, asking high-quality questions and providing feedback also challenges the instructors’ teaching experience.

The PS students were guided not only toward the development of critical thinking skills but also toward solving problems using evidence-based knowledge and decision-making skills. The Socratic method process meets the student where they are on the educational spectrum and encourages and helps them advance. Using this method, the PS students engaged in student-to-student interaction to build knowledge as a group and individually. The course of five experiments conducted via the learning sheets improved many aspects of the students’ critical thinking, including their clarity, relevance, breadth, and logic. In sum, the abilities that they developed in the course should help them focus more on the possible outcomes of pharmacotherapy, medication surveillance, and proper communication and therefore improve the quality of their professional future.

The advanced construction of critical thinking skills in undergraduate medical students

In medical education, “ better thinking and learning skills grounded in understanding ” are recommended for future doctors [ 2 ]. Practicing medicine requires an ability to address current and future diseases using new diagnostic and therapeutic methods [ 10 ]. Therefore, problem solving is not the only core medical skill; the ability to deal with complex, insoluble health issues is also required [ 83 ]. In this domain, critical thinking skills have proven essential in tackling difficult, complex, interdisciplinary health problems [ 10 ].

In our study, the MU students began with high-performance scores in almost all dimensions. As a result, teachers needed to create a more challenging and thought-provoking learning environment to encourage them to think more broadly and deeply. Thus, the teacher would give students advice like ‘ Searching for more relevant information can increase the breadth of knowledge ’ and ‘ If the result is true, what is the relevant theory? ’ Most MU students were faster than other majors at defining and constructing critical thinking. However, another phenomenon often observed in the classroom was that the MU students were more reluctant to express their reasoning than the students of other majors. In other words, MU students were afraid to speak openly about their reasoning and thinking, probably due to the excessive pursuit of the correct answer. In sum, the course of five experiments conducted via the learning sheets enhanced abilities of clarity, accuracy, depth, breadth, logic, and significance in MU students.

Apart from providing structure for their critical thinking, as was done with the other preclinical students, the teacher guided the MU students to use advanced critical thinking skills by regularly analyze their thinking processes, reflecting on the decision-making and thinking process [ 84 ]. Researchers have suggested that reflective practice is key to successful medical professionalism [ 85 ] and humanism [ 86 , 87 ]; but more importantly, it may help medical professionals develop better physician–patient relationships [ 88 ]. Therefore, to advance the critical thinking experience of the MU students, teacher should encourage them to gather ideas, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information. The teacher guided them to reflect on their plan and solve the questions on the learning sheets using their thoughts and words. These reflective practices could involve various biases in the thinking process and outcome, such as the base-rate fallacy, bias blind spot, or choice-supportive bias. The Socratic debate is a common way to model a complex thinking situation and may help teachers inspire students to become critical thinkers. MU students improved their abilities in the clarity, accuracy, depth, breadth, logic, and significance dimensions in the five experiments. This kind of training in thinking should help preclinical students constantly challenge and critically appraise evidence within their context, as well as their patients’ and their own belief and value systems.

Limitations

This study provides a model for developing a specific learning environment like a biochemistry laboratory class into one that will help students develop their critical thinking skills through inquiry. Our results have shown this method to be feasible and effective. However, there were a few limitations to this study. First, although it included students from three different majors, there was no interdisciplinary collaboration that would have simulated collaborations and communication among other healthcare professionals from different fields, as occurs in clinical practice. Introducing such collaboration may have produced more exciting and comprehensive ideas for solving the problems. Training in these professions is specialized to a considerable extent, so inter-professional collaboration should improve therapeutic outcomes and optimize patient care. Second, the original scoring system was time-consuming. However, one of our study objectives was to modify and reduce the nine intellectual dimensions scoring system into the clarity and logic dimensions. Based on the analysis in the current study, the clarity and logic dimensions were sufficient for monitoring the growth of students’ critical thinking.

The present curriculum innovation aimed to teach critical thinking skills to preclinical students in various medical majors using a Socratic questioning learning model instead of a cookbook approach to learning in laboratory courses. The development of problem-solving and critical thinking skills, in addition to process-related skills, in biochemistry laboratory courses supplements traditional curriculum in a helpful way. The curriculum innovation that we described and proposed may represent an incremental step forward for the discipline; it is a novel educational approach for promoting critical thinking skills, fostering an appreciation of the affective domain, and enabling reflective practice by using small-group processing skill instruction and one-on-one Socratic questioning. The current study results are based on training critical thinking skills that should enable students to engage in the “reflection-on-action” process, which might provide an additional bridge between basic medical knowledge and clinical practice. More importantly, reconstructive mental reviews may indirectly shape preclinical students’ future actions in the challenging healthcare industry characterized by uncertainty and novel circumstances.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Chi-Her Lin, MD for their encouragement and support in the writing of this manuscript, and Prof. Woei-Jer Chuang, Hung-Chi Cheng, Chang-Shi Chen, Po-Hsin J. Huang, Chien-hung Yu, and Wen-Tsan Chang for their help with the experimental design. Special thanks to Tanvi Gupta for her help with the improving reading fluency.

Authors’ contributions

Yueh-Ren Ho: substantially contributed to the conception, data curation, interpretation, drafting and critical revision of the paper. She has given final approval to the manuscript and agrees to be accountable for the work. Bao-Yu Chen: substantially contributed to the conception, formal analysis, methodology, visualization, and writing and editing the manuscript. Chien-Ming Li: substantially contributed to the conception, data curation, review and editing the manuscript.

This work was supported by the Teaching Practice Research Program, Ministry of Education, Taiwan (Grant No: PMN1110350, PMN1100853, PMN1090364, PMN108075, PMN107018).

Data Availability

Declarations.

Students participating in this course will be informed before the class begins that their results will be used for educational academic research, and their written informed consent were obtained. The methodology of the study including the content analysis of literature on data curation activities were approved and funded by Teaching Practice Research Program, Ministry of Education, Taiwan. Throughout the study, all methods followed the approved methodology and adhered to the relevant guidelines and regulations. According to Human Subjects Research Act, Chap. 2, article 5: The Ministry of Education review current study nature and announced the principal investigator shall not submit the research protocol for review and approval by the Institutional Review Board. Please refer to the source of law in the website of Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan) ( https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0020176 ).

Not applicable.

The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• What was education like in ancient Athens?
• How does social class affect education attainment?
• When did education become compulsory?
• What are alternative forms of education?
• Do school vouchers offer students access to better education?

Socratic method

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - The fact of ignorance, Revisiting the Socratic Method as a tool for teaching critical thinking
• Classical Liberal Arts Academy - What is the Socratic Method?
• CORE - The Socratic Method Reloaded: How to make work in Large Classes?

Socratic method , a form of logical argumentation originated by the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (c. 470–399 bce ). Although the term is now generally used as a name for any educational strategy that involves the cross-examination of students by their teacher, the method used by Socrates in the conversations re-created by his student Plato (428/427–348/347 bce ) follows a more specific pattern: Socrates describes himself not as a teacher but as an ignorant inquirer, and the series of questions he asks are designed to show that the principal question he raises (for example, “What is piety?”) is one to which his interlocutor has no adequate answer. Typically, the interlocutor is led, by a series of supplementary questions, to see that he must withdraw the answer he at first gave to Socrates’ principal question, because that answer falls afoul of the other answers he has given. The method employed by Socrates, in other words, is a strategy for showing that the interlocutor’s several answers do not fit together as a group, thus revealing to the interlocutor his own poor grasp of the concepts under discussion.

In Plato’s Socratic dialogue Euthyphro , for example, the character after whom the dialogue is named, having been asked what piety is, replies that it is whatever is “dear to the gods.” Socrates continues to probe, and the ensuing give-and-take can be summarized as follows:

• Socrates : Are piety and impiety opposites?
• Euthyphro : Yes.
• Socrates : Are the gods in disagreement with each other about what is good, what is just, and so on?
• Socrates : So the very same actions are loved by some gods and hated by others?
• Socrates : So those same actions are both pious and impious?

The interlocutor, having been refuted by means of premises he himself has agreed to, is free to propose a new answer to Socrates’ principal question, or another conversational partner, who has been listening to the preceding dialogue, is allowed to take his place. But although the new answers proposed to Socrates’ principal question avoid the errors revealed in the preceding cross-examination, fresh difficulties are uncovered, and, in the end, the “ignorance” of Socrates is revealed as a kind of wisdom, whereas the interlocutors are implicitly criticized for failing to realize their own ignorance.

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that, because Socrates professes ignorance about certain questions, he suspends judgment about all matters whatsoever. On the contrary, he has some ethical convictions about which he is completely confident. As he tells his judges in his defense speech during his trial for impiety and corrupting the young (as rendered in Plato’s dialogue Apology ): human wisdom begins with the recognition of one’s own ignorance; the unexamined life is not worth living; ethical virtue is the only thing that matters; and truly good human beings cannot be harmed (because no matter what misfortune they may suffer—including poverty, physical injury, and even death—their virtue will remain intact). But Socrates is painfully aware that his insights into these matters leave many of the most important ethical questions unanswered. It is left to his student Plato, using the Socratic method as a starting point and ranging over subjects that Socrates neglected, to offer positive answers to these questions.

Critical thinking: A Socratic model

• Published: September 1993
• Volume 7 , pages 291–311, ( 1993 )

Cite this article

• John Hoaglund 1  

603 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

A concept of critical thinking is developed based on the Socratic method and called accordingly a Socratic model. First the features of critical thinking stressed in this model are stated and illustrated. The Socratic method is presented and interpreted, then taken to yield a model of critical thinking. The process of internalization by which the Socratic model helps us to become critical thinkers is described. Argument analysis is considered as a widely used instructional strategy adaptable for teaching critical thinking on the Socratic model. This Socratic model is advanced as one helpful way of organizing our ideas about critical thinking, helpful in unifying disparate factors and anchoring them in the humanist tradition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Disciplined Approach to Critical Thinking

Critical thinking: a streamlined conception, debate’s relationship to critical thinking.

Barry, Vincent: 1984, Invitation to Critical Thinking , Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York.

Google Scholar  

Beyer, Barry: 1985, ‘Critical Thinking: What Is It?’ Social Education 49 (4), 270–276.

Copi, Irving: 1986, Introduction to Logic , 7th ed., Macmillan, New York.

Dewey, John, and J.H. Tufts: 1932, Ethics , rev. ed., Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.

Eemeren, Frans van, Rob Grootendorst, and Tjark Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory , Foris, Dordrecht.

Eemeren, Frans van: (1987a), ‘For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse’, Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline , ed. by van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, Foris, Dordrecht.

Ennis, Robert H.: 1986, ‘A Conception of Critical Thinking - With Some Curriculum Suggestions’, Conference 85 on Critical Thinking , ed. by J. Hoaglund, Christopher Newport College, Newport News, pp. 13–40.

Ennis, Robert H. & Eric Weir: 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test , Midwest, Pacific Grove.

Facione, Peter A.: 1990, Critical Thinking . A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction, California State University, Fullerton.

Govier, Trudy: 1989, ‘Critical Thinking as Argument Analysis’, Argumentation 3 , 115–126.

Guthrie, W.K.C.: 1971, Socrates , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hatcher, Donald L.: 1991, ‘Critical Thinking, Creativity, and Socratic Questioning’, CT News 10 (1), 4–6.

Johnson, Ralph H. & J. Anthony Blair, Logical Self-Defense , 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.

Kahane, Howard: 1992, Logic & Contemporary Rhetoric , 6th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont.

Kirk, G.S., J.E. Raven, and M. Schofield: 1983, The Presocratic Philosophers , 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Mead, G.H.: 1962, Mind, Self, and Society , ed. by Charles Morris, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 164–173.

Meiland, Jack: 1981, College Thinking , New American Library, New York.

Mill, John Stuart: 1962, On Liberty , in Utilitarianism , ed. by Mary Warnock, Collins: Fontana Library, London.

Nietzsche, Friedrich: 1968, Twilight of the Idols , excerpts translated and edited by Walter Kaufman in The Portable Nietzsche , Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp. 463–563.

Norris, Stephen P. & Robert H. Ennis: 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking , Midwest, Pacific Grove.

Paul, Richard: 1985, ‘The Critical Thinking Movement: A Historical Perspective’, National Forum 65 , 2f., 32.

Paul, Richard: 1990, ‘Socratic Questioning’, Critical Thinking . What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, pp. 1–6.

Perelman, C. & L. Olbrecht-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric , translated by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame.

Plato: 1961, Collected Dialogues , ed. by Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns, Princeton University Press: Bollingen Series LXXI, Princeton.

Plato: 1951, Symposium , translated by Walter Hamilton, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Rescher, Nicholas: 1977, Dialectics , State University of New York Press, Albany.

Robinson, Richard: 1971, ‘Elenchus’, in Vlastos (1971), pp. 78–93.

Rogers, Carl: 1964, ‘Toward a Modern Approach to Values’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68 , 160–167.

Stone, I.F.: 1988, The Trial of Socrates , Little, Brown, Boston.

Toulmin, Stephen: 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vlastos, Gregory: 1971, ed., Philosophy of Socrates , Anchor, Garden City.

Vlastos, Gregory: 1971a, ‘The Paradox of Socrates’, in Vlastos (1971), pp. 1–21.

Vlastos, Gregory: 1991, Socrates. Ironist and Moral Philosopher , Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Walton, Douglas N.: 1984, Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies , University Press of America, Lanham.

Zeller, E.: 1962, Socrates and the Socratic Schools , 3rd ed., translated by O.J. Reichel, Russell & Russell, New York.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Critical Thinking, Christopher Newport University, 23606, Newport News, Virginia, USA

John Hoaglund

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the October 1988 Conference on Critical Thinking at Montclair State College. Matthew Lipman, William Murnion, and several others made valuable comments. John Anton also provided helpful comments on a subsequent draft. Generous grants from the Funds for Excellence of the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia and Christopher Newport College enabled me to complete this research clarifying the concept of critical thinking for the project Faculty and Curriculum Development in Critical Thinking. The typescript benefited from searching critiques by George Teschner and the journal's anonymous referee. I am very grateful for this help.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hoaglund, J. Critical thinking: A Socratic model. Argumentation 7 , 291–311 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00710814

Download citation

Issue Date : September 1993

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00710814

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• argument analysis
• critical thinking
• Socratic method
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Translate this page from English...

*Machine translated pages not guaranteed for accuracy. Click Here for our professional translations.

A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking

How to Use the Socratic Method

By max maxwell and melete.

Education is much more than force feeding information to students and measuring how well they regurgitate that information back to us on command. Education is more than teaching the art of complying with minimum requirements. Living is more than survival. The Socratic method is a powerful tool to inspire students to take a deep interest in their own enthusiastically willful education and thriving in life. This helps students become more attentive and thoughtful as a matter of their natural character. A high quality and persistence of attentiveness is the most fundamental difference between merely existing and expressing the art of living. Human attentiveness is absolutely essential for human survival, creativity and happiness. The absence of human attentiveness is the absence of human living. The persistence of high quality attentiveness through fair weather and foul is the road we must travel to lead an examined life worth living. The Socratic method, within its influence on the structure of communication and participation, inspires people to attentively embrace and express their own original thinking and creative doing as they enthusiastically participate in the art of living an examined life. (See Part I of "The Fundamentals of Education: The Art of Living: Hospitality to the Stranger Within" for an examination of the structure of human attentiveness and its relationship to interpretation, meaning, and to the first principle of any possible construction of a Socratic philosophy of education.)

The human crisis of our time is immense. To meet this crisis, we need real thinkers and doers. We need people who are able to be persistent in asking good questions and willing to do the work needed to follow through, with great persistence, in seeking answers. We do not want everyone to merely be robots who only know how to memorize and regurgitate the popular talk of the day. We cannot afford to have millions of citizens who are too uninspired, unable or unaware to continue working persistently for the sake of their own understanding. We need to cultivate sapient beings capable of leading their lives with excellent and original thoughtfulness. Such people create original new talk and new doings that help all humanity create a future worth living.

We cannot be content merely fostering the existence of good students, we also desperately need to cultivate the existence of excellent citizens. Character traits such as deep curiosity, fearless inquiry, and the unending passion to embrace a lifelong quest for understanding and self improvement are a natural result of the successful use of the Socratic method. When such character traits gain the ability to express themselves in peaceful and productive dialogue with other human beings, people are empowered to embrace the reality of citizenship with excellence. The habits of Socratic communication are the habits of good citizenship in creative dialogue. (See Part II of my essay "The Fundamentals of Education: The Malaise of Public Discourse and following for more info about the relationship between citizenship and Socratic dialogue)

These character traits are developed as students experience regular exposure to parents, guardians and teachers who are able to engage in a Socratic style of discourse. Such conversations help make better citizens. Socratic inquiry focuses vigorously on thinking about what it means to live well. It lavishes attention on important life questions that everybody needs to consider. The Socratic method, with its focus on critical thinking in the context of life's important questions, is foundational to human moral development. Vlastos and Graham offer an important insight into the value of the Socratic method:

"Why rank that method among the great achievements of humanity? Because it makes moral inquiry a common human enterprise, open to everyone. Its practice calls for no adherence to a philosophical system, or mastery of a specialized technique, or acquisition of a technical vocabulary. It calls for common sense and common speech. And this is as it should be, for how a human being should live is everyone's business."[1]

The act of asking questions and seeking answers is fundamental to all human creativity and willful living. Experiences of inquiry fill our days no matter what job we have, where we live, or whether or not we have ever heard of the Socratic method. Inquiry richly colors the fabric of how our minds work. Inquiry is the workhorse of the sapience. The Socratic method directly addresses the need of students to exercise their experience and love of asking and answering questions. In the context of daily learning, Einstein said that we should have 'holy curiosity'. The Socratic method is a productive way to stoke the fertile fire that is human curiosity.

(See Part III of my essay on the fundamentals of education: The Fundamentals of the Human Condition: What does it mean to be Human? for a detailed examination of the fundamentality of questions and answers in human living, which is conducted through a look at the relationship between repetition, variation, complexity and meaning. The structure that is revealed illuminates the fundamentality of the Socratic method to all education and human living.)

Teaching is so important that it is not enough to merely be good. The human crisis of our time demands that we cultivate generations of teachers who become great. We need true master teachers capable of lighting the fires of inspiration in the hearts and minds of students. Uninspired teaching is a murderous killer of human well-being. Teaching that functions with a vision to only see the paycheck, only focuses on the inert transmission of data, and only embraces the pragmatics of merely getting through the work day destroys much of the life potential of its students. This kind of teaching only informs students that the highest aspiration available through education is to merely do what is minimally needed to pass. This leaves us vulnerable to the natural effects of having whole populations of people growing up less inspired, less informed, and less thoughtful in their living. We need teachers capable of leading students to willfully embrace the great project of enthusiastically opening their eyes to the world and working to develop themselves for the rest of their lives. The Socratic method offers teachers a focus to raise their game by providing a way to exercise the best in a teacher so that they are much more than just a machine performing a function. Humanity desperately needs all teachers to be persons who possess unending vision and passion to live their own examined lives, and through the abundant fertility of their own journey, become a living inspiration in the classroom.

It is not enough to pass on the memory of the facts that are presented to us through our past. We need to cultivate our powers of reason and creativity that we may expend the energies of our living and learning in service to building a future that is worth living. The power we need to travel on this journey is the strength that comes when we submit our willful living to knowledge. When fear and ignorance are replaced with understanding, the human species has always insisted on rising up to recreate itself again and again. In the light of the knowledge and understanding that our ancestors worked their entire lives to create, we have moved on to do more than recreate the past. We have created new futures that were previously impossible.

Now, more than ever before, we need creators, doers, and thinkers who thrive in the quest to better themselves and our various civilizations. We need more than lists of facts and arrangements of data in our heads, we also need the wisdom to live out the implications of our knowledge, the temperance to submit our willful living to understanding, and the courage to creatively face a world that will continue to challenge us unto death.

"It is the function of education to facilitate the development of human character. This development leads people to the enthusiasm of heart, the quality of mind, and the virtue of character to persist in a never ending quest to establish their willful living with knowledge and understanding."

( from page 2 of my essay "The fundamentals of Education: The art of Living: Hospitality to the Stranger Within" ) The art of living, not just for the Socratic method but as an art of all willful living, can be expressed as the art of asking and answering questions and then committing ourselves to live out the best of our understanding. In order to live well, there must be an art of living. Education that does not inspire and empower people to embrace the art of living is not fit for human consumption. The Socratic method of conversation, when properly conducted, strengthens that which is fundamental to all expressions of inquiry and creativity no matter what culture calls us her sons and daughters, no matter what historical time adorns us in the fabric of our living, no matter what purpose of questioning is pressing upon our hearts. The Socratic method is the king of exercises for keeping the beating heart of the human will to education alive and well.

What is the Socratic Method?

Asking "What is the Socratic method?" has a familiar flavor to Socrates own inquiries. Like Socrates' questions, "What is justice?" and "What is virtue?", our question "What is the Socratic method?" has a similar outcome. The similar outcome is that attempts to define the Socratic method tend to fail upon further examination.

Here is the opening line about definitions from my introductory essay :

"What is the Socratic method? A single, consistent definition of the Socratic method is not possible due to the diversity with which "the method" has been used in history. There are many styles of question oriented dialogue that claim the name of the Socratic method. However, just asking a lot of questions does not automatically constitute a use of the Socratic method. Even in the dialogues of Plato, which are the most significant and detailed historical references to Socrates, there is not just one Socratic method."

Although seeking a comprehensive definition of the Socratic method that covers all examples without contradiction is fruitless, we have a way forward. There are easily identifiable patterns of expression characteristic of the dialogues of Plato that, when used in the proper Socratic spirit, dramatically increases the fertility of learning and the human aspiration to seek understanding.

The Socratic method, as seen in the early dialogues of Plato, is similar in structure to the Scientific method . The structure in common between the Socratic and scientific method is fundamental to human living:

The Socratic method, in its classic form, does not seek to test our understanding of the facts of Geometry, in spite of Plato's suggestion to the contrary with his Meno Geometry experiment. It focuses on moral inquiry that tests ideas of how we should live, the nature of virtue and justice, and the human character and results of good living. The Socratic method focuses on moral inquiry related to how we should live in the light of the knowledge of justice, virtue, beauty, happiness, and our own human character. The Socratic method attacks the complacencies that arise when what passes for "common sense" has become too convincing. Although the heart of the Socratic method beats to the same rhythm as all scientific inquiry and human innovation, it addresses subjects that have historically been deemed to not be amenable to the inquiries of the scientific method. Yet, the structural commonalities listed in the blue box above remain intact. Living in wonder and asking questions, posing tentative answers, testing our answers, evaluating the results, and living out those results to the best of our understanding is a basic pattern of human thriving that is just as valid in the ancient Athens of Socrates as it is in our science laden 21st century. This is something for which we are natural born adepts. Curiosity, asking questions and testing things are part of our natural character.

The classic picture of the Socratic questioning asks questions that impact how we should live. The distinctiveness of Socratic moral inquiry is that it manifests a rigorous focus on one primary question or idea. Modern debate oriented discussions on morality are characterized by an ability to throw in everything including the kitchen sink in order to "win". The focus of modern moral debate is so broad it can included inappropriate things such as ad hominem attacks. The Socratic focus is much narrower. The discipline of Socratic conversation is in the ability to persist in questioning a single idea. This willful repetition affords us the experience of seeing a much richer variety of answers and possible views come into play. This is part of the value of the focus of the Socratic method. It is the variety of responses that must inevitably come when we persist in questioning an idea that makes our the conversation more useful. Modern debates usually offer two views that formally deny each other. Unfortunately, most subjects that have any bearing on moral issues are more complex than a mere two sided debate can address. The Socratic method persists with a basic question and does not let go until an answer that can stand up to examination is found. This is a far more creative and fertile mode of conversation than mere debate. It is the creativity of teamwork towards a common goal.

There are two main patterns in the use of the Socratic method:

The Classic Socratic Method and The Modern Socratic Method

The structural observations on the Socratic method above reflect more ofthe Classic Socratic Method than the modern method. The Classic Socratic Method is distinguished from the Modern Socratic Method by the nature of its questions. The Classic Socratic Method pursues the big questions about justice, virtue and other basic qualities of human character and living. Here, the answers are not known by the Socratic facilitator. The Modern Socratic Method asks questions about topics that have known, expected, and verifiable answers, such as the answers sought in the geometry experiment in Plato's Meno (see the section below on the modern method for more info on that text).

Socratic inquiry is moral inquiry to the extent that it centers around how we should live. Socrates sought to develop good character through the subordination of the will to knowledge. Seeking good living through good character was the holy grail of Socrates' quest. In light of this distinction I can say that the so called Classic Socratic Method is more "Socratic" to the extent that it focuses on the big questions about life and living well. Living as a just and virtuous citizen was at the heart of Socrates' interest in gaining knowledge and understanding. The Modern Socratic Method, which centers around the art of asking thoughtfully designed leading questions, has more of the flavor of Plato's interpretation of Socrates than anything genuinely "Socratic". In the modern method, leading a student to infer the correct answer for the question "What is 1 + 1?", or some other equally measurable fact or procedure is the focus. This is not to say that the modern style of asking leading questions to obtain knowable results can never have a bearing on morality. The modern style moves away from moral inquiry simply because it is much more often used in conjunction with non-moral data.

There is an interesting correlation between knowable results and moral conflict. To the extent we have the capacity to verify knowledge, humanity tends to drift from a moral focus. It is the consensus on the methods for the verification of knowledge that produces this result. Nobody considers the moral implications of getting a correct answer in mathematics. It is simply a matter of technique or of avoiding mistakes. The agreement on methods for verifying knowledge in mathematics allows us to avoid all flavors of moral impact within the scope of the math itself. Nobody gets into a conundrum about the length of an object if they know how to measure it. There are no arguments about the nature of something if that nature can be scientifically determined. However, our long history of trying to determine the correct answers for questions about the nature of human justice and virtue is both a quagmire of stumbling in our ignorance and is also at the heart of human efforts towards achieving moral development. To the extent that we are profoundly ignorant of the means to verify knowledge, the flavors of morality more often assert themselves in our thinking. In this correlation, human ignorance and human morality have a fundamental relationship within the bounds of our epistemological limitations. With regard to the nature of justice and virtue, everyone can have an opinion, yet nobody can articulate the methods for verifying the knowledge of such things with the same defining consensus as we possess for mathematics. Here, humanity tumbles into arguments and disagreements of frightening proportions. For Socrates, our ignorance is always the ground in which our wrongdoing has its deepest root.

The primary implication I see in the relationship between verifiable knowledge and morality is that the Socratic method is more impactful in its use to lead students to positive experiences of the complexity and uncertainty of issues (Classic Socratic Method) than it is to elicit specifically knowable facts (Modern Socratic Method). The focus of the Classic Socratic Method is better suited to teach students to embrace the ambiguities of important issues and questions with practiced confidence, sustainable enthusiasm, and cooperative social grace. Students are encouraged through positive experience to build the character traits needed to embrace the task of seeking knowledge and self improvement in the most attentively fertile manner. When people are comfortable in confronting their own ignorance with a deeply personal quest for knowledge, they will be much more effective at digging into issues with sustainable confidence and an enhanced vigor of attentiveness. The Socratic method, in its most fertile form, helps people learn about and build their own human character in the quest for understanding.

1) The Classic Socratic Method:

A definition from the introductory essay :

"The Classic Socratic Method uses creative questioning to dismantle and discard preexisting ideas and thereby allows the respondent to rethink the primary question under discussion (such as 'What is virtue?'). This deconstructive style of the Socratic method is ‘Socratic’ precisely to the extent that the weight of the actual deconstruction of a definition rests in the respondent’s own answers to more questions, which refute the respondent's previously stated answer to the primary question. The result of the Classic Socratic method is, by definition, a failure to find a satisfactory answer to the primary question in a conversation. This failure produces a realization of ignorance in the respondent (Socratic Effect) which can, it is hoped, inspire the respondent to dig deep and think about the question with a new freedom that is obtained from discarding a previously held belief. If a satisfactory answer is found, this represents a transition to the ‘Modern Socratic method."

This pattern, in which ideas/definitions (hypotheses) are tested and often refuted, is the most widely recognized portrait of Socrates and his method. It is also the more difficult pattern to use. It tends to be applied towards very fundamental ideas such as definitions of justice, virtue, beauty, friendship, morality, courage, piety, temperance, etc. The primary question this generates in the dialogues of Plato come in the form of "What is 'X'?". Questions such as, "What is Justice?", "What is virtue?", "What is Beauty?" were a powerful focus for Socrates as presented in the early, and some latter, dialogues of Plato. Political and religious world leaders, philosophers, artists, and humans beings from all walks of life have pondered such questions for as long as there has been the spare time to think. Yet, after thousands of years in the development of our various civilizations, we are in short supply of any comprehensive understanding.

I have pondered such questions in my own living for decades and, if the world depended on my ability to give final knowledge of such things, we would be doomed. I can say right now, that you will not be leading students to any final knowledge about such questions through a short Socratic style Q&A session jammed in between other curriculum. However, you may guide your students to experiences of discovering the joy of asking good questions that inspires them to be more thoughtful about important questions for the rest of their lives. When a human being learns to love to ask questions and be persistent in seeking answers, they become the creators of new possibilities for the future of humanity. The type of questions the classic form of the Socratic method attends to are very different from the information most often addressed in the Modern Socratic Method. Examples in the application of the classic form are below under the subtitle "Applying the Classic Socratic Method".

2) The Modern Socratic Method:

My own research is focused on making the Classic Socratic Method easy to use. There is an important measure to which the so called Modern Socratic Method is not really "Socratic". Even Plato's use of this style (see example below) tends to favor Plato's agenda than that which is most recognizably Socratic. In this case, Plato's interest in the structure of human knowledge and remembering is less Socratic to the extent that it is an exercise in epistemological experimentation and not a moral inquiry. However, the modern method is part of the tradition of interpreting the Socratic method and is currently the most widely used pattern. This art of questioning has value with and without Socrates. The modern method can be applied to any form of data, which has a structure amenable to human inference, that the teacher wishes to elicit in the minds of their students. This style of questioning is easy to learn and apply for your own purposes. It presupposes that you have a knowledge of the subject and a goal that is measurable, and verifiable. (not like asking "What is virtue?")

Here is part of the definition material from the introductory essay:

"The Modern Socratic method is a process of questioning used to successfully lead a person to knowledge through small steps. This knowledge can be specific data, training in approaches to problem solving, or leading one to embrace a specific fact/belief. The type of knowledge is not as important as the fact that, with the Modern Socratic method, the knowledge gained is specifically anticipated by the Socratic questioner. This stands in contrast to the Classic Socratic method in which the actual outcomes are unknown by all parties."

EXAMPLES OF THE MODERN PATTERN:

1.) The Geometry Experiement in Plato's Meno: The oldest example of this style of questioning is in Plato's dialogue Meno . Meno, after it opens with the question "What is virtue?", then proceeds to demonstrate the idea of teaching a fact of geometry through asking questions.

You can review a sample of questioning from Plato's Meno with the link below:

The Geometry Experiment in Plato's Meno

This pattern is not unfamiliar to you. Asking leading questions that connect a person to a capacity to make simple inferences exists with and without Socrates. The important thing to realize is that the method is not about getting a right answer as much as it is about cultivating the human character of students to experience an enhanced comfort and interest in asking questions and doing their own original thinking. This is because any implementation of the Socratic method that makes students less comfortable asking and answering questions is worthless, regardless of how many right answers may come out of that particular setting. If right answers are more important than stimulating the curiosity of the students and empowering their psychology to persist in seeking answers to their questions, a lifetime of a student's quality of thinking could be compromised by the quest to obtain the right answer of the moment.

2.) The Garlikov Example: The article by Rick Garlikov (see link below) is an important example of what must be done in order to advance our knowledge and use of the Socratic method. To use the Socratic method requires that we experiment on our own. The thoughtfulness of Garlikov in this real world test of Socratic questioning is an excellent example for all of us. Garlikov's article documents a useful experiment on using the Socratic method to teach the concept of "binary math" in a third grade classroom. " The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling ".

Commenting on his expectations of this experiment, philosopher Richard Garlikov wrote,"This was to be the Socratic method in what I consider its purest form, where questions (and only questions) are used to arouse curiosity and at the same time serve as a logical, incremental, step-wise guide that enables students to figure out about a complex topic or issue with their own thinking and insights." Garlikov gives us a transcript (the link above) of his experience introducing a 'new' kind of arithmetic (binary math) to students in the third grade using only questions. The subject of binary math was chosen precisely because it is more difficult than what third graders are normally exposed to in the classroom.

Garlikov was told by two of the elementary school's teachers that only a few of the students in the third grade class would be able to understand the ideas. In a complete subversion of the low expectations of those teachers, he reports that by using the Socratic method, 19 out of 22 students fully understood the topic. Although the time of day was chosen specifically because it is the worst time of day for concentration (Friday afternoon, two weeks before summer vacation), none of the students were bored or could not focus. Garlikov reports that this style of teaching through questions: allows for continuous feedback regarding student understanding through the student's response to questions, is excellent for maintaining interest and participation, allows students with different abilities to go at the same pace without anyone getting bored, and focuses on student understanding instead of teacher presentation.

Garlikov says that, in order to be effective, questions must be: 1) Interesting, 2) Incremental, 3) Logical (moving from the student's prior knowledge towards a goal), and 4) Designed to illuminate particular points. In order to be effectively leading, questions must be specifically structured in a manner that is very different from the Classic Socratic Method. In the classic form, there is only one primary question, such as "What is justice?" or "What is virtue?". In the classic form, the respondent can offer literally ANYTHING as a definition of justice or virtue and there is no way to guarantee the verification of those definitions. Dealing with that kind of unpredictable variation has a different structure than the modern method's need to keep on a more precisely defined and incrementally related set of questions. In the modern method, the scope of the questions must be smaller and more sequentially linear in order for the logic of the focus to successfully lead students to expected and measurable outcomes. This is a very different reality from the Socratic teacher who has no idea (Socratic irony) about the "correct answer" to "What is 'X'?" type questions about justice, virtue and beauty.

Most importantly, although the rigors of one's teaching agenda may relegate this to a side benefit, Garlikov reports that two interesting "benefits of using the Socratic method are that it gives the students a chance to experience the attendant joy and excitement of discovering (often complex) ideas on their own. And it gives teachers a chance to learn how much more inventive and bright a great many more students are than usually appear to be when they are primarily passive." In these benefits, both the classic and modern form of the method share an identity. His comments on the work that needs to be done when a teacher wants to design a Socratic process for their classroom is valuable for anyone wanting to try this for their own subjects and classes.

Read the above link to Garlikov's full explanation. Be sure to read the whole thing. Some of his best comments are at the bottom in a section called "My View About this whole episode". If you desire to read more of his comments and explanations read the following link after reading the primary article above: "Using the Socratic Method" by Rick Garlikov ".

Comparing Garlikov and Plato:

Plato thought that his geometry focus in the dialogue Meno demonstrated that the so called "Modern Socratic Method" was proved his idea that we already know everything and just need help 'remembering'. Garlikov's experience demonstrates that it is not platonic anamnesis, but the straightforward act of using the students' previous knowledge as a basis for guiding the students with carefully designed, logically leading not psychologically leading, questions that help them make simple inferences. The chain of observations and inferences elicited in a Socratic process leads the students to be able to come to the information/ideas/conclusions that the teacher desires to hear from the students, through their own capacity for reason because the teacher only asks questions.

3.) The Chess Example: Teaching Chess with the Socratic Method

In this example of the pattern of the modern method, I teach a beginner chess player two ideas about positional chess. Instead of just telling the student the ideas, I get the student to come up with and explain the ideas to me as I limit myself to only asking questions. Here, the student becomes the teacher. Although this example is limited to be just enough for illustration purposes, the whole of positional chess play can be taught with the Socratic method. You will not need to know how to play chess to read this as the answers are illustrated on the chess board in a way that non-chess players can understand.

COMMENT ABOUT THE EXAMPLES:

The three examples of the Modern Socratic Method above all presuppose the existence of a common visual reference. Plato's Socrates drew geometry figures on the ground for everyone to see, Garlikov and students wrote on the board, and my chess example uses a chessboard and pieces as a basis of observation and thinking. Although it is true that many subjects can use questions to teach without visual references, this tends to be more appropriate for older and more developed students. If you can provide visual references, or even base your questions entirely on something they can see, the visual references will help keep students focused and thinking. Visual references create a shared space for thought and questions that is constantly present no matter who is talking.

If you have read all three examples, you should have some idea that you can do this. Garlikov wrote that there is no 'magic trick' to running a Socratic process in the classroom. It will take significant planning and practice to adapt this style of teaching into your subjects. Due to the severe limitations that your job as a teacher imposes on your focus and time, you may only be able to run a Socratic process in the classroom for select occasions. It is the goal of the research on this site to articulate a basic grounding in principle for using both the classic and modern form of the Socratic method. The theoretical ideal is to empower a teacher, who has sufficient practice, to be able to spontaneously adapt a Socratic process on the fly. When this level of fluency is achieved, the teacher can adapt a Socratic process into their work environment in spite of time and resource limitations. The key insight on this "grounding in principle" is to allow for the individual teacher/facilitator to design her own Socratic process and to express her own unique capacities as a Socratic teacher. Teaching with the Socratic method works best when it is part of the art of your own living.

The essay on this web site's home page goes into greater detail about the above definitions. Now, we move on to what is foundational to all applications of the Socratic method and all presentations of a designed Socratic process in the classroom.

Developing your own Socratic Presence:

The socratic temperament.

The first thing to consider in the use of the Socratic method is the fundamental importance of the functioning human character of the teacher or Socratic facilitator. The character of the Socratic questioner plays a critical role in making sure the process is conducted in the most encouraging spirit.

There are four traits the Socratic teacher/facilitator must be aware of within her own character and living:

a) The Socratic Teacher loves to discover her own errors.

b) The Socratic Teacher is in touch with her own ignorance.

c) The Socratic Teacher models the joy of hard work in the quest for knowledge.

d) The Socratic Teacher experiences deep curiosity and the desire for self-

    improvement.

Read my essay " The Socratic Temperament " for a more detailed treatment of the four traits of the Socratic teacher. The purpose of living such a temperament before your students is to give them the ability to discover their own Socratic temperament.   Below is an excerpt from the essay The Socratic Temperament that addresses the cultivation of this character in students:

"The most fundamental and powerful contribution to education by the Socratic Method is not as a method to communicate specific facts. It is in the demonstration and communication of the Socratic Temperament to the students. To cultivate the Socratic Temperament in the students is to lay the ultimate foundation for the development of superior critical thinking later in life. Deep curiosity, fearless questioning, productive critical thinking and a lifelong quest for self-improvement are the fruits of the Socratic Temperament. The opportunity to develop their own Socratic Temperament is the finest gift you can give to your students. This is done best by teachers who are living the Socratic Temperament in the classroom. It is absolutely necessary to develop the Socratic Temperament in students. The fear of having their own beliefs and assumptions challenged must be replaced with joy. Students must learn to take joy at questioning everything, especially their own ideas. If students remain uncomfortable in questioning their own ideas, they will be emotionally handicapped with regard to the development of their capacity for critical thinking and their ability to face the uncertainties of life in a productive and reasoned manner. As Plato wrote, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

In the absence of emotional/psychological comfort with questioning herself, a student's ability to face the uncertainties of life in a productive and reasoned manner can be compromised for the rest of her life. The cultivation of a Socratic temperament in students brings forth a valuable gift that will last a lifetime. A student's self interest and self confidence to question the world, and herself, is foundational to all successful education. This is described at the end of my essay, Introduction to the Socratic method and its Effect on Critical Thinking :

"Learning to love the experience of questioning gives psychological strength to our will to question. Learning to love the experience of having our own beliefs and ideas questioned and even discarded gives us an inspired vision of our power to work for our own improvement. If we see questioning as a sacred activity that is vital to our own safety (by safeguarding our integrity and growth), we are less afraid to question the world. If we develop a preference for questioning our own preferences we find a true Socratic spirit within ourselves that will empower our critical thinking for life. The successful use of the Socratic method gifts those who experience it with the living heart of critical thinking."

This Socratic method is used best by a teacher with experience in her own joyful self examination.

Finding Your Own Socratic Style

1. Self Discovery:

If you have read this far, I am sure that the Socratic method is sounding like something wonderful. However, we are still left with the question of how to DO the Socratic method in a real conversation. As mentioned above, the first area of learning the Socratic method is in the discovery of your own Socratic temperament. Who you are as a human being, your passion to better yourself, your love of understanding, your willingness to work for knowledge, and your endless curiosity are already in your own style. I have said a number of times in the writings on this site that the Socratic method is less about teaching specific facts and more about inspiring students to embrace the great project of living an examined life. It is about harnessing the students' personal enthusiasm to explore their power to ask and answer questions because they are interested in their own being in life. My favorite false Socrates quote sums it up nicely,

" Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel. "

(This may be variation of Plutarch or a comment by Benjamin Jowett)

Your human character is extraordinarily important. Your personal enthusiasm for learning and your dedication to lifelong self improvement, effectively expressed in the classroom, will have more power to inspire and improve your students than all the dialectical Socratic shenanigans of all the philosophy geeks in history put together. Getting in touch with your own passion for self discovery, which is not separate from the discovery of the universe, is the living heart of your power to bring forth the benefits of Socratic dialogue (or any other kind of dialogue) in the classroom.

Some may wonder about the extent to which their lack of a Socratic temperament may affect their teaching relative to using the Socratic method. I address this in The Socratic Temperament :

"When a teacher uses methods that have the power to bring the process of learning alive in the minds of her students, this very important awakening must be conducted with humility and grace.   If you always need to be the one who is right, always think of yourself in terms of what you know and have achieved, are lazy about the acquisition of new knowledge in your own life, have no curiosity and no desire for self-improvement, then you will never be able to use the Socratic Method for even 1/100th of what it is worth. The first step in learning the Socratic Method is to open yourself to the task of developing your own Socratic Temperament."

Life is a journey of self discovery. It is the first lesson of being human that we must discover ourselves. Below is a quote from the largest block of writing on this website, " The Fundamentals of Education: A Socratic perspective on the cultivation of humanity."

"Enthusiasm for self discovery is the first step in any Socratic philosophy of education. To cultivate this enthusiasm, we must work to make sure students know how amazing they are in so many ways. Melete said, "We are not just a meat-suit. We are made from the stars and all that went into stars." One human mind is more complex and fertile than all the computers in the world put together. We are masterworks of art capable of wondrous things and able to rise far beyond our imaginations. The cultivation of every human being's self-interest is extremely important."

Kindling into full life the flame that is a student's self interest and curiosity is an essential structure that is the cornerstone of human aspiration and sits at the foundation of all successful education. A quote from Part I of my essay "The Fundamentals of education":

"Igniting a lifetime of persistent enthusiasm to develop ourselves is of the greatest importance to every human being and to the future of our species. People who can remain enthusiastic about thriving towards their aspirations no matter what will be happier in their failures than people who never fail because they do not have aspirations."

The teacher who cannot bring into the classroom the kindling fire from their own experience is severely limited in their ability to embrace Socratic teaching. It is very important to learn how to be more richly expressive about your devotion to seeking knowledge and self discovery in front of your students in a way that inspires and encourages them to embrace their own self interest, curiosity, and their lifelong journey of seeking knowledge and self discovery.

2. Linking Your Self Discovery to the Classroom:

Even if you are richly endowed with a beautifully developed Socratic temperament, using the Socratic method in the classroom requires some understanding of the primary social dynamic that gives the Socratic method wings. This section describes that dynamic and also looks at how subjects force style choices on the use of the Socratic method.

Hospitality in Hosting a Safe and Creative Space

The Socratic method directly engages the most fertile creative space in the history of the planet. This is the space that is created in open and free dialogue where people, who love to examine their own ideas, feel welcomed to freely express themselves in conversation. Part II of my essay "The Fundamentals of Education: A Socratic perspective on the cultivation of humanity" articulates a Socratic philosophy of conversation that benefits reasoned discourse by focusing on the fundamental social environment required to free students to fully participate in the examination of ideas. It is extremely important that the Socratic teacher maintain a proper social environment for the Socratic method to have its full effect.

The first principle of a Socratic philosophy of education, which is part of the foundation of Part II was developed in Part I of the essay. In Part I of "The Fundamentals of Education", I lay down the first principle of any Socratic philosophy of education through an examination of the differences and commonalities between academic talk and artistic doing. This was done as I constructed a critical reading of George Steiner's Real Presences through four years of artistic performance experiments involving my interpretive performance of a Rachmaninoff composition and my unusual obsession with a Beethoven piano sonata. Steiner's solution to the weaknesses in the academic study of the art is to emphasis a human social posture of courtesy and hospitality to "the other", whom/which we meet in our experience of art.

In Part II , "Socratic Talk: Hospitality to the Stranger in Dialogue", I extend this concept of hospitality to "the other" from the other we meet in art to the other we face in dialogue. The principle from Part I is that learning to be hospitable to another human being has its first lesson in our learning to be hospitable to all that wants to thrive within ourselves. Learning to be hospitable to the strangers within our own minds teaches us the necessary virtues of character that are needed to manifest hospitality to other people in conversation. This means we must first be open and courteously attentive to our own diversity and must be comfortable questioning our own ideas independently of our perceived level of comfort in talking with others. The value of constructing and maintaining a "fertile creative space" in the classroom is illustrated in Nouwen's description of the creative importance of hospitality. I follow up this quote with its following paragraph from Part II :

Hospitality does not create a cluttered space that is filled with our own preoccupations about winning or controlling. It is not a space filled with the dominance of our own ideas and theories. The essence of sharing a space with the other is to make room for them to enter and be themselves. To use a Buddhist image, hospitality, in relation to the concerns of creative dialogue, functions as an act of emptying our cup of tea that is already full. We cannot know something new, we cannot fully acknowledge the other, if our minds are filled with preoccupations about the preservation of our own ideas and with trying to win over the other who shares our space. We must pour out our needs to be right, let go of our concerns to preserve our cherished perspectives, and release our desires to win over and contain the other. We empty the cup of our conversational minds in an act of hospitality that creates an empty shared space that makes room for the other. It is the emptiness of the shared space, which hospitality provides, that gives the other the freedom to join us upon common ground and to express their authentic selves."

(note: regarding the phrase "join us upon common ground", the idea of 'common ground' was first introduced in Part I on page 7 as I engaged Steiner's idea of emphasizing the primacy of artistic experience as expressed in Real Presences through my experience of interpreting a Rachmaninoff composition on the piano. This idea was a result of comparing the commonalities between academic and artistic 'talk'. The idea of 'common ground' is important to my construction of this Socratic philosophy of education. To get the full context read pages 2-7 of Part I.)

The Socratic teacher, who is able to able to maintain a proper social environment for Socratic dialogue, is able to create a fertile and friendly shared space for her students in the classroom. The Socratic teacher is able to do so only to the extent that she has participated in the examination of herself and found herself worthy of such hospitality within her own mind. It is the habits of your own Socratic hospitality to your own being that will enable you to make a creative space out of such hospitality in the classroom. The relationship between your own Socratic temperament and the social environment you maintain in the classroom is inextricably linked. Embracing the capacity to joyfully criticize one's own ideas in front of other people is not a skill that is best learned in an inhospitable social environment. It is best modeled to students by a teacher with experience.

The importance of creating a hospitable environment is that it helps students learn to question themselves with confidence. One of the great potentials for failure in education is that we fill students' heads with facts and procedures, but fail to empower them to question themselves with confidence. The problem with being unable to question our own ideas and beliefs is described in my introductory essay from the home page :

"Convictions, when held too tightly, blind us in a way that traps us within our own opinions. Although this protects us from uncomfortable ambiguities and troublesome contradictions, it also makes us comfortable with stagnation and blocks the path to improved understanding. In other words, without the capacity to question ourselves the possibility of real thinking ceases. If people are not able to question their own ideas they cannot be thoughtful at all. When unacknowledged or unquestioned assumptions dominate the mind, thoughtfulness becomes a danger and the human aspiration to improve and grow in understanding becomes a slave to fear. The goal of the Classic Socratic method is to help people by freeing their desire for understanding from the harmful limitations that come through clinging to the false securities of their current knowing. People who experience the effect, which arises from being a recipient of the first phase of the Socratic method are freed from the shackles of confidence in their knowing. This affords them the optional freedom of thinking about an issue with a greater quality of thoughtfulness."

Using the Socratic method to free students in the manner described above must be done with grace, humility, and skill by a teacher who is experienced at questioning themselves. Being comfortable, yet assertively questioning, in the face of ambiguity, doubts, and the various social pressures that push us to back away from questioning is a centrally important ability for the task of living well. Finding your own style of using the Socratic method is less about learning the heuristics of dialectical engagements and more about living out your own version of a Socratic lifestyle that prioritizes seeking your own self improvement through improved understanding. Your love of self improvement and knowledge, along with your persistence in expressing that love is what will make you able to bring the Socratic method to life in your classroom.

The Impact of Subject Matter on Style

The subject of your teaching, or conversation, greatly determines some of the stylistic limits you must embrace. A classroom environment that is allowed to ask questions such as "What is Justice?" is going to have more room for the Classic Socratic Method than a classroom whose broadest question is "What is a hydrogen bond?" or "What are the steps for simplifying an algebra equation?". There are many, many subjects, but they all fall into two categories relevant for considering your application of the Socratic method. This is based on the fact that there are two types of questions involved. Questions will either have a known answer to the teacher, or it is known that the question has no sure answer. "What is '4 + 4'?" is an example of the former, which makes for an application whose style will resemble the Modern Socratic Method. "What is virtue?" is an example of the latter, which is a question suited for the Classic Socratic Method.

Applying the Classic Socratic Method

As mentioned above, the Classic Socratic method, with its willingness to bite into questions as challenging as the meaning of life, is more unwieldy to use than the modern method, which anticipates a readily knowable answer. When asking big questions on such topics as justice, virtue, morality, happiness, or the meaning of life, you cannot anticipate every answer. You cannot have a list of canned Socratic responses ready to be pulled out of your pocket and applied in a mechanical fashion. My strategy in dealing with this is to seek ways to dramatically simplify the process.

The problem of dealing with the complexities and unpredictability of student response is illustrated with a quote from my essay " The Semantic Independence of Socratic Focus ":

"In the late 1980's I was doing research on the Socratic Method and conducted a survey that asked people the question, “What is justice?” A lawyer gave the following definition of justice, “Justice is the restoration of actual human behavior according to the expectations of natural law.” Leave it to a lawyer to come up with that one. This response illustrates why the classic form of the Socratic method is almost never used. What kind of follow up questions do you use to move the Socratic process forward in response to such a wordy and conceptually dense definition? What does he mean by actual human behavior? What is natural law? What are its expectations? Which historical source will have more weight in our understanding of natural law? Will it be Aristotle through Thomas Aquinas? Perhaps we will lean towards Thomas Hobbes? What of the Islamic understanding of natural law? The lawyer’s definition of justice contains enough debatable complexity to keep the conversation spinning in non-Socratic circles for quite some time."

Yikes! How does one engage in an act of Socratic questioning in response to that definition? The answer is...very simply. It does not matter if you have a preference for Hobbes over Aquinas, never heard of Islamic natural law, or could not recite the expectations of any version of natural law. If you know the difference between a noun and a verb, you can question this definition of Justice in a Socratic manner. One of the useful things in the Socratic method is that the so called "Socratic irony" (teacher's claim of ignorance) is not just a rhetorical posture to facilitate the process. The Socratic method can coexist with the Socratic teacher's/facilitator's actual ignorance to create a useful focus.

My essay " The Semantic Independence of Socratic Focus " is a proof of concept piece that demonstrates how to address responses to the big questions without having to have a knowledge of the answers or the students responses to the question. The process of the Socratic method gains some semantic independence from natural language, and from the history of ideas, through a tidy focus on the formal aspects of language (grammar). Here, being able to find the verb in a sentence is all you need to focus your questions on the attorney's response. The reason this is effective is that the verbs always need to link their actions to some field of knowledge when willful living is expressing itself.

The link between verbs and knowledge is part of why Socrates was always talking about cobblers, doctors, farmers, and other trades/sciences of the day. The pattern of linking verbs to knowledge that is expressed in "The Semantic Independence of Socratic Focus" can be applied to a broad range of issues. An example of this application is my Socratic dialogue " The Moral Bankruptcy of Faith ". In this dialogue, the claim that religious faith alone is the basis of morality must face the reality that any action, moral or otherwise, must link to secular knowledge in order to be effective.

This dialogue also illustrates another principle in the application of the Classic Socratic Method. The "one example principle" in the Classic Socratic Method is the ability to let a respondent’s definition or idea stand or fall on the basis of finding one illustrating example. In the dialogues of Plato, a definition was often refuted by finding an example that contradicted the definition. The opposite is useful also. Here, Socrates (I stole him from Plato) will let an definition or idea stand if we can find one successful expression of that idea. " The Moral Bankruptcy of Faith " expresses this principle in a written dialogue that was created out of my experience of asking Socratic questions about morality in live conversations.

A key to interpreting this dialogue is to notice the common sense appeal to how simple knowledge relates to everything we morally do in a way that faith does not. Above Vlastos and Graham wrote that a great virtue of the Socratic method is that it does not need technical vocabulary and specialized technique, but simply calls to our common sense and common speech. This principle is illustrated in " The Moral Bankruptcy of Faith ". Theologians tend to have their own abstractions of specialized vocabulary and structure of ideas. This dialogue moves out of the extraordinary complexities of theology and towards a basis in the common sense appeal of such simple ideas as "If we become moral we should be able to actually do moral things." and "If we can successfully interpret a moral principle, we should be able to be accountable to explain how we did that.". The whole dialogue rests on the simplest, most common sense form of verification in the form of questions of the type, "Can you give me one example to illustrate what you are talking about?". The result is that the respondent cannot.

Applying the Modern Socratic Method

This section will be added with the material below.

NOTE: This summary of my research is approximately half completed. The remainder will be posted on this page soon. I put some information about some of the coming material below:

The Structure of Socratic Dialogue:

This part of the SMRP research summary will focus on the structure of Socratic process in the classroom, who's dynamics also govern one on one dialogue. This will be designed to simplify the act of knowing the structure of the process as well as interpreting the live conversation demands of your Socratic process. Once you are comfortable and practiced with this, you will be able to express the Socratic method in your own style.

Some of the subsections will be:

The Structure of Socratic Dialogue

The structure of Socratic process will be discussed in its most broadly applicable terms, which will allow for diversity in interpreting the method's application to your setting. This will be done with a view to simplifying the interpretation of the real time conversation demands that arise during your Socratic process. Simplification is key. Remember the Vlastos and Graham quote above. It said that the practice of the Socratic method "calls for no adherence to a philosophical system, or mastery of a specialized technique, or acquisition of a technical vocabulary. It calls for common sense and common speech". 

This truth will be expressed in a focus on reducing the complexity of conducting a Socratic process through the principle of reducing the need to depend on the semantics of natural language, offering principles for optimizing the structure of your questions, and demonstrating how you can take an example of a specific technique and apply it to a much broader range of topics and experiences. The goal here is not to learn some overly technically predefined "Socratic method" that is applied in a mechanical or static manner, but to become able to be a Socratic facilitator extemporaneously in a freestyle fashion that is shaped by your own ability to design and create. Those who excel at this task deepen their living mastery of the art of teaching.

A Principled Foundation for Creating Innovative Socratic Method Exercises

An examination of what is needed to create innovative Socratic exercises will be presented with a view to allowing teachers/facilitators to construct, in their own style, Socratic experiences that have significant beneficial impact on student participation, enthusiasm, and learning. Examples and the principles that underlie them will be discussed with a view to applying those principles to your own Socratic innovations.

Using the Socratic Method in Written Form

Examples of Socratic Writing will be discussed with a view to distill i ng some basic principles of Socratic writing.

Toward a Formal Socratic method

Research implications for developing a formal system capable of conducting a Socratic process are discussed. A primary dilemma is the need to free the process from the semantics of natural language. A demonstration of the ability to reduce the Socratic facilitator's full dependence on natural language can be currently read in my essay " The Semantic Independence of Socratic Focus ".

[1] Gregory Vlastos, & Daniel W. Graham (1971). "The Paradox of Socrates." In The Philosophy of Socrates: A Collection of Critical Essays, Anchor Books, p 20. (Quote was gender neutralized)

[2] Henri Nouwen (1986), Reaching Out: The Three Movements of the Spiritual Life, Doubleday, p. 71