The Socratic Method
February 5, 2006 9:58 PM   Subscribe

The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling Transcript of an intriguing experiment to teach binary arithmetic to third graders using the Socratic Method - only asking questions. See also a demonstration of the socratic method with a man who procrastinates. Some background, Who Was Socrates?
posted by MetaMonkey (54 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
What's the point?
posted by HTuttle at 10:08 PM on February 5, 2006


What's the point of anything else?
posted by delmoi at 10:18 PM on February 5, 2006


What's the point of that question?
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:21 PM on February 5, 2006


Why all the questions?
posted by maxreax at 10:22 PM on February 5, 2006


Who wants to know?
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:36 PM on February 5, 2006


Who do you think wants to know?
posted by gyc at 10:37 PM on February 5, 2006


How could you say something like that?
posted by carsonb at 10:39 PM on February 5, 2006


How'd this work out for Socrates?
posted by aubilenon at 10:42 PM on February 5, 2006


Didn't he drink some poison or something?
posted by SteelyDuran at 10:43 PM on February 5, 2006


Is this where Colin gets buzzed out?
posted by Gyan at 10:46 PM on February 5, 2006


If I read the second link, and I'm still procrastinating, am I weird?
posted by Firas at 10:48 PM on February 5, 2006


Is it a coincidence that I'm learning Socrates right now in my philosophy class?
posted by Mach5 at 10:48 PM on February 5, 2006


The procrastination link is full of all the double speak that makes certain types of therapy pretty nonproductive, me thinks. I see where the cliche "Tell me how you feel about that..." comes from. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about good therapy, but that example shows how poor rhetoric can be in the service of getting some things accomplished.

The first example is great. I think it shows how this line of thinking can work so very well for young children and really force them to be creative in their thinking. It also shows how much they really do know - without even knowing it. Kudos to Rick Garlikov, who taught the lesson. Wish more of my teachers had tried this to get across complex problems.
posted by qwip at 10:58 PM on February 5, 2006


Am I alone in seeing the Socratic method as incredibly annoying?
posted by tula at 11:01 PM on February 5, 2006


Am I the only one who remembers that elementary school teachers are so dumb they probably don't even know what the socratic method is?
posted by Citizen Premier at 11:02 PM on February 5, 2006


It requires as much of the 'teacher' as it does of the student, so just turning the question around without leading towards the answer can indeed be annoying.

It's of incredible use in philosophy/law/ethics/political science classes and other discussions that hinge on 'what is vs. what should be'. "Ok, so if that is the case, then what about this counterexample&hellip" and so on.

I think the whole idea of 'questioning the student to lead him/her to the answer' is so deeply ingrained in most educational practices that decisions about the Socratic method is not 'should I use it or not' as much as 'how much should I use it'.
posted by Firas at 11:08 PM on February 5, 2006


I am enjoying taking a look at the other stuff on Rick Garlikov's site. Thank you for pointing me to it. He seems a rather clever guy, although I haven't dug very deeply yet.
posted by beth at 11:29 PM on February 5, 2006


Why did qwip, Firas, and beth have to ruin the running gag?
posted by Falconetti at 11:49 PM on February 5, 2006


Is it because Qwip, Firas and beth are full of ire, or did they have something lengthy to say that couldn't be made into a question?
posted by JHarris at 12:12 AM on February 6, 2006


This just reminds me of something I already knew, doesn't it?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:28 AM on February 6, 2006


I'm a ruiner. That's what I do.
posted by qwip at 2:02 AM on February 6, 2006


"elementary school teachers are so dumb"

It would seem that any idiot who makes such sweeping generalizations is truly immune to ANY type of teaching.
posted by HuronBob at 2:07 AM on February 6, 2006


Rhetoric, EB -- my point.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 3:36 AM on February 6, 2006


I'm a ruiner. That's what I do.

How does that make other people feel?
posted by flabdablet at 4:15 AM on February 6, 2006


Wow. Isn't the Garlikov example great? Did anyone else get a tingle down the spine at answer 50? Do we think watching kids learn is really life-affirming or what?
posted by magpie68 at 4:32 AM on February 6, 2006


Why not use the Protractic method? What's wrong with ruilers?
posted by anthill at 5:26 AM on February 6, 2006


HELLO, MY NAME IS DOCTOR SBAITSO
I AM HERE TO HELP YOU
SAY WHATEVER IS IN YOUR MIND FREELY
OUR CONVERSATION WILL BE KEPT IN STRICT CONFIDENCE
MEMORY CONTENTS WILL BE WIPED OFF AFTER YOU LEAVE
SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:36 AM on February 6, 2006


I'm a ruiler. That's what I do.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:38 AM on February 6, 2006


Didn't Socrates used to complain?
posted by CynicalKnight at 6:38 AM on February 6, 2006


tula writes "Am I alone in seeing the Socratic method as incredibly annoying?"

I use it all the time when I figure the student should be able to extroplate from current knowledge to the solution. It seems to me that they remember the lesson better if they figure it out rather than having it spoonfed to them. I know many students find it extremely annoying in a "why won't he just tell us the solution so I can get an A on this test so I can pass this course, it's not like I actually need to know this stuff" kind of way.
posted by Mitheral at 7:05 AM on February 6, 2006


Asking a battery of questions can be a semi-aggressive act. It can make people self-conscious and uncomfortable. I used to use the Socratic method a lot when I was younger. My intentions were usually benign -- I'm just a curious person. But eventually I realized that my propensity to ask questions was one of the things that made my personality caustic.
posted by Human Flesh at 8:10 AM on February 6, 2006


Mitheral wins the prize of knowing how to use Socratic Method. Now let's call it DILDO and watch hoarders run to learn more about Socratic Dildo.
posted by elpapacito at 8:40 AM on February 6, 2006


I used to use the Socratic method a lot when I was younger. My intentions were usually benign -- I'm just a curious person.

Is it the Socratic method if you're asking for your sake?
posted by poweredbybeard at 8:49 AM on February 6, 2006


The Socratic method is annoying if it's all that's used. It's ok to ask leading questions when the pupil has already seen everything they need to know and is running into a practical application for the first time, but the method is dismal for trying to teach from scratch.

You do realise that the Socratic method is based on the idea of reincarnation, don't you? Are you aware that its base hypothesis is that we've learned all this before and simply need to be reminded of it? Is this not a rather farcical basis for petagogy? You must agree that leading questions are incredibly annoying.
posted by bonehead at 8:55 AM on February 6, 2006


Why do birds suddenly appear everytime you are near ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:56 AM on February 6, 2006


Is this not a rather farcical basis for petagogy?

Um... no?

It works. It works when, as you say, it is used properly, and in the right circumstances. When used improperly, a teacher just appears as if they want to sound progressive while remaining dreary and authoritarian.

Certainly you can't teach someone about the French Revolution by asking them questions cold. They have to be acquainted with some of the events. But using questions can help them, say, see its significance in terms of the global context at the time and its influence on the current world.

The link was obviously an extreme example - he used all questions to demonstrate the strength of the technique in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. That wouldn't work most of the time, but to write it off entirely is just as arrogant as to assume it is always applicable. The key is to know how to mix it in, often on the fly.

It gives you immediate feedback - both about how you're teaching and about what the students already know - and that is immensely valuable. Not to mention that anything that lessens the artificial divide between "teacher" and "taught" is a good thing.
posted by poweredbybeard at 9:09 AM on February 6, 2006


Is it the Socratic method if you're asking for your sake?

People can learn and teach at the same time, right?
posted by Human Flesh at 9:43 AM on February 6, 2006


Damn you, sgt.serenity! Now that song's stuck in my head!

Why, dammit, Why?!
posted by Space Kitty at 10:01 AM on February 6, 2006


How timely! I just taught this to someone else my age (mid-30s) several days ago, by trying to explain, and it didn't go nearly as well as I had hoped (this was a very intelligent persion, as well).

I'm going to try this next time.
posted by davejay at 10:42 AM on February 6, 2006


This is great, but it's not Socratic method.

Socratic method entails asking a series of leading questions with the aim of persuading your discursants to buy into what you're selling. (For examples, see the Dialogs.)

This, by contrast, is a method for getting people to think for themselves....
posted by lodurr at 12:13 PM on February 6, 2006


i drank WHAT?
posted by lord_wolf at 1:48 PM on February 6, 2006


Am I the only person who found the guy in the first link to be an arrogant, self-aggrandizing, condescending prick? I couldnt even get through the entire article. Made me wish I was one of the kids, just so I could go up to him and kick him in the shins, hard and repeatedly.

(The Socarates that Plato wrote about was annoying, its true. But this guy is no socrates and I frankly don't want him around my kids.)
posted by merelyglib at 2:35 PM on February 6, 2006


No one, not even bonehead, got my joke. :(

But I disagree strongly with both bonehead and lodurr. If I may be so bold, I think their thoughts on this indicate a greater familiarity with glosses on Plato than with Plato. Maybe not. Maybe they're just wrong.

Yes, the exemplar of the Socratic Method is thought to be Meno, and, yes, the point Socrates is making in Meno is that we somehow "know" things even though we have not learned them. This is in support of Plato's Recollection theory which I think can and should be more fairly credited to Plato than Socrates, assuming there is a distinction between the two. (Which I do assume.)

But even if, or especially if, Socrates is a fictional creation of Plato's, there's a good reason we call it the Socratic Method and not the Platonic Method. Plato makes Socrates a convenient mouthpiece for many of his doctrines, but it simply isn't the case that Socrates as we understand him through Plato's dialogues is equivalent to the Plato we understand as the author of these dialogues. In many ways, most particularly Socrates's beliefs about rhetoric, are in direct opposition to Plato's.

In the Meno, and often, Socrates clearly seems to think he knows the truth of a matter, but he will almost never avow that he knows the truth. His exercise in the Meno, where he elicits from the slave boy how to double the area of a square (the slave boy initially guessed that doubling a side would be correct), is not intended to be an example of Socrates imparting knowledge to the slave boy, but rather the slave boy to discover the knowledge using his own faculties. This is why Socrates calls himself a "midwife".

Lodurr's incorrect understanding of the Socratic method—a miscomprehension that he is not alone in holding—implicitly requires that knowledge be passed from the teacher to the student. That's what "leading questions" are.

Strictly speaking, if you look at what Socrates claims is the purpose and method of his discourse, he does not claim to know the end result of the questioning process beforehand. He doesn't claim to already know the truth. He does not claim that he is subtly guiding a student to truth via a clever rhetorical technique. And, without a doubt, and contrary to MissLittleCranky's implication, this discourse is not rhetoric. Rhetoric is the tool of rhetoricians—who Socrates distrusted—and which is often the tool of choice for sophists.

Plato's theory of recollection is intimately connected to his theory of Idealism. It's not that he doesn't understand that all he is demonstrating is the nature of deduction, where everything that can be known already exists in the premises, but rather that our ability to deduce is itself mysterious and, regardless, requires itself knowledge that does not need be taught. It is this memory of reason and of our ability to recognize forms, that make the foundation of his Idealism and thus his assertion that aquiring knowledge is really a form of recollection.

That clarified, the Socratic Method is not, or shouldn't be, a pedagogical technique which guides students to an outcome predetermined by the teacher. That is merely a sly manner of professing, not midwiving. And it's no surprise to me that most teachers and students in the US have trouble thinking about education as anything other than one way or another for putting preselected information into students' heads.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:05 PM on February 6, 2006 [1 favorite]


Can it be played as a drinking game?
posted by Smedleyman at 4:52 PM on February 6, 2006


merelyglib -

this guy is no socrates and I frankly don't want him around my kids.


Actually, that was the same concern the Athenians had.
posted by bonecrusher at 5:52 PM on February 6, 2006


i take my comment back.

please refer any calls it receives to Ethereal Bligh.

but, that said, the man's teaching method was pretty spot-on. and sometimes there's nothing wrong with pedagogy.
posted by poweredbybeard at 10:07 PM on February 6, 2006


No one, not even bonehead, got my joke. :(

I got it, but I didn't read it until just now. I was even going to make a comment about it.
posted by kenko at 10:21 PM on February 6, 2006


Thanks, kenko.

This is kinda my bugbear, and my assertions about the matter are what I would like to be the norm, but may not be. A word means what it means. If "Socratic Method" means "asking leading questions to guide the student to the correct answer", then that's what it means.

But I do think that when thinking about this matter it's important to differentiate between guiding and midwiving. The problem with teaching as guiding (or professing, certainly) in my opinion is that comprehension is an elusive thing and almost always the student must track it down himself because how you approach something makes a huge difference in how you understand it. One size does not fit all; and the midwiving, more than guiding, allows the student to track, approach, and comprehend something most fully.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:51 PM on February 6, 2006


EB: Not Meno. Republic, actually.

And you take my remark far too seriously. I'm commenting on the term "Socratic Method"; use of terms like that constitutes a de facto appeal to authority. "Oh, I'm using Socratic Method -- what are you doing?" It's a bit like name-dropping Kant in a discussion of real-world ethics.

Anyway, the academic cult of Plato is more or less useless, if not pernicious. Machiavelli, as mistaken as he is about human nature, has more insight than Plato in most areas. And the concept of forms has been almost as much of a hindrance to the advancement of human thought as more mainstream examples of religion.
posted by lodurr at 7:03 AM on February 7, 2006


Lodurr, Republic is a very poor example of a Socratic dialogue. The worst, in my opinion. And it's less germaine to this discussion than many others of Plato's dialogues.

And I respectfully disagree about your judgment of Plato, though he is certainly not my favorite philosopher. Though somewhat naive, I believe that Socrates and Plato are distinct and that the historical Socrates is visible in Plato's work, and his views are distinguishable from Plato's. With that in mind, I will say I much prefer Socrates to Plato. And with that in mind, I will say that I don't much care for Republic.

It really isn't important whether or not Plato was correct about human nature. It's very revealing that you judge the academic utility of studying Plato on the basis of your judgment of his correctness; and this is precisely an example of what I think is wrong with how most people view education. Simply put, it is not an educator's job to indocrinate students in lodurr's worldview.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:25 PM on February 7, 2006


Not Meno. Republic, actually.

Actually, I have it right here, and that story is in the Meno.

Anyway, the academic cult of Plato is more or less useless, if not pernicious. Machiavelli, as mistaken as he is about human nature, has more insight than Plato in most areas. And the concept of forms has been almost as much of a hindrance to the advancement of human thought as more mainstream examples of religion.

OK, I gotta know who your favorite philosophers are now.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:33 PM on February 7, 2006


As a kid, I was big on Nietzsche. But then I stopped being a kid, and woke up, and started seeing him as a sad crazy poet rather than a philosopher.

Actually, to tell the truth, I never found one I felt I could respect. I spent years defending the enterprise of philosophy against philistines, only to realize one day that I didn't really believe what I was saying anymore. And realized that I couldn't any longer buy into a view that was based on the idea that theory could trump empiricism -- which is basically the hidden conceit at the base of most, if not all, academic philosophy.

Ethics is a great example. Western philosophers studying ethics tend to assume that there is some kind of deeper law -- essentially, an ethical calculus of some kind -- that if we could just think hard and right enough, we'd grok. Instead of looking to nature, to see what actually happens in the world. (But then, I guess I've never really believed that nature dealt in "oughts".)

So, short answer, I don't suppose I really have one. I think Epicurus was pretty darn cool, though, and I'm slowly warming up to E. O. Wilson.
posted by lodurr at 1:28 PM on February 7, 2006



When we were studying this, my instructor made a distinction between the "Socratic Method" and the "maieutic method". The former being how the method had come be used (guiding, with the added 'appeal to authority' factor that lodurr mentions) versus the latter term, which he used to indicate how the method should used (midwiving).

An excellent discussion, gentlemen. Thanks especially EB, for your insightful commentary.
posted by zueod at 1:48 PM on February 7, 2006 [1 favorite]


My pleasure, zueod. Pleased to meet you.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:58 PM on February 7, 2006


« Older Human camera   |   Safe mutilation Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments