Socratic Method: Dialectic and Its Use in Teaching Culture in EFL Classrooms
Servet Çelik, USA
Servet Çelik, a Ph.D candidate in Language Education at Indiana University, USA, holds a bachelor's degree in ELT from Gazi University, Turkey, and a master's of education degree in TESOL from the University of Pennsylvania, USA. Some of his professional interests include language teacher education, native and non-native language teachers, and sociolinguistics/intercultural competence. E-mail: servet61@indiana.edu
Menu
1. Introduction
2. Core Elements of the Socratic Method
2.1. The Text
2.2. The Question
2.3. The Leader
2.4. The Participants
3. Adoption of the Socratic Method in EFL Teaching: What to Consider?
4. The Socratic Method and Culture Teaching: Sample Questions
5. Conclusion
Bibliography
There are few educators, if none at all, who have never heard of Socrates, the classical Greek philosopher (470-399 BC), although not many would be familiar with the specifics of the theory of knowledge he introduced that we instinctively utilize in certain aspects of our daily lives today. He called it dialectic, "the art or practice of examining opinions or ideas logically, often by the method of questions and answers, so as to determine their validity" (Ellis, 2003, p. 2), while most refer to it nowadays as the Socratic Method or Socratic Seminar, "a method to try to understand information by creating an in-class dialogue based on a specific text" (Ellis, 2003, p. 2).
The Socratic Method of teaching is founded on the stance that it is essential to facilitate students' thinking for themselves, as opposed to merely providing them with the prescribed so-called valid, acceptable or correct answers. In this sense, the method "encourages divergent thinking rather than convergent thinking" (Adams, n.d., cited in Ellis, 2003, p. 1). Hyman (1970) states that "for Socrates the way to stimulate the memory is to ask questions, since these elicit responses which lead to the end in mind" and only "through questioning a person recalls the knowledge possessed by his immortal soul" (p. 67). As outlined by Ellis (2003), Socrates would pick and initiate a discussion on a distinct aspect of an attention-grabbing concern, and through the practice of exchange of ideas by means of a back-and-forth concentrated question-and-answer session, he would aspire to elicit one's full knowledge (or lack of knowledge) and demonstrate the limits of the human mind. In this process, he himself would play dumb by pretending not knowing anything, and would follow a painstaking step-by-step model by expressing his hunger for wisdom through dialogue, during which he would make every effort to ensure that both parties are compelled to ask questions vis-à-vis reasoning, facts, connections, and examples to clarify, support, correct, modify, and/or change their ideas, as necessary, in light of new data. The closing of such profound and passionate conversations are regarded as openings for further inquiries, never as absolute conclusions, as the implied goal is meaning-making rather than mastering information.
Although Socrates' foremost conviction, that "there is no teaching, only recollecting; learning is remembering" (Hyman, 1970, p. 58) and the belief that "he is demonstrating the method whereby memory is stimulated" (Hyman, 1970, p. 66), may not be welcomed by the educators of the millennium, the likely success and sensation the deliberate use of his method can bring to our modern, but at times tedious and inert, classrooms is worth giving a try. After all, one of the major criticisms of today's teachers and schools is overloading the students with a superfluous bulk of information that is of no practical use in life, and their lack of promotion of the most crucial skills in students, such as higher order thinking and imagination, and the Socratic Method offers a resolution to such concerns as the students and teachers seek out a "deeper understanding of complex ideas through rigorously thoughtful dialogue, rather than by memorizing bits of information or meeting arbitrary demands for coverage" (Ellis, 2003, p. 2). Further, we, as the teachers of the new era, should feel accountable to create an eclectic or integrated way of teaching by making a conscious effort to exploit whatever it is that works for us in our milieu of teaching, and the Socratic Method may, for some, be one of the effective methods they can take advantage of.
Socrates might not believe in teaching, but in our understanding, he is teaching through his focused questioning, his own method of advancing critical thinking and invigorating memory, and furthermore, his technique depicts the indispensable characteristics and parts of what we desire and require in education to make efficient teaching and learning happen: having clear objectives and rationales in what we do, and a fitting routine to accompany them. Yet, his denial of teaching may actually make sense to today's educators after careful consideration of the socio-cultural and educational context of his time; simply that education was regarded, by most, to be nothing, but a concrete entity people had to possess in order to gain prosperity and social status (which, by the way, may still be the case in 2007's world where education and factual learning are believed to be equivalent to college degrees), and rote learning, repetition and chain drills (as in 1940's Audio Lingual Method) were deemed to be the only intellectual ways of teaching. Thus, it may well be explicable for a wise man, who claimed he did not know anything, to relentlessly question others, who thought they knew everything, in an attempt to practice a mutual quest for the multifaceted truth and virtue, and ultimately, to refute the authenticity of the view of teaching at the time based on the letdowns of the so-called educated.
According to Paul Raider (n.d., cited in Ellis, 2003), the Socratic Method is made of four key components: the text, the question, the leader, and the participants.
The very first step to a thriving Socratic teaching is selecting the proper text. Texts can be chosen from a wide variety of resources such as, but not limited to, readings in social and physical sciences, movies, art works, and music. Especially at the beginning stages, they should be kept short to familiarize the students with the method, and to give them the confidence they need. Correspondingly, long texts for novel users of the Socratic Method can be exceedingly demanding and/or may lead to agonizing boredom. As the teacher and the students get more proficient using the method a few times, the teacher may start introducing slightly longer texts or may combine a few short ones to use at the same time. Regardless of their size, good texts are closely linked to the overall goals of the text, subject, unit, and the classroom; they are at an adequate level to activate the students' minds, but not overwhelm them; and, they are rich in that they discuss a range of issues, offer different viewpoints, and stimulate critical thinking.
The second central element in Socratic coaching is the preliminary question either the leader (teacher) or a veteran participant (student) poses. The beginning question to initiate the dialogue should be well-planned, and mirror an authentic thought-provoking inquest. Such a question should not endorse only one way of thinking or a preset correct answer, but should rather generate further speculation and hypotheses, and in due course, responses and explanations provided to it should lead to both new discoveries about the text and additional questions, and thus, to new responses, all emerging unpredictably on a whim. The secondary and supporting questions used not only by the leader, but also by the participants, to describe, illuminate or review what everyone brings to the table should also meet the basic criteria referred to above for opening questions, except that they may not be open-ended and can take different forms to elicit a number of aspects such as agreement/disagreement, clarification, support, comparison and contrast, questions, and personal experience. In brief, the type of questions chosen to ask has a direct impact on the end result, bearing in mind that "the crux of the matter, whether the result be [is] recollection or reasoning, is in the questions Socrates asks" (Hyman, 1970, p. 67).
The leader, the next chief constituent in Socratic instruction, is typically the teacher, who not only guides the discourse, but also takes an active part in it. The teacher should feel the same enthusiasm and inquisitiveness about the text, and about the method alike, as are required of the students, for a triumphant Socratic teaching. A fine leader willfully keeps the dialogue on track by asking the right questions that help shed light on the topic, and by successfully modeling the Socratic perception, thinking and intelligence. Although it is not feasible, nor is it an objective, to predict each and every question that the participants may ask, the leader must become an expert on the text to be able to attend to different initiatives and ways of sorting out the unanticipated information put forward by different minds. The teacher should remember that there is a need to be patient with the students' devising, organizing and transforming their ideas during the somewhat lengthy process of nonstop questioning, and should be tolerant of any likely conventional and rigid thinking practices the students may demonstrate every now and then. Furthermore, the teacher should keep tabs on the students' progress, and establish equilibrium between the students by making a conscious attempt to engage the reluctant participants during the channel of communication, while limiting the ones who routinely have their voices heard.
The last, but not least, requisite affiliate in implementing the Socratic debate is the participants who the successful completion and quality of the procedure heavily rely on. While we refer, by and large, to the students as the participants, teachers can, and should, be viewed as active partakers in that process as well. The participants should attentively study and analyze the texts ahead of time, and be prepared and willing to contribute to the exchange of ideas by practicing active-listening, communicating their position, constantly reflecting on their reasoning, and reformulating their ideas. Since the Socratic Method counts, first and foremost, on dialogue, and dialogue involves a variety of skills that can be taught and learned, the teacher and the students can reminisce about their previous session and discuss what can be done to improve the use of this method next time, and they can practice, in addition to reading, listening, thinking, and discussing, an assortment of affective skills such as suspending their biases and stereotypes, being respectful and tolerant of others and diverse ideas, and being open to change for personal growth. Teachers should reinforce the conception that the aim is not to locate the right answers, but instead, to explore important issues and to construct well-supported ideas through a joint effort, which will, in turn, hearten the students to share their minds openly and to fairly evaluate others' views. Such collaboration and attitude fosters active learning, and also serves as a way to bond and build a positive relationship between the teacher and the students, which ultimately is beneficial to the success of the classroom.
Although "Socrates claimed that the Socratic method was not a teaching method but rather a method of philosophical inquiry, a way of seeking wisdom" (Hyman, 1970, p. 77), it can well be successfully implemented in all areas of education including EFL teaching. However, certain aspects of this method do not adhere to the humanistic language teaching practices that are of high value in contemporary language education, and need to be revised. As Hyman (1970) suggests, "the question is, then, what to modify in the Socratic method in order to convert it into a teaching method" (p. 78).
The primary troubling element the Socratic thinking incorporates, that we should be alert to, is the potential chaos and turmoil it is likely to fabricate due to its intense and potentially infuriating nature. Oliver and Shaver (1966), for instance, in a study of classroom discourse, uncovered the frightening truth that the Socratic Method can provoke negative emotional responses in students such as, but not limited to, disappointment, aggravation, stress, anxiety, and anger. Thus, several actions need to be taken to alter or eliminate the underlying causes of such dangerous reactions, all of which may severely limit the students' learning and the quality of our classrooms. All in all, the teachers' responsibility is to create an environment of competition, tolerance, and fun all at the same time, not a battlefield of harsh feelings or malicious encounters.
Hyman (1970) suggests several ways of abolishing the potential risks associated with the Socratic Method that have been mentioned above. Initially, unlike the field of Law where this method has been frequently used to overpower the individuals for the sake of finding the truth, the field of Education calls for special care, compassion and kindheartedness to establish a mutual understanding, trust and respect between the teacher and the students. This is particularly important in the case of foreign language learners who may already be feeling marginalized due to being forced to study a foreign language and its culture (i.e., compulsory EFL classes). Therefore, the teachers must ascertain that the students are not put down or dejected, but instead are inspired and fueled, throughout the questioning. Otherwise, the teachers using the Socratic Method for instructional diversity and excellence would turn into magnets of revulsion seeking to disclose their students' weaknesses and lack of knowledge to talk them into their own way of thinking.
According to Hyman (1970), in serving the purpose elucidated here, namely reducing the tension linked to the Socratic practice, teachers are advised to carry out three specific tasks. Initially, the teachers should keep the use of this method brief, as 10-15 minutes would be enough to arouse curiosity in a topic, and to practice critical thinking and sharing of ideas, without making the students feel like alleged suspects of a crime desperately being questioned. Secondly, the teachers can use humor and jokes to decrease the pressure that the Socratic questioning may result in, as inserting comedy in the dialectic may help balance the downsides of this method. Next, the students should be encouraged to concentrate on the characterization of the ideas, facts, and the meanings attached to them, as well as on the progression of their thinking, while their attention is diverted from the uncertainty and insecurity they may experience. Lastly, the teachers should realize that the Socratic Method is complex and sluggish in nature, as it requires a string of questions, each of which serves to bring forth the preceding responses before moving forward; thus, they should not rush the students, and persevere gradually, which can eventually help trim down periodically the students' likely unease.
The next type of modification desired in the Socratic Method, as Hyman (1970) affirms, "involves the outcome of the dialogue" (p. 80). Unlike Socrates' fellows who felt defeated and distraught at the end of the interchange, the end result we wish to produce by using this method in teaching is to create a sense of satisfaction and success in our students, or at least an impermanent feeling of relief and value. Yet, this may not be an easy task to accomplish, particularly at the early stages of the utilization of the method when the teachers keep the length of its operation short to lessen the latent negative effects. In any case, we should endeavor to create some sort of meaning so that the students will not feel worthless, distorted or lost, and whether they wind up having a resolution and breakthrough or not at the end, they will feel the need to clarify and/or inquire further.
Once these recommended changes and measures are executed, the Socratic Method can be used to successfully cover a variety of topics in teaching. However, one should recognize that this method is not as straightforward as it may come across, and that its practice requires numerous skills, meticulous preparation, intellectual strength, unremitting vigilance, and a never-ending patience. Considering the fact that the substance and direction of the dialogue is not known to the teachers in advance, it is crucial that the teachers understand the core qualities of the Socratic Method, and that they carefully analyze and grasp the essence of the chosen topic, put their superior inquiry and assessment skills into practice, persistently monitor their students' cognitive progress and affective reactions, and systematically advance the students' higher order thinking skills and adaptation of their ideas. Absence of the essential knowledge and expertise required of the leaders in Socratic teaching carries the risk of turning the exhausting dialogical trade, and the class time, into a "meandering bull session of little value" (Hyman, 1970, p. 80).
As a final point, the teachers should establish a fair, inventive and enriching assessment system, rather than using long-established stringent grading based on the students' performance in the Socratic debate. The teachers should recognize that some type of formal evaluation should accompany the method's implementation for pedagogical purposes, as the students would then hit upon an educational rationale for it, and would be less likely to cultivate the delusion to see the Socratic Method as a way to dispute and appeal to the teacher figure, to their peers, and to the ideas that are different than their own. On the other hand, a view of this method as just another grading scheme may be perilous, as the dialogue and debate then turns into a testing session and/or discussion, and this may eliminate the very constructive outlook and purpose the method advocates. Therefore, a fine line between an effortless and practically nonexistent assessment procedure and a strict and damaging evaluation protocol should be established. The assessment criteria may be based on a rubric teachers can devise from a variety of print and/or online sources, or on a measure teachers and students can jointly write out after deliberation. Alternatively, in classrooms where student-centrism is of utmost importance, a self-assessment list or a seminar reflection questionnaire/survey can be employed.
The Socratic Method, even with the suggested alterations, may not work well with each and every student group. A certain level of intellect and proficiency in the content area (English, in this case) is needed. For instance, this method may not be feasible for learners of English at lower levels, unless it is wholly simplified, which might then fail to trigger the students' thinking, or even if it might not, it could well be troublesome for the students to provide sharp expositions to issues highlighted in the dialogue. Similarly, additional modifications may be needed to use this method with young learners. As much as children demonstrate the type of passion and curiosity we desire in Socratic teaching, they lack the autonomy, patience, self-control and maturity that one should not disregard to properly handle the use of this method. With this being said, a capable group of students with the preferred proficiency and cognitive/maturity level does not necessarily guarantee success either. Thus, it is critical that the teachers are exceptionally familiar with their students, the richness of their life experiences, and their fervor for such a method so as to make an informed decision about whether this would expand their knowledge and perspective. Correspondingly, although the Socratic Method may benefit their students to a great extent, the teachers should avoid using it too often due to its tremendously demanding and lingering nature, which may enervate both the leader and the participants, and wipe out their craving for this method. Extended dialogues also have the potential to bring about dullness and to lead to distraction and dislike. Hence, replacing and/or blending it with other methods from time to time can greatly increase its reaching and the odds of obtaining better outcomes.
The definition of culture and the significance of culture teaching in EFL have been discussed in innumerable studies over the years. Thus, this section will not attempt to scrutinize what culture is (i.e., culture vs. Culture, or little c vs. big C, see Seelye, 1984) or why it is important for us, as teachers, to integrate it into foreign language instruction. The scope, therefore, will be limited to providing a list of sample questions that can be used to teach the target language culture through the Socratic Method so that language learners' understanding and appreciation of the conventional behavior of native speakers of English in various situations (i.e., personal space, eating habits, music, and literature) can be accomplished.
It is vital that teachers, before initiating a Socratic seminar, dwell vigilantly on the type of issues concerning teaching culture that they would like to explore and illustrate. Students' feelings and attitudes toward the target language cultures (i.e., potential stereotypes), and possible effects of their points of views on their own language learning practices and process may be just two of the myriad promising topics EFL teachers may consider conveying in their classrooms. Whatever topics they end up settling on, the teachers should be aware of the magnitude of picking the best questions to raise, as one of the basic principles of the Socratic method, as mentioned earlier, entails that teachers should not ask questions they already have an answer to, nor should they bring in queries that will not inspire or fire the students (i.e., undemanding questions with straightforward answers). Reflecting back on the issues discussed throughout this paper, a list of questions, though not carved-in-stone and can be modified, extended or replaced, is provided below as a model. Yet, their application cannot be practiced on paper, and their use and success in a classroom would very much depend on the contextual factors including the enthusiasm and performance of those who are involved.
Questions
- How do different beliefs, ethics, or values influence people's behaviors and the society they live in? What factors can you think of that shape one's worldview, values and beliefs?
- How would you describe culture? What are some of the things culture consists of?
- Why would we need culture? Do you think it is important? Can we not do without it? Can you provide some evidence to support your opinion?
- How does culture reveal itself in a society? What are some of the ways or channels through which culture can be characterized, practiced, and reproduced?
- Does culture show discrepancies across geographical regions, nations, countries, and so forth? If yes, why and how so? Are there also universal qualities between people of different cultures?
- Is any one culture simple, or better or worse than others? What is some evidence for your view?
- What are some of the potential conflicts that are likely to occur due to lack of knowledge of the cultural differences when people of different cultures and norms meet up?
- What safety measures can be performed to prevent or reduce cultural misunderstandings and clashes, and their potential negative effects?
- Can you think of ways of how one would discover and gain knowledge of others' cultures? What would you do if you were to learn about another culture?
- What are some of the practices associated with your own culture? Do you find them all appealing, or are there things that you are not fond of about your culture?
- When people from other countries think about your culture, what do they usually think of? What are some things they may wonder about?
- What is the best/most important thing your culture has given to the world? What is the best/most important thing your culture/country has adopted from another culture?
- If a group of people came to your country from overseas, what advice would you give them? What do you think would surprise them? How do you think they would feel during their stay in your country?
- What would you like to know about a different culture before you traveled to a different country? How would you feel if you left your home culture and entered into a completely new culture?
- What do we mean when we say "When you are in Rome, do as the Romans do?" Do you think it is always good advice? Why or why not? Can you remember any other idioms or expressions about culture?
- How is language related to culture? Why would one need to learn about the culture of the native speakers of a language being studied?
- Have you searched for any information regarding native English speakers' cultures through books, the Internet, or other sources? What did you discover? In what ways were they alike or different from those of your own culture? What would you like to know about their culture that you have not explored yet?
- Would you ever consider marrying a native speaker of English, or living permanently in an English speaking country? If yes, why; If no, why not? If you would, how would an intercultural awareness and cultural acceptance play a role in your experiences?
Socratic practice lets us see that the best way to attain consistent and long-lasting knowledge is through the practice of disciplined and persistent questioning (dialectic), making this method a form of theoretical skepticism and critical thinking, with teachers asking rather than telling. Questioning, in this sense, is more than a technique used solely to satisfy our nosiness, and should be viewed as an opportunity to learn about being "critical in the sense of being open to what we do not know, open to the possibility that we think we know more than we do, and paradoxically, that we know more than we assume and know more than we adequately express in public dialogue" (Elkins, 1990, p. 243).
In an EFL context, the students may sometimes detach themselves from the language being studied when they are outside of the classroom, because they may either have only few, if any at all, opportunities to practice what they study in class once the class time is up, or simply lack the motivation needed to further review, practice and reinforce what has been learned. This second assumption, the hard-to-maintain prolonged stimulation, is particularly the case when the students are required to study English as a mandatory subject against their will, and this dilemma is doubled when affective factors such as moral issues, values, and beliefs attached to the English-speaking populations, to the target language culture in general, are included in the language study. In an attempt to prevent the possible resistance from the students who may, at times, feel that their home culture is being attacked and English is being introduced as a replacement, the teachers need to conceive a thriving method to effectively cover the habitually sensitive cultural material, and Socratic dialogue may be a hard-to-find exemplar. However, one should keep in mind that elicitation efforts and methods during Socratic questioning should not be seen or used as a means of endorsing a teacher-centered classroom, but should serve as a way to bring about the students' voices (Conlon, 2005). Only then, such dialogue can motivate the learners to think and work collectively with the teacher so as to wash out their preconceptions and delusions, and to facilitate their cultural learning.
In conclusion, an appropriate use of the Socratic Method tailored to the needs of our particular contexts in EFL teaching can provide the students with opportunities for critical study of cultural texts, active learning of the target language culture through a well-versed dialogue, the acquisition of an intercultural awareness through mutual respect for others and their ideas, and by and large, a positive learning environment where a prevailing community of inquiry is built and collaborative effort is celebrated. It gives the students and teachers involved not a sense of closure at the end of the class, but a taste of a cultural festivity that the participants would hope would never end and will look forward to returning back to.
Conlon, S. (2005). Eliciting students' voices in the Thai context: A routine or a quest? ABAC Journal, 25(1), pp. 33-52.
Elkins, J. R. (1990). Socrates and the pedagogy of critique. Legal Studies Forum, 14(3), pp. 231-252.
Ellis, J. (2003, June). Socratic seminars: Creating a community of inquiry. Retrieved March 10, 2007 from http://web000.greece.k12.ny.us
Hyman, R. T. (1970). Ways of teaching. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Company.
Oliver, D. W., & Shaver, J. P. (1966). Teaching public issues in the high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Seelye, N. H. (1984). Teaching culture: Strategies for intercultural communication. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Please check the Creative Methodology for the Classroom course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Expert Teacher course at Pilgrims website.
|
