Socratic method vs. lecture method

Student Lounge College Life
1

Hello.
I am interested in learning more about the Socratic method.

I have heard that some colleges teach with this method, and am curious about how it differs from the lecture method.

Here are some questions that I have;

-What are the differences between the Socratic and lecture methods?
Is one more effective, difficult, enjoyable, etc. than the other?

-Is there a particular method that those who teach the Socratic method use to grade their students?
Is this method reliable?

-How much written work is generally required? In what form is homework usually given?

-Are students more or less afraid to express their views in a Socratic-method classroom than they are when learning by the lecture method?
During Socratic discussions, do students usually treat each other fairly?
Does this method help students interact with others?

Well-written answers to any of these questions would be much appreciated! :slight_smile:

Thank you,
spruce123

2

Watch episodes of the old tv show about Harvard Law School called “The Paper Chase”.

Mistah Hart. You’ll understand the reference if you watch an episode.

1 Like
3

Well, the Socratic method is called that because it attempts to duplicate what the philosopher Socrates (as portrayed by Plato) does in a series of discussions usually using a young person as a foil. He lets the student talk on a given topic and then subjects them to questioning. You’re more apt to see it in law school in its purest form, but, I can see how any form dialogue between a student and teacher might be called, Socratic. It only requires more work in the sense that you have to keep up with the reading in order to be prepared for the possibility that you will be called on. But, it’s the same syllabus you would have in a lecture class.

Hope this helps.

4

St. John’s College - Annapolis, MD

5

It depends on the course. In some types of classes, if students are prepared, it can be brilliant. In others, where a prof can explain a topic, a lecture approach could be better.

Most programs use a combination of the two.

6

While a handful of colleges (such as SJC, mentioned above) organize the majority of their classes in a Socratic style, most colleges offer a mix of lecture and seminar classes. Lecture classes are particularly common at the lower division level, whereas upper division classes are often smaller and devote more time to class discussion. Most large lecture classes at universities have required weekly discussion sections, usually taught by advanced graduate students, which offer time for discussion and instructor-student interaction.

As a general rule of thumb, you’re more likely to find small discussion-based seminars in the humanities than in STEM fields.

As @gardenstategal noted, student preparation and participation is key for a successful seminar or discussion-based class. I’ve taught some freshman seminars that had engaged, talkative students who made each class a delight. I’ve also had classes - at the same school, mind you - in which getting students to talk was like pulling teeth.

7

As in much teaching, the appeal/success/value of one or the other depends on the skill of the instructor. There are bad lecturers as well as good ones, and there are instructors/professors who should never be allowed to use the Socratic method. I would not choose a school based on which mode predominates. And it is possible to have a seminar/discusssion mode of teaching without being Socrates.

8

I’m not sure that you’ve asked about a common dichotomy. Classes may be either primarily lecture based or discussion based, with the Socratic method representing only one available form of the latter.

9

In general, I prefer small, discussion based classes as it fits my learning style and requires engagement and preparation.

10

Fehh. Both of those are lousy. For real learning that will stick with you, look for project-based methodology.

:wink:

11

What is science? Science states that a hypothesis is either right or wrong; it yields a discrete, binary, outcome: either it will be provable by repeatable experiments yielding the same result, or it will be proven false because they don’t. This is true science, and ironically I won’t debate whether the things propagated as truth (as “proven”) in cosmology and astrophysics, etc., are or aren’t. Therefore, I don’t think that in science courses, there should be an invocation of the Socratic Method. Besides, since sciences courses are often foundationally bases for later courses, the lecture method is imperative to keep the student up to speed.

The grey areas of law (edit: and those which are preparatories for it, philosophy, poli-sci, etc) though should be hashed out for the students’ and even societal good. As warblersrule stated above, these exercises could be fulfilled in discussions and seminars.

So all these depend on the specific perusal.

12

@firmament2x “Science states that a hypothesis is either right or wrong; it yields a discrete, binary, outcome: either it will be provable by repeatable experiments yielding the same result, or it will be proven false because they don’t.”

Kinda-sorta. That is what Karl Popper claimed, but it isn’t that clean. First, it is almost impossible to prove that a scientific hypothesis is “right”. You either add evidence that supports it, or you find evidence that refutes it. However, even this is inaccurate.

Most scientific hypotheses are not simple statements, they are complex ideas, while most experiments and studies deal only with some part of the hypothesis. So a few negative results usually mean that a hypothesis needs to be tweaked or modified, not tossed out.

So Darwin’s hypothesis of decent with modification by means of natural selection was modified in light of Mendelian genetics, and is being further modified as more is learned about genetics, the connections between genotypes and phenotypes, and the forces that affect these.

13

It is often pointed out that the Socratic method worked so well in Plato’s works because Plato was writing both the questions AND the answers. In real life it rarely works out that smoothly.

One problem for students is that as you go through various schools starting at about age 5, you learn to try to remember things you have heard in classroom lectures. And in most cases what you hear is fairly accurate. Then you hit college & grad school, where class discussions, the Socratic method, & student presentations are more common. At these levels, it’s quite possible you will sit there for 5, 10, 20 minutes, listening & absorbing what a student has to say on a topic, only to find out when the student is done that they were NOT on the right track, & you have to mentally “delete” all that erroneous info your mind just absorbed.

14

“At these levels, it’s quite possible you will sit there for 5, 10, 20 minutes, listening & absorbing what a student has to say on a topic, only to find out when the student is done that they were NOT on the right track, & you have to mentally “delete” all that erroneous info your mind just absorbed.”

But you shouldn’t be “listening & absorbing”. Yes, you should listen but meanwhile you should listen with a critical ear and be formulating opinions/responses/questions on what you are hearing, strengthening and honing those critical thinking/reasoning skills.

15

Or, study Socrates himself in action. Read a few of Plato’s dialogues (maybe the Symposium, Phaedrus, and Apology).

Successful dialog depends on minds prepared for learning (either prior to discussion or iteratively through the discussion process itself). A good mentor helps students resist tendencies to bloviate (show off), wander off topic, or shrink from participation. The mentor (or other participants) may challenge logical-rhetorical fallacies or statements unsupported by evidence. The process should expose different perspectives and approaches to challenging problems.

Grades may be based not only on class participation but also (perhaps more heavily) on writing assignments and in some cases on essay (or short answer) exams.
Expect heavy reading loads and challenging writing assignments at some of the colleges that emphasize this approach. Readings typically would focus on primary source materials (not on textbooks).

Not necessarily, especially at first.
To work well, participants need to challenge each other honestly and appropriately, ideally without being too thin-skinned.

Yes, if it’s working well. Or, in some cases, it may expose you to a kind of person you’d rather avoid.

There are no guarantees (especially if participants are unwilling, unprepared, or disruptive).
It may tend to work best at colleges where this approach is an important, long-standing element of the whole undergraduate curriculum. St. John’s College was mentioned above. The Columbia and UChicago Core programs are other examples. Many liberal arts colleges use it in many classes.

Doing Q&A with a teaching assistant in small break-out sections, as a supplement to lectures, isn’t necessarily (probably isn’t) “Socratic”. In courses emphasizing this method, lectures (if used at all) typically would supplement seminars, not the other way around. But a well-taught laboratory class could use Socratic approaches to encourage better observation and hypothesis-testing.

The Oxbridge admission interview process seems to invite Socratic dialog, not only in the humanities but also on natural science topics:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-10-18-how-can-we-estimate-mass-atmosphere-oxford-interview-questions-explained

16

You can’t have a meaningful discussion on a topic unless you’ve already acquired enough preliminary knowledge related to that topic, whether in sciences or humanities. The difference is that, in sciences, the acquisition of that preliminary but voluminous knowledge takes much longer than in humanities. As a result, sciences and engineering courses, especially at the undergraduate level, are generally taught in lecture forms. As you advance toward the frontiers of sciences, there’re more discussion-based courses.

17

@MWolf . . . sorry, I was thinking of adding “Science [in its elemental form]…” and for you I’ll add, "a hypothesis [broken down to its reducible component parts], but then adding the former would negate the necessity for [edit: of] the latter, but not sure about the latter wrt the former. I didn’t add the first because I thought it implied “in its simplest form.”

I’d like to attempt to comment on your last paragraph, but I don’t know if the moderators would allow.

Thanks for responding.

18

@firmament2x Thank you for your clarification - that makes sense. You can PM me any comment on my last paragraph.

19

@MWolf . . . I cut-and-pasted my and your post, and when I get a chance I’ll send you a message. Be well…

20

The Socratic method is (or was) the usual teaching method in law schools. I loved it. Someone up thread said that project based learning is best - not for me. I am a word person, not a hands on person. I hate working in groups and can’t stand anything artsy or craftsy. I am also not visually spatially talented.

Whether the Socratic method will work for any individual person is a combination of the skill of the teacher in drawing out the students and the willingness of the student to do the required reading and to participate in the method. You have to be prepared to be wrong and not let it bother you but to take it as a teaching tool. I have been in Socratic based classes ranging from 8 through 60 students.

I agree that “The Paper Chase” is an excellent example of the Socratic method in action. I saw the movie in 9th grade and it deepened my determination to become a lawyer.