See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/350646473

Socratic Seminar

Chapter · April 2021

CITATION READS
1 4,630

1 author:

Daniela Castellanos-Reyes
North Carolina State University
21 PUBLICATIONS 451 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniela Castellanos-Reyes on 06 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Socratic Seminar

Daniela Castellanos-Reyes

This chapter will discuss the Socratic Seminar as an instructional method, its historical roots,
definitions, uses, and practical considerations. Readers can use this chapter as a practical guide on
how to implement the Socratic Seminar in their teaching. A table and infographic (see Figure 2) are
provided at the end for practitioners to guide their Socratic questioning.

What Is the Socratic Seminar?

The Socratic Seminar, also known as Socratic Dialogue, is rooted in the conversations the Greek
philosopher Socrates (470–399 BC) had with his pupils (Scheneider, 2013). Socrates, known as an
excellent teacher, established dynamic conversations with his learners, empowering them to
construct their understanding of complex matters, and think critically about evidence (Chowning,
2009). The Socratic Seminar has no single definition (Acim, 2018). From a teaching perspective,
Billings and Roberts (2006) explain that the Socratic Seminar is an instructional method that aims
to improve understanding of ideas through engaged discussion. Soccio (2015) clarifies that the
Socratic Seminar is a dialectical method of inquiry that uses questions to guide a discussion. It is
expected that truth comes from learners' discussion (Spencer & Millson-Martula, 2009).
Discovering the truth involves a systematic discussion on the nature of verifiable ideas (Spencer &
Millson-Martula, 2009). Kessels (2009) adds that it is a collective deliberation of ideas aiming to
achieve consensus on the answers to fundamental questions. Attempting to find agreement,
instructors can infer that these definitions share two characteristics: first, truth is discovered
through engaged and logical discussion; and second, truth comes from within the learner.

Why Use the Socratic Seminar?

Research on Socratic Seminar has shown that it is an effective instructional method both in K-12
and higher education to support academic performance (Griswold et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2009)
and meta-cognitive and critical thinking skills (Darginavièienë, 2007; Oyler & Romanelli, 2014). This
section examines reasons to use the Socratic Seminar as an instructional method. It first focuses
on academic performance. Then, metacognitive and critical thinking skills grained through the
Socractic Seminar are discussed.

Because It Improves Academic Performance

The Socratic Seminar can help learners meet K-12 science (Griswold et al., 2017) and English
language and arts standards (Schmoker, 2012). Desired learner performance can be seen when the
instructor devotes enough time to correctly align Socratic Seminar material (e.g. texts, cases) to
standardized tests and national standards (Billings & Roberts, 2006). As an example, Billings and
Roberts (2006) found an instructor who linked the standard of writing a "reminiscence about an
object, place, or person" (p. 3) with an excerpt from "The Hoard" by J. R. R. Tolkien. The material
from "The Hoard" was discussed and modeled to meet the North Standard Course of Study for 10th
grade. Regarding science focused courses, analyzing and interpreting data is a crucial part of three
core elements of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS): crosscutting elements,
disciplinary core ideas, and science and engineering practices (NGSS, 2019). It allows learners to
“represent, visualize, analyze, identify patterns, and tabulate data” (Griswold et al. 2017, p. 492).
Smith et al. (2013) recommend that instructors start teaching statistical concepts with intuitive
notions before moving to definitions and calculations.

In addition, previous research has shown that the Socratic Seminar is a powerful instructional
method that can support learners’ conceptual understanding and discourse of data (e.g, Griswold
et al., 2017). In a case study, Griswold et al. (2017) found that interpreting graphs, tables, and
diagrams using the Socratic Seminar instructional method improves learner outcomes (e.g.,
discourse of data) and teacher interest towards the instructional method. In their case study,
learners examined figures displaying data from the Diabetes Prevention Program that showed
diabetes cases under three conditions (placebo, metformin, and lifestyle). Learners’ answered
multiple questions ranging from literal (“What do the data show?” p. 494) to interpretative (“What
do the data mean?” p. 494) and evaluative (“How might this apply to you?” p. 494). Through group
discussions, learners discovered misunderstandings that they had about the data and how to read
a figure (Griswold et al., 2017). For example, learners realized that they were not reading the y and x
axis correctly and were able to correct the mistake (Griswold et al., 2017). Learner outcomes were
measured based on the NGSS and teacher interest in teaching using the Socratic Seminar. Overall,
results showed that the role of inquiry in the Socratic Seminar enables learners to learn
fundamental concepts intuitively.

Improving academic performance also happens at the college level. Although not strictly Socratic
Seminar, previous studies indicate that peer discussion improves understanding of in-class
questions for undergraduate learners (Smith et al., 2009). Chowning (2009) argues that “shared
inquiry and discussion builds greater learner understanding” (p. 41). In a case study, Smith et al.
(2009) found that the percentage of correct answers increased after learners discuss with peers
compared to when they did not hold a discussion. They also found that understanding of scientific
topics improved even when none of the learners in the discussion groups knew the correct answer
(Smith et al. 2009). Instructors can encourage peer discussion and then gradually move to group
discussions, aiming to achieve a Socratic Seminar format. Another successful example is Berger
and Wild (2017) who found that undergraduates exposed to the Socratic Seminar instructional
method improved academic performance as measured by class rank and academic recognitions
(e.g., honors degrees). They also found that 94% of learners who engaged in a Socratic Seminar
course received honors degrees.

Because It Improves Critical Thinking and Metacognitive Skills

Garrison et al., (2011) define critical thinking as “both a process and an outcome” (p. 8). As an
outcome, they explain that learners’ critical thinking is indirectly assessed through individual
assignments. As a process, critical thinking is supported through discourse and reflection that
demand skills such as creativity and problem solving (Garrison et al., 2011). From a Socratic
perspective, critical thinking is defined “as the application and analysis of information requiring
clarity, logical consistency, and self-regulation” (Oyler & Romanelli, 2014, p. 1). Thus, critical thinking
can be defined as “both a process and an outcome” (Garrison et al., 2011, p. 8). Garrison et al.
(2011) explain the process of critical thinking through the practical inquiry model (PIM). The PIM
has four phases: triggering-events, exploration, integration, and resolution. Although gradual, these
phases are not hierarchical. The process starts by posing triggering events, like questions. Then,
learners explore facts and ideas about those questions followed by integration of such through
reflection. And, finally, learners resolve questions by testing or defending their solutions.

One can use examples from the literature to understand how critical thinking occurs through the
PIM. For instance, Oyler and Romanelli (2014) explain that readily available information (i.e.,
internet) allows learners to retrieve rote knowledge immediately. One could say that those learners
are in the exploration phase of the PIM. Oyler and Romanelly (2014) also argue that fast access to
archived information makes critical thinking necessary for learners to avoid empty repetition of
facts and be able to connect relevant previous knowledge to new current events (Oyler & Romanelli,
2014). Those learners achieve the integration phase of the PIM in which connections among ideas
are made and the real-world. When the Socratic Seminar is used, learners are asked to reason by
making inferences, resolve conflicts, solve ill-structured problems, and use evidence to support
arguments (Shomoker, 2012). Learners are in the resolution phase of the PIM when they engage in
these types of tasks.

Another example of critical thinking is Tempe Preparatory Academy in Arizona which uses Socratic
Seminars as model to build their academic programs. At Tempe Prep, learners have daily Socratic
Seminars in which they respond to prepared questions about literary and historical masterpieces.
On top of that, learners submit monthly essays in which they defend their reasoning about previous
topics from the discussed readings (Schmoker, 2012). Learners at Tempe Prep must defend their
arguments and interpretations while examining contemporary and historical issues that take them
to provide solutions to solve current problems (Veenstra, 2019). In addition, when using the
Socratic Seminar individuals learn to regulate their thoughts to find true understanding, which
makes this instructional method convenient to nurture metacognition and self-regulation
(Darginavièienë, 2007; Oyler & Romanelli, 2014).

In an interventional study, Jensen (2015) examined students' critical thinking skills after
implementing the Socratic Seminar three days a week for four weeks. Results showed an increase
in critical thinking skills in English Language Learners. Jense (2015) measured critical thinking
using the “Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric” by Facione and Facione (1994) (see the
Assessment section below). Similar results have been found with college learners in public
relations majors who improved critical thinking and problem-solving strategies in Socratic
Seminars in contrast to those who were in a lecture-based course (Parkinson & Ekachai, 2002).

How to Use the Socratic Seminar

The Socratic Seminar first requires learners to read cases, articles, texts, or events in their context
or profession (Parkinson & Ekachai, 2002). Second, the instructor, who is familiar with the material,
guides learners in a discussion. As a prerequisite to the Seminar, learners must have prepared the
predefined material (i.e., assigned text, article, or case). In that way, the Socratic Seminar can meet
its purpose of leading learners to discover the underlying principles of a problem and evaluate it
(Parkinson & Ekachai, 2002). Consequently, the discussion avoids superficial aspects of a text and
immerses learners in deep thinking of complex issues. It is vital that instructors keep the
discussion on target and move in the right direction.

Instructors’ Role in the Socratic Seminar

Although not explicitly stated in the definitions, a vital element of this instructional method is the
instructor. Stoddard and O’Dell (2016) clarify that in the Socratic Seminar, the instructor becomes a
guide whose role is not to provide answers to learners, but rather accompany learners in the
construction of knowledge. Such knowledge construction happens when teachers ask provoking
questions that confront learners’ beliefs. Challenging questions intend to make learners reflect and
deduce answers through higher-order thinking processes (Stoddard & O’Dell, 2016). Thus, a class
becomes a seminar when it takes distance from the traditional idea of the teacher as the provider
of all knowledge (e.g., lectures) and learners take agency over their learning (Reich, 2003). Reich
(2003) explains that the purpose of the Socratic Seminar explicitly involves not teaching as a sage
on the stage, but moving to the guide on the side. A common practice in the Socratic Seminar is to
debate ideas and concepts raised by a text, case, or a collaborative discussion (Billings & Roberts,
2006). The purpose of the Socratic Seminar is achieving “a deeper understanding about the ideas
and values in a particular text” (Chowing, 2009, p. 38) and nurturing a rigorous intellectual activity in
which learners think independently and formulate questions (Acim, 2018) to discover the truth.

The Stages of a Socratic Seminar

Billings and Roberts (2006) from the National Paideia Center describe the teaching cycle of a
Socratic Seminar in three stages: planning, practice, and assessment. They explained such phases
under the light of the experiences of a teacher who implements the Socratic Seminar during an
academic year. The stages’ names are similar to any other type of instructional method; it is the
role of the instructor that makes a substantial difference in the Socratic Seminar. In this section,
readers will find a brief description of each of the stages and recommendations that Billings and
Roberts (2006) offer on how to successfully conduct a Socratic Seminar.

Planning
As with any instructional method, planning is the key to success. However, planning for a Socratic
Seminar involves two components: 1) instructor preparation (i.e., selecting text/case/event and
preparing questions) and 2) learner preparation (pre-seminar individual activities). The instructor
preparation component is deliberately based on the curriculum. Therefore, the selection of the
instructional material (i.e. the text, case, or event to discuss) goes hand-in-hand with the national
standards required for the American K-12 grade level or with expected competencies in the case of
higher education. Standard oriented planning guarantees that learners also meet achievement
expectations apart from improving critical thinking and metacognitive skills. Furthermore, a good
match between standards and instructional materials eases the process of question preparation
(see Types of Questions section below).

The learner preparation component aims to nurture skills that are crucial for the development of the
Socratic Seminar. Learners need to engage in collaborative and respectful values to participate in
fruitful discussions. Pre-seminar activities should foster collaborative values that allow shy learners
to speak up and energetic learners to listen actively. There are three ways of fostering learner
preparation: 1) establishing clear discussion rules (see Setting Rules and Arranging the Classroom
section below), 2) asking learners to set personal goals for the discussion (e.g., minutes of
speaking time), and 3) asking for self and peer assessment (see Assessment section below). A
good balance between instructor preparation and learner preparation guarantees that both
academic goals and socio-emotional goals are met in the Socratic Seminar. Billings and Roberts
(2006) explain that the Socratic Seminar can fail if learners are not well prepared, even if instructors
invest significant time in the material and question preparation.

Practice
Instructors must have in mind the intellectual and collaborative purpose of Socratic Seminars.
Therefore, questions formulated during the learning experience must be academic-related and
intended to promote social interaction. Consequently, purely social questions or questions with
only one right answer deviate from the purpose of the Socratic Seminar. In order to achieve fluent
discussion, instructors should emphasize that multiple answers exist. In addition, promoting
multiple right answers allows learners to confront ideas and debate with their peers in a respectful
environment. In that way, learners are encouraged to compare and contrast ideas. Eventually,
learners will build upon each other’s ideas and synthesize a collective solution to the problems
presented.

Guiding a Socratic Seminar requires developed note-taking and active listening skills. Billings and
Roberts (2006) recommend that instructors map out their learners in a graphic chart to support the
note-taking process (see Figure 1). While learners speak, instructors can quickly locate who the
dominant members are, which arguments have been made, and which learner interactions are most
predominant. Those notes are necessary to guide conversations based on learners’ arguments
rather than on instructors’ ideas.

Figure 1

Example of Course Drawing to Support Instructors’ Note-Taking

Note. #Int.: Number of interventions made. #Rep: number of replies received. One-way arrow:
replied to this learner. Two-way arrow: learners exchanged ideas. Dotted line: learners had
contrasting opinions.

Assessment
Billings and Roberts (2006) recommend using self and peer assessment after using the Socratic
Seminar. Both types of assessments require learners to take ownership of their learning
experiences and regulate their behaviors. For instance, Murray, the instructor in which Billings and
Robert report, provides her notes to learners when they are doing peer and self-assessment.
Moreover, she asks learners to reflect on their personal goals set during the planning phase and ask
whether they achieved them or not. Doing so encourages learners to continue defending their
positions, much like during the Socratic Seminar itself. Using learners’ personal goals, instructors’
map of interactions, and learners’ annotations allows participants of the Socratic Seminar to make
data-driven assessments of their performance. Assessment does not only happen among learners;
instructors are highly encouraged to use their notes to continue improving the Seminar facilitation
and the overall learning experience. Instructors can support their assessment using Facione and
Facione (1994) Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubrics. Instructors can assign learners points
from one to four depending on their demonstration of critical thinking traits. A description of the
highest score is “Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view.” Descriptors
of low critical thinking are “Offers biased interpretations” and “Does not justify results or
procedures, nor explain reasons.”

Practical Considerations
Types of Questions
Questions are the building blocks of the Socratic Seminar and instructors use them to build a
strong, solid environment to engage learners in constructive discussions. Questioning also involves
purposefully selecting questions that encourage learner-to-learner interaction instead of only
instructor-to-learner interaction. In Table 1, instructors will find a set of questions to use when
guiding a Socratic Seminar and the intended purposes of each question. Before using the questions
presented here, it is critical that instructors assess a learner's existing knowledge to select
questions that challenge learners without frustrating them (Stoddard & O’Dell, 2016). Stoddard and
O’Dell (2016) group Socratic Questions in three clusters: questions to clarify concepts, questions to
probe evidence, and questions to explore implications or consequences. Table 1 is a compendium
of questions posed by different researchers’ rationale (Griswold et al. 2017; Saran & Neisser, 2004;
Stoddard & O’Dell, 2016) and aligned with Krathwohl’s revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy
(Stoddard & O’Dell, 2016). Instructors can use this table to match questioning to national and state
standards.

Table 1

Types of Questions for Socratic Seminars

Karthwohl’s Saran & Neisser (2004) Stoddard & O’Dell (2016) – Griswold et al. (2017) –
revised – General Socratic Questions focused on Questions focused on
Bloom’s Seminar Questions medical settings useful for database Seminars.
taxonomy case studies.
(2002)

Remember Asking for Clarification Questions to Clarify Literal Questions

Concepts
Recognizing, What do you mean What does the
recalling when you say___? Can What does this mean? data/chart/table/graph
you elaborate___? Can show? How are the x- and
What is the origin of this?
you explain further___? y-axis labeled? Why are
they labeled that way?
Does the title of the
data/chart/table/graph
clearly depict it?

Understand Probing Assumptions Questions to Clarify Interpretative Questions

Concepts
Interpreting, What are you assuming What does the data mean?
explaining, when you say___? Are How does this relate to
comparing, your arguments based what we have been
summarizing on the assumption that discussing/learning?
___?
What do you already know
about this topic/issue?

Apply - N/A - Questions to Probe for - N/A -

Evidence/Rationale
Executing,
implementing Can you give me an
example of what you
said___?

How did you learn/practice

that?

Analyze Probing Evidence Questions to Probe for Interpretative Questions

Evidence/Rationale
Differentiating, How does your Can this data be used to
organizing argument apply in the How does X affect Y? support a specific claim?
case of ____? In what
Then what would happen
evidence do you base
if….?
your argument ____?
What is an example of Why is that issue
___? happening?

Viewpoints & How do you know this is the

Perspectives issue?
 Why are you taking this
viewpoint instead of
the other? How would
people from other
backgrounds react
to___?

Evaluate Implications & Questions to Explore Interpretative Questions

Consequences Implications/Consequences
Critiquing Does the data have
What are the Why is that important? consequences? What are
implications of your the
What are the implications of
idea/argument/position social/economical/cultural
X decision?
___? What effect would consequences of this
that idea/position have data?
on ___ situation?
Evaluative Questions
Questions about the (Meta-cognitive)
question (Meta-
How does data apply to
questions)
you? What experience do
Why is this question you have with this?
important? How do you
think we can answer
this question?

Create - N/A - Questions to Explore - N/A -

Implications/Consequences
Generating,
producing Based on the history and
physical condition of the
patient, can you give a
diagnostic?

What can we do now to

treat her?

Note. - N/A - : Authors did not provide questions for that level in the taxonomy.

Setting Rules and Arranging the Classroom

A Socratic Seminar needs a set of rules for participants to take the most out of it. For instance,
learners need to time their interventions (Griswold et al., 2017). In that way, Seminar time is more
evenly distributed, and participants have more chances to intervene in the discussion. Also,
learners should have prepared materials (e.g., text, cases) beforehand and be prepared to listen to
others’ arguments. Learners could be encouraged to refer by name to others while discussing and
to avoid raising hands to promote the natural flow of the discussion. Finally, instructors are
encouraged to plan in advance the classroom arrangement. Griswold et al. (2016) suggest using a
horseshoe or circle in which learners can see each other. However, they understand that
roundtables are not always possible and offer an alternative for large classes: the fishbowl
arrangement. Fishbowl means that there are two concentric circles facing inwards. The circle in the
center contributes to the discussion while the outer circle listens and waits for their turn to
contribute. Members of the outer circle can do peer evaluation using predefined rubrics (Billings &
Terry, 2006).

Other Considerations
The Socratic Seminar does not mean pimping (Oyler & Romanelli, 2014), also referred to as toxic
quizzing (Purdy, 2018). Pimping is a popular instructional method in the field of medicine “where
persons in power ask questions to their junior colleagues” (War et al., 2005, p. 185). For the sake of
clarity, the term toxic quizzing will be used. Both the Socratic Seminar and toxic quizzing require
instructors to question learners’ ideas (Stoddard & O’Dell, 2016). However, toxic quizzing intends to
provoke admiration towards instructors and portray them as superior to their learners. In
comparison, instructors apply the Socratic Seminar when asking questions to ascertain learners’
previous knowledge (Tofade et al., 2013) and synthesize new information (Stoddard & O’Dell, 2016).
Questioning becomes toxic quizzing when instructors’ intentions do not pursue curiosity, but intend
to belittle learners (Stoddard and O’Dell, 2016). Therefore, the instructor’s role is vital as they
establish a safe space for sharing ideas and encouraging intellectual autonomy.

Although the Socratic Seminar highly encourages independent thinking, unguided instruction could
be adverse to learners’ performance (Kirschner et al., 2010). For the novice and intermediate
learners, Kirschner et al. (2010) found that instruction with minimal guidance framed under the
constructivist approach (like the Socratic Seminar) was not superior to direct instructional
guidance. For more advanced learners, minimal guidance was equally effective as direct guidance
(Kirschner et al., 2010). Although scientific thinking can occur without guidance, Kirschner et al.
(2010) argue that teaching scientific thinking does not have to be the same as the epistemology of
science. Furthermore, they say that it is “a mistake to assume that instruction should exclusively
focus on application” (p. 84). In the case of the Socratics Seminar, the instruction is the application
of scientific thinking itself. Hattie and Donoghue (2016) explain that the low efficiency related to
problem-based or inquiry-based methods is due to using them on learners who have not acquired
sufficient prior knowledge yet. Practitioners are recommended to assume that higher-level thinking
skills require enough prior knowledge when using minimal guidance in instruction (Hattie &
Donoghue, 2016). Thus, this chapter strongly encourages practitioners to know their learners
before embarking on any instructional methods and to think of pre-planning as the most relevant
part of the Socratic Seminar—more relevant than the discussion itself.

Figure 2

Infographic on the Socratic Seminar

References
Acim, R. (2018). The Socratic method of instruction: An experience with a reading comprehension
course. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 8(1), 4.
[Link]

Billings, L., & Roberts, T. (2006). Planning, practice, and assessment in the seminar classroom. The
High School Journal, 90(1), 1–8.

Chowning, J. T. (2009). Socratic Seminars in Science Class. Science Teacher, 76(7), 36–41.

Darginavièienë, I. (2007). The Socratic Method in a foreign language classroom. Acta Paedagogica
Vilnesia, 18.

Facione, P., & Faccione, N. (1994). Holistic Critical Thinking Scoring Rubric. Milbrae, CA: The
California Academic Press.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer
conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.
[Link]

Griswold, A. J., Shaw, L., & Munn, M. (2017). Socratic seminar with data: A strategy to support
student discourse and understanding. The American Biology Teacher, 79(6), 492–495.

Hattie, J. A. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model.
Npj Science of Learning, 1(1). [Link]
Jensen, R. (2015). The effectiveness of the Socratic Method in developing critical thinking skills in
English language learners. Grace University.

Kessels, J., Boers, E., & Mostert, P. (2009). Free space. Field guide to conversations. Amsterdam:
Boom.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2010). Educational pychologist why minimal guidance
during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery,
problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–
86. [Link]

Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4),
212–219. Retrieved from [Link]

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. [Link]

Oyler, D. R., & Romanelli, F. (2014). The fact of ignorance revisiting the socratic method as a tool for
teaching critical thinking. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(7), 1–10.
[Link]

Parkinson, M. G., & Ekachai, D. (2002). The Socratic method in the introductory PR course: An
alternative pedagogy. Public Relations Review, 28(2), 167–174. [Link]

Purdy, E. (2018, December 11). An overdue rant on “Pimping toxic quizzing”. International Clinician
Educators Blog. [Link]

Rapanta, C. (2018). Potentially argumentative teaching strategies - And how to empower them.
Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(3).

Reich, R. (2003, Fall). The Socratic method: What it is and how to use it in the classroom. Speaking
of Teaching, 13, 1–4. Retrieved from [Link]

Saran, R., & Neisser, B. (Eds.). (2004). Enquiring minds. Socratic dialogue in education. Stoke on
Trent: Trentham Books

Schneider, J. (2013). Remembrance of things past: A history of the socratic method in the United
States. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(5), 613–640. [Link]

Schmoker, M. (2012). The problem with English language arts standards. Phi Delta Kappan,
(February), 68–70. Retrieved from [Link]

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why
peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science,
323(January), 122–124. [Link]

Soccio, D. J. (2015). Archetypes of wisdom: An introduction to philosophy. Boston, MA: Cengage

Learning.

Spencer, S., & Millson-Martula, C. (2009). Critical thinking with the library program. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Stoddard, H. A., & O’Dell, D. V. (2016). Would Socrates have actually used the “Socratic Method” for
clinical teaching? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 31(9), 1092–1096.
[Link]
 Tofade, T., Elsner, J., & Haines, S. T. (2013). Best practice strategies for effective use of questions
as a teaching tool. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(7).
[Link]

Veenstra, J. (2019). Humane letters department. Tempe Preparatory Academy.

[Link]

Wear, D., Kokinova, M., Keck-McNulty, C., & Aultman, J. (2005). Pimping: Perspectives of 4th year
medical students. Research Basic to Medical Education, 17(2), 184–191.
[Link]

Suggested Citation

Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2020). Socratic Seminar. In R. Kimmons & S. Caskurlu (Eds.), The

Students' Guide to Learning Design and Research. EdTech Books.
[Link]

View publication stats