Socratic method

Last updated

Marcello Bacciarelli's Alcibiades Being Taught by Socrates (1776) Marcello Bacciarelli - Alcibiades Being Taught by Socrates, 1776-77 crop.jpg
Marcello Bacciarelli's Alcibiades Being Taught by Socrates (1776)

The Socratic method (also known as method of Elenchus or Socratic debate) is a form of argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions.

Contents

In Plato's dialogue "Theaetetus", Socrates describes his method as a form of "midwifery" because it is employed to help his interlocutors develop their understanding in a way analogous to a child developing in the womb. The Socratic method begins with commonly held beliefs and scrutinizes them by way of questioning to determine their internal consistency and their coherence with other beliefs and so to bring everyone closer to the truth.

In modified forms, it is employed today in a variety of pedagogical contexts.

Development

In the second half of the 5th century BC, sophists were teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric to entertain, impress, or persuade an audience to accept the speaker's point of view. Socrates promoted an alternative method of teaching, which came to be called the Socratic method. [1]

Socrates began to engage in such discussions with his fellow Athenians after his friend from youth, Chaerephon, visited the Oracle of Delphi, which asserted that no man in Greece was wiser than Socrates. Socrates saw this as a paradox, and began using the Socratic method to answer his conundrum. Diogenes Laërtius, however, wrote that Protagoras invented the "Socratic" method. [2] [3]

Plato famously formalized the Socratic elenctic style in prose—presenting Socrates as the curious questioner of some prominent Athenian interlocutor—in some of his early dialogues, such as Euthyphro and Ion , and the method is most commonly found within the so-called "Socratic dialogues", which generally portray Socrates engaging in the method and questioning his fellow citizens about moral and epistemological issues. But in his later dialogues, such as Theaetetus or Sophist, Plato had a different method to philosophical discussions, namely dialectic.[ citation needed ]

Method

Elenchus (Ancient Greek : ἔλεγχος, romanized: elenkhos, lit.  'argument of disproof or refutation; cross-examining, testing, scrutiny esp. for purposes of refutation' [4] ) is the central technique of the Socratic method. The Latin form elenchus (plural elenchi) is used in English as the technical philosophical term. [5] The most common adjectival form in English is elenctic; elenchic and elenchtic are also current. This was also very important in Plato's early dialogues.

Socrates (as depicted by Plato) generally applied his method of examination to concepts such as the virtues of piety, wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. Such an examination challenged the implicit moral beliefs of the interlocutors, bringing out inadequacies and inconsistencies in their beliefs, and usually resulting in aporia. In view of such inadequacies, Socrates himself professed ignorance. Socrates said that his awareness of his ignorance made him wiser than those who, though ignorant, still claimed knowledge. This claim was based on a reported Delphic oracular pronouncement that no man was wiser than Socrates. While this belief seems paradoxical at first glance, in fact it allowed Socrates to discover his own errors.

Socrates used this claim of wisdom as the basis of moral exhortation. He claimed that the chief goodness consists in the caring of the soul concerned with moral truth and moral understanding, that "wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and to the state", and that "life without examination [dialogue] is not worth living".[ citation needed ]

Socrates rarely used the method to actually develop consistent theories, and he even made frequent use of creative myths and allegories. The Parmenides dialogue shows Parmenides using the Socratic method to point out the flaws in the Platonic theory of forms, as presented by Socrates; it is not the only dialogue in which theories normally expounded by Plato's Socrates are broken down through dialectic. Instead of arriving at answers, the method breaks down the theories we hold, to go "beyond" the axioms and postulates we take for granted. Therefore, myth and the Socratic method are not meant by Plato to be incompatible; they have different purposes, and are often described as the "left hand" and "right hand" paths to good and wisdom.[ citation needed ]

Scholarly debate

In Plato's early dialogues, the elenchus is the technique Socrates uses to investigate, for example, the nature or definition of ethical concepts such as justice or virtue. According to Gregory Vlastos, it has the following steps: [6]

  1. Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example "Courage is endurance of the soul".
  2. Socrates decides whether the thesis is false and targets for refutation.
  3. Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example "Courage is a fine thing" and "Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing".
  4. Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, these further premises imply the contrary of the original thesis; in this case, it leads to: "courage is not endurance of the soul".
  5. Socrates then claims he has shown his interlocutor's thesis is false and its negation is true.

One elenctic examination can lead to a new, more refined, examination of the concept being considered, in this case it invites an examination of the claim: "Courage is wise endurance of the soul". Most Socratic inquiries consist of a series of elenchi and typically end in puzzlement known as aporia .

Michael Frede points out Vlastos' conclusion in step No. 5 above makes nonsense of the aporetic nature of the early dialogues. Having shown a proposed thesis is false is insufficient to conclude some other competing thesis must be true. Rather, the interlocutors have reached aporia, an improved state of still not knowing what to say about the subject under discussion. [7]

The exact nature of the elenchus is subject to a great deal of debate, in particular concerning whether it is a positive method, leading to knowledge, or a negative method used solely to refute false claims to knowledge. [8] Some qualitative research shows that the use of the Socratic method within a traditional Yeshiva education setting helps students succeed in law school, although it remains an open question as to whether that relationship is causal or merely correlative. [9]

Yet, W. K. C. Guthrie in The Greek Philosophers sees it as an error to regard the Socratic method as a means by which one seeks the answer to a problem, or knowledge. Guthrie claims that the Socratic method actually aims to demonstrate one's ignorance. Socrates, unlike the Sophists, did believe that knowledge was possible, but believed that the first step to knowledge was recognition of one's ignorance. Guthrie writes, "[Socrates] was accustomed to say that he did not himself know anything, and that the only way in which he was wiser than other men was that he was conscious of his own ignorance, while they were not. The essence of the Socratic method is to convince the interlocutor that whereas he thought he knew something, in fact he does not." [10]

Modern applications

Socratic seminar

A Socratic seminar (also known as a Socratic circle) is a pedagogical approach based on the Socratic method and uses a dialogic approach to understand information in a text. Its systematic procedure is used to examine a text through questions and answers founded on the beliefs that all new knowledge is connected to prior knowledge, that all thinking comes from asking questions, and that asking one question should lead to asking further questions. [11] A Socratic seminar is not a debate. The goal of this activity is to have participants work together to construct meaning and arrive at an answer, not for one student or one group to "win the argument". [12]

This approach is based on the belief that participants seek and gain deeper understanding of concepts in the text through thoughtful dialogue rather than memorizing information that has been provided for them. [12] While Socratic seminars can differ in structure, and even in name, they typically involve a passage of text that students must read beforehand and facilitate dialogue. Sometimes, a facilitator will structure two concentric circles of students: an outer circle and an inner circle. The inner circle focuses on exploring and analysing the text through the act of questioning and answering. During this phase, the outer circle remains silent. Students in the outer circle are much like scientific observers watching and listening to the conversation of the inner circle. When the text has been fully discussed and the inner circle is finished talking, the outer circle provides feedback on the dialogue that took place. This process alternates with the inner circle students going to the outer circle for the next meeting and vice versa. The length of this process varies depending on the text used for the discussion. The teacher may decide to alternate groups within one meeting, or they may alternate at each separate meeting. [11] [13]

The most significant difference between this activity and most typical classroom activities involves the role of the teacher. In Socratic seminar, the students lead the discussion and questioning. The teacher's role is to ensure the discussion advances regardless of the particular direction the discussion takes. [11] [13]

Various approaches to Socratic seminar

Teachers use Socratic seminar in different ways. The structure it takes may look different in each classroom. While this is not an exhaustive list, teachers may use one of the following structures to administer Socratic seminar:

  1. Inner/outer circle or fishbowl: Students need to be arranged in inner and outer circles. The inner circle engages in discussion about the text. The outer circle observes the inner circle, while taking notes. The outer circle shares their observations and questions the inner circle with guidance from the teacher/facilitator. Students use constructive criticism as opposed to making judgements. The students on the outside keep track of topics they would like to discuss as part of the debrief. Participants in the outer circle can use an observation checklist or notes form to monitor the participants in the inner circle. These tools will provide structure for listening and give the outside members specific details to discuss later in the seminar. [11] [13] The teacher may also sit in the circle but at the same height as the students. [14]
  2. Triad: Students are arranged so that each participant (called a "pilot") in the inner circle has two "co-pilots" sitting behind them on either side. Pilots are the speakers because they are in the inner circle; co-pilots are in the outer circle and only speak during consultation. The seminar proceeds as any other seminar. At a point in the seminar, the facilitator pauses the discussion and instructs the triad to talk to each other. Conversation will be about topics that need more in-depth discussion or a question posed by the leader. Sometimes triads will be asked by the facilitator to come up with a new question. Any time during a triad conversation, group members can switch seats and one of the co-pilots can sit in the pilot's seat. Only during that time is the switching of seats allowed. This structure allows for students to speak, who may not yet have the confidence to speak in the large group. This type of seminar involves all students instead of just the students in the inner and outer circles. [13]
  3. Simultaneous seminars: Students are arranged in multiple small groups and placed as far as possible from each other. Following the guidelines of the Socratic seminar, students engage in small group discussions. Simultaneous seminars are typically done with experienced students who need little guidance and can engage in a discussion without assistance from a teacher/facilitator. According to the literature, this type of seminar is beneficial for teachers who want students to explore a variety of texts around a main issue or topic. Each small group may have a different text to read/view and discuss. A larger Socratic seminar can then occur as a discussion about how each text corresponds with one another. Simultaneous Seminars can also be used for a particularly difficult text. Students can work through different issues and key passages from the text. [15]

No matter what structure the teacher employs, the basic premise of the seminar/circles is to turn partial control and direction of the classroom over to the students. The seminars encourage students to work together, creating meaning from the text and to stay away from trying to find a correct interpretation. The emphasis is on critical and creative thinking. [11]

Text selection

Socratic seminar texts

A Socratic seminar text is a tangible document that creates a thought-provoking discussion. [16] The text ought to be appropriate for the participants' current level of intellectual and social development. [17] It provides the anchor for dialogue whereby the facilitator can bring the participants back to the text if they begin to digress. Furthermore, the seminar text enables the participants to create a level playing field – ensuring that the dialogical tone within the classroom remains consistent and pure to the subject or topic at hand. [16] Some practitioners argue that "texts" do not have to be confined to printed texts, but can include artifacts such as objects, physical spaces, and the like.

Pertinent elements of an effective Socratic text

Socratic seminar texts are able to challenge participants' thinking skills by having these characteristics:

  1. Ideas and values: The text must introduce ideas and values that are complex and difficult to summarize. [16] Powerful discussions arise from personal connections to abstract ideas and from implications to personal values.
  2. Complexity and challenge: The text must be rich in ideas and complexity [13] and open to interpretation. [18] Ideally it should require multiple readings, [19] but should be neither far above the participants' intellectual level nor very long.
  3. Relevance to participants' curriculum: An effective text has identifiable themes that are recognizable and pertinent to the lives of the participants. [17] Themes in the text should relate to the curriculum.
  4. Ambiguity : The text must be approachable from a variety of different perspectives, including perspectives that seem mutually exclusive, thus provoking critical thinking and raising important questions. The absence of right and wrong answers promotes a variety of discussion and encourages individual contributions. [13] [19]
Two different ways to select a text

Socratic texts can be divided into two main categories:

  1. Print texts (e.g., short stories, poems, and essays) and non-print texts (e.g. photographs, sculptures, and maps); and
  2. Subject area, which can draw from print or non-print artifacts. As examples, language arts can be approached through poems, history through written or oral historical speeches, science through policies on environmental issues, math through mathematical proofs, health through nutrition labels, and physical education through fitness guidelines. [13] [16]

Questioning methods

Socratic seminars are based upon the interaction of peers. The focus is to explore multiple perspectives on a given issue or topic. Socratic questioning is used to help students apply the activity to their learning. The pedagogy of Socratic questions is open-ended, focusing on broad, general ideas rather than specific, factual information. [11] The questioning technique emphasizes a level of questioning and thinking where there is no single right answer.

Socratic seminars generally start with an open-ended question proposed either by the leader or by another participant. [17] There is no designated first speaker; as individuals participate in Socratic dialogue, they gain experience that enables them to be effective in this role of initial questioner. [13]

The leader keeps the topic focused by asking a variety of questions about the text itself, as well as questions to help clarify positions when arguments become confused. The leader also seeks to coax reluctant participants into the discussion, and to limit contributions from those who tend to dominate. [13] She or he prompts participants to elaborate on their responses and to build on what others have said. The leader guides participants to deepen, clarify, and paraphrase, and to synthesize a variety of different views. [13]

The participants share the responsibility with the leader to maintain the quality of the Socratic circle. They listen actively to respond effectively to what others have contributed. This teaches the participants to think and speak persuasively using the discussion to support their position. [11] Participants must demonstrate respect for different ideas, thoughts and values, and must not interrupt each other. [13]

Questions can be created individually or in small groups. [18] All participants are given the opportunity to take part in the discussion. [20] Socratic circles specify three types of questions to prepare:

  1. Opening questions generate discussion at the beginning of the seminar in order to elicit dominant themes. [13] [18]
  2. Guiding questions help deepen and elaborate the discussion, keeping contributions on topic and encouraging a positive atmosphere and consideration for others.
  3. Closing questions lead participants to summarize their thoughts and learning [13] and personalize what they've discussed. [18]

Challenges and disadvantages

Scholars such as Peter Boghossian suggest that although the method improves creative and critical thinking, there is a flip side to the method. He states that the teachers who use this method wait for the students to make mistakes, thus creating negative feelings in the class, exposing the student to possible ridicule and humiliation. [21]

Some have countered this thought by stating that the humiliation and ridicule is not caused by the method, rather it is due to the lack of knowledge of the student. Boghossian mentions that even though the questions may be perplexing, they are not originally meant for it, in fact such questions provoke the students and can be countered by employing counterexamples. [21]

Psychotherapy

The Socratic method, in the form of Socratic questioning, has been adapted for psychotherapy, most prominently in classical Adlerian psychotherapy, logotherapy, [22] rational emotive behavior therapy, cognitive therapy [23] [24] [25] and reality therapy. It can be used to clarify meaning, feeling, and consequences, as well as to gradually unfold insight, or explore alternative actions.

The Socratic method has also recently inspired a new form of applied philosophy: Socratic dialogue, also called philosophical counseling. In Europe Gerd B. Achenbach is probably the best known practitioner, and Michel Weber has also proposed another variant of the practice.

See also

Related Research Articles

A sophist was a teacher in ancient Greece in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. Sophists specialized in one or more subject areas, such as philosophy, rhetoric, music, athletics and mathematics. They taught arete, "virtue" or "excellence", predominantly to young statesmen and nobility.

The Theaetetus is a philosophical work written by Plato in the early-middle 4th century BCE that investigates the nature of knowledge, and is considered one of the founding works of epistemology. Like many of Plato's works, the Theaetetus is written in the form of a dialogue, in this case between Socrates and the young mathematician Theaetetus and his teacher Theodorus of Cyrene. In the dialogue, Socrates and Theaetetus attempt to come up with a definition of episteme, or knowledge, and discuss three definitions of knowledge: knowledge as nothing but perception, knowledge as true judgment, and, finally, knowledge as a true judgment with an account. Each of these definitions is shown to be unsatisfactory as the dialogue ends in aporia as Socrates leaves to face a hearing for his trial for impiety.

<i>Charmides</i> (dialogue) Work of Plato

The Charmides is a dialogue of Plato, in which Socrates engages a handsome and popular boy named Charmides in a conversation about the meaning of sophrosyne, a Greek word usually translated into English as "temperance," "self-control," or "restraint." When the boy is unable to satisfy him with an answer, he next turns to the boy's mentor Critias. In the dialogue, Charmides and then later Critias champion that Temperance is "doing one's own work" but Socrates derides this as vague. The definition given next of "knowing oneself" seems promising but the question is then raised if something can even have the knowledge of itself as a base. As is typical with Platonic early dialogues, the two never arrive at a completely satisfactory definition, but the discussion nevertheless raises many important points. The Charmides is one of Plato's most homoerotic dialogues. Socrates admires Charmides' beauty at the beginning of the dialogue, saying "I saw inside his cloak and caught on fire and was quite beside myself."

<i>Protagoras</i> (dialogue) Platonic dialogue

Protagoras is a dialogue by Plato. The traditional subtitle is "or the Sophists". The main argument is between Socrates and the elderly Protagoras, a celebrated sophist and philosopher. The discussion takes place at the home of Callias, who is host to Protagoras while he is in town, and concerns the nature of sophists, the unity and the teachability of virtue. A total of twenty-one people are named as present.

Meno is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato. Meno begins the dialogue by asking Socrates whether virtue is taught, acquired by practice, or comes by nature. In order to determine whether virtue is teachable or not, Socrates tells Meno that they first need to determine what virtue is. When the characters speak of virtue, or rather arete, they refer to virtue in general, rather than particular virtues, such as justice or temperance. The first part of the work showcases Socratic dialectical style; Meno, unable to adequately define virtue, is reduced to confusion or aporia. Socrates suggests that they seek an adequate definition for virtue together. In response, Meno suggests that it is impossible to seek what one does not know, because one will be unable to determine whether one has found it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Socratic problem</span> Problems in reconstructing a historical and philosophical image of Socrates

In historical scholarship, the Socratic problem concerns attempts at reconstructing a historical and philosophical image of Socrates based on the variable, and sometimes contradictory, nature of the existing sources on his life. Scholars rely upon extant sources, such as those of contemporaries like Aristophanes or disciples of Socrates like Plato and Xenophon, for knowing anything about Socrates. However, these sources contain contradictory details of his life, words, and beliefs when taken together. This complicates the attempts at reconstructing the beliefs and philosophical views held by the historical Socrates. It has become apparent to scholarship that this problem is seemingly impossible to clarify and thus perhaps now classified as unsolvable. Early proposed solutions to the matter still pose significant problems today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Socratic dialogue</span> Genre of literary prose

Socratic dialogue is a genre of literary prose developed in Greece at the turn of the fourth century BC. The earliest ones are preserved in the works of Plato and Xenophon and all involve Socrates as the protagonist. These dialogues, and subsequent ones in the genre, present a discussion of moral and philosophical problems between two or more individuals illustrating the application of the Socratic method. The dialogues may be either dramatic or narrative. While Socrates is often the main participant, his presence in the dialogue is not essential to the genre.

<i>Laches</i> (dialogue) Socratic dialogue written by Plato

The Laches is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato. Participants in the discourse present competing definitions of the concept of courage or "manliness", ἀνδρεία in Greek.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aeschines of Sphettus</span> 4th century BC Greek philosopher

Aeschines of Sphettus or Aeschines Socraticus, son of Lysanias, of the deme Sphettus of Athens, was a philosopher who in his youth was a follower of Socrates. Historians call him Aeschines Socraticus—"the Socratic Aeschines"—to distinguish him from the more historically influential Athenian orator also named Aeschines. His name is sometimes but now rarely written as Aischines or Æschines.

The Clitophon is a 4th-century BC dialogue traditionally ascribed to Plato, though the work's authenticity is debated. It is the shortest dialogue in Plato's traditional corpus. It centers on a discussion between Clitophon and Socrates, with Socrates remaining mostly silent. Most scholarship until recently has been concerned with the authenticity rather than the actual meaning and contents of Clitophon.

The Statesman, also known by its Latin title, Politicus, is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato. The text depicts a conversation among Socrates, the mathematician Theodorus, another person named Socrates, and an unnamed philosopher from Elea referred to as "the Stranger". It is ostensibly an attempt to arrive at a definition of "statesman," as opposed to "sophist" or "philosopher" and is presented as following the action of the Sophist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plato's problem</span>

Plato's problem is the term given by Noam Chomsky to "the problem of explaining how we can know so much" given our limited experience. Chomsky believes that Plato asked how we should account for the rich, intrinsic, common structure of human cognition, when it seems underdetermined by extrinsic evidence presented to a person during human development. In linguistics this is referred to as the "argument from poverty of the stimulus" (APS). Such arguments are common in the natural sciences, where a developing theory is always "underdetermined by evidence". Chomsky's approach to Plato's problem involves treating cognition as a normal research topic in the natural sciences, so cognition can be studied to elucidate intertwined genetic, developmental, and biophysical factors. Plato's problem is most clearly illustrated in the Meno dialogue, in which Socrates demonstrates that an uneducated boy nevertheless understands geometric principles.

The Sophist is a Platonic dialogue from the philosopher's late period, most likely written in 360 BC. In it the interlocutors, led by Eleatic Stranger employ the method of division in order to classify and define the sophist and describe his essential attributes and differentia vis a vis the philosopher and statesman. Like its sequel, the Statesman, the dialogue is unusual in that Socrates is present but plays only a minor role. Instead, the Eleatic Stranger takes the lead in the discussion. Because Socrates is silent, it is difficult to attribute the views put forward by the Eleatic Stranger to Plato, beyond the difficulty inherent in taking any character to be an author's "mouthpiece".

<i>Rival Lovers</i>

The Lovers is a Socratic dialogue included in the traditional corpus of Plato's works, though its authenticity has been doubted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Socratic questioning</span> Type of question to predict knowledge on topic

Socratic questioning is an educational method named after Socrates that focuses on discovering answers by asking questions of students. According to Plato, Socrates believed that "the disciplined practice of thoughtful questioning enables the scholar/student to examine ideas and be able to determine the validity of those ideas". Plato explains how, in this method of teaching, the teacher assumes an ignorant mindset in order to compel the student to assume the highest level of knowledge. Thus, a student is expected to develop the ability to acknowledge contradictions, recreate inaccurate or unfinished ideas, and critically determine necessary thought.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">I know that I know nothing</span> Famous saying by Socrates

"I know that I know nothing" is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates: "For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing...". It is also sometimes called the Socratic paradox, although this name is often instead used to refer to other seemingly paradoxical claims made by Socrates in Plato's dialogues.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dialogic learning</span> Learning through egalitarian dialogue

Dialogic learning is learning that takes place through dialogue. It is typically the result of egalitarian dialogue; in other words, the consequence of a dialogue in which different people provide arguments based on validity claims and not on power claims.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Socrates</span> Classical Greek Athenian philosopher (c. 470 – 399 BC)

Socrates was a Greek philosopher from Athens who is credited as the founder of Western philosophy and as among the first moral philosophers of the ethical tradition of thought. An enigmatic figure, Socrates authored no texts and is known mainly through the posthumous accounts of classical writers, particularly his students Plato and Xenophon. These accounts are written as dialogues, in which Socrates and his interlocutors examine a subject in the style of question and answer; they gave rise to the Socratic dialogue literary genre. Contradictory accounts of Socrates make a reconstruction of his philosophy nearly impossible, a situation known as the Socratic problem. Socrates was a polarizing figure in Athenian society. In 399 BC, he was accused of impiety and corrupting the youth. After a trial that lasted a day, he was sentenced to death. He spent his last day in prison, refusing offers to help him escape.

In Plato's theory of epistemology, anamnesis refers to the recollection of innate knowledge acquired before birth. The concept posits the claim that learning involves the act of rediscovering knowledge from within oneself. This stands in contrast to the opposing doctrine known as empiricism, which posits that all knowledge is derived from experience and sensory perception. Plato develops the theory of anamnesis in his Socratic dialogues: Meno, Phaedo, and Phaedrus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The unexamined life is not worth living</span> Saying by Greek philosopher Socrates

"The unexamined life is not worth living" is a famous dictum supposedly uttered by Socrates at his trial for impiety and corrupting youth, for which he was subsequently sentenced to death. The dictum is recorded in Plato's Apology (38a5–6) as ho dè anexétastos bíos ou biōtòs anthrṓpōi.

References

  1. ↑ "Understanding the Socratic Method of Teaching". Abraham Lincoln University. 10 February 2020. Archived from the original on 21 September 2020. Retrieved 19 November 2020.
  2. ↑ Jarratt, Susan C. Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991., p 83.
  3. ↑ Sprague 1972, p. 5.
  4. ↑ Liddell, Scott and Jones, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th Edition.
  5. ↑ Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition; Oxford English Dictionary.
  6. ↑ Gregory Vlastos, "The Socratic Elenchus", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy I, Oxford 1983, 27–58.
  7. ↑ Michael Frede, "Plato's Arguments and the Dialogue Form", Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 1992, Oxford 1992, 201–19.
  8. ↑ Stephen Salkever, "Methods of Interpreting Plato and his Dialogues" Archived 12 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine (Bryn Mawr Classical Review)
  9. ↑ Klein, Reuven Chaim (1 March 2024). "A qualitative study on how traditional Yeshiva education prepares students for law school". The Law Teacher. 58 (1): 111–130. doi:10.17613/b462-fp41.
  10. ↑ W. K. C. Guthrie (1968) The Greek Philosophers from Thales to Aristotle, page 74, London: Routledge.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Copeland, Matt (2010). Socratic Circles: Fostering Critical and Creative Thinking in Middle and High School. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
  12. 1 2 "The Socratic Circle" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 February 2018. Retrieved 17 July 2012.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 "Furman: Socratic Seminar" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 June 2013. Retrieved 17 July 2012.
  14. ↑ Ting Chowning, Jeanne (October 2009). "Socratic Seminars in Science Class". The Science Teacher . 76 (7). National Science Teachers Association: 38.
  15. ↑ Gose, Michael (January 2009). "When Socratic Dialogue is Flagging: Questions and Strategies for Engaging Students". College Teaching. 57 (1): 46. doi:10.3200/CTCH.57.1.45-50. S2CID   144482413.
  16. 1 2 3 4 "The Paideia Seminar: active thinking through dialogue. 3.4 Planning step 3: Select text". Archived from the original on 15 August 2012. Retrieved 16 July 2012.
  17. 1 2 3 Chorzempa, Barbara; Lapidus, Laurie (January 2009). "To Find Yourself, Think For Yourself". Teaching Exceptional Children. 41 (3): 54–59. doi:10.1177/004005990904100306. S2CID   146880761.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Mangrum, Jennifer (April 2010). "Sharing Practice Through Socratic Seminars". Kappan. 91 (7): 40–43. doi:10.1177/003172171009100708. S2CID   144053420.
  19. 1 2 "Facing History and Ourselves: Socratic Seminar". Archived from the original on 13 July 2012. Retrieved 16 July 2012.
  20. ↑ Gose, Michael (2009). "When Socratic Dialogue Is Flagging; Questions and Strategies for Engaging Students". College Teaching. 57 (1): 45–50. doi:10.3200/CTCH.57.1.45-50. S2CID   144482413.
  21. 1 2 Delic, Haris; Becirovic, Senad (November 2016). "Socratic Method as an Approach to Teaching". European Researcher. 111 (10): 511–517. doi:10.13187/er.2016.111.511. Archived from the original on 19 May 2023 – via ResearchGate.
  22. ↑ Lukas, Elisabeth, Logotherapy Textbook, 2000, p. 86
  23. ↑ Overholser 1993, p. 75–85.
  24. ↑ Overholser 1993, p. 286-293.
  25. ↑ Overholser 1993, p. 283-292.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.