The Socratic Method


In Talking About Writing, Mackiewicz and Thompson laud the Socratic method as an ideal form of tutoring (and teaching). The drawback they point out to this method, however, is the amount of time it takes to develop this practice in a student conference, and therefore the tutor often (though not always) ends up telling the student more than working with them to reach their own conclusions. While I was reading this I was thinking about how I interact with students in tutoring sessions and how I often try to begin with this method, which is tried and true at all levels of education. The problem I've run into, though, is when students either 1) don't want to respond 2) have questions or concerns that aren't answered with this type of interaction. I think this is a great motivational, instructional, and cognitive strategy to use but it seems to sometimes result in a dead end. (I.e. "How do you think you could expand this idea?" "What are you trying to say here?") Maybe I haven't yet learned the art of asking the right questions, but it seems that this often leads to a series of walls with students rather than productive writing or revision.

I was thinking about this in relation to my own writing as well. Whereas this is often helpful for line edits or clarity, this isn't, for me, the best way to go about constructing an idea or even a draft because it seems to unsettle my ideas before the writing even starts. As a teacher, I often ask students to get a whole draft out before we begin the questioning/revision process. But this also (and maybe this is the point?) seems like a lot of work for the tutor and the teacher when, for example, students can't or don't want to answer your questions or when students haven't done the legwork before coming in.

Comments

  1. UnknownFebruary 5, 2018 at 6:52 PM

    I've also noticed difficulties utilizing the Socratic method in my sessions. This is particularly true when brainstorming. I had a student trying to develop a pros/cons list and she was really having trouble trying to come up with cons. I couldn't find a series of leading questions to get her to any (at least that she hadn't already thought of, like "what could be the drawback to that?" and going that route seemed cheesy at best and condescending at worst). Maybe this really does just take practice, but I feel like, as you've noted, it's very dependent on which stage of the writing process you're looking at. I also wonder if tone is something to consider. Though haven't had a chance to really dig into it in my own sessions, it seems to me that when students KNOW it's a leading question (i.e. one that you already have an answer in mind for) they're far more hesitant to speak, but if it sounds like you're working it out with them they'll more readily offer up ideas. But even so, I'm not sure I know how to play it off without them thinking I don't know the answer. It's a catch-22 I think.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Writing to Learn, Learning to Write

I'm familiar with different approaches in different contexts. As an instructor, I'm most familiar with learning to write, because even my content-based assignments receive extensive writing attention. As a student, though, I was and am more familiar with writing to learn. But I'm still displeased that as a student in English at the undergraduate, MA, and PhD levels, there was/is not more attention placed on learning to write. At this stage, this seems to be something professors take for granted. (I was recently told: "That's not how you title a dissertation chapter." And I responded: "Can you please tell me how you title a book chapter? I have never done this.") I think also in liberal arts required courses, writing to learn is prioritized in many (most?) disciplines. I'm not particularly persuaded by one form over another, though I have never succeeded in writing to learn language models. But I am partial to the idea that learning to write sho...
Read more

Emi 03/27

These two case studies consider two different research methods that will inevitably lead to very different discussions and presentation of the ideas.  T he non-fiction case study (Lorraine) is purely qualitative, while the academic case study (Fei) is a mixed methods study in which qualitative data is quantitized and the rest of the collected qualitative data (e.g. interview) mainly serves to enhance legitimation. These two different focus, qualitative (Lorraine) and Mixed methods with a focus on quantitative (Fei) are well accepted in research. However, the way that readers approach them may be very different. The qualitative (non-fiction) case study is more engaging, more relatable, and easier to read. As promoted in Qualitative research, the authors present the data as if it were a story and include very detailed anecdotes (called vignettes) that represent the main point to be conveyed. The study is not replicable, but the authors do provide additional information to ensure...
Read more

4/17

In my tutoring sessions, I've been most familiar with the 'learning to write' paradigm. I felt Ortega's statement that "...LW places at the center of attention the cognitive activity of the writer and her or his authorial voice" encapsulates the work my students have called on me to do. Whether they're working on a Peace Corps application, a psychology paper, a global health paper or a speech for Rhetoric, I've found my work can be described in Ortega's twofold statement: helping students put in writing first, their cognitive activity (their opinions, arguments, and questions) and second, their authorial voice (by airing confusions, doubts, and identifying needs for further research). In class, I'm wondering if we can have a discussion about the overlap between LW and WLL when it comes to students picking up specific language necessary for academic assignments. As Ortega writes, there is a difference between students "learning to write abo...
Read more