And how would YOU use the Socratic Method?

... in response to a question posed in class ...

Before discussing how the Socratic Method can be used in the classroom (and which teaching methods promote self-directed learning and independent learners), I was compelled to have a little fun with this after stumbling across a website about how to Use the Socratic Method to Easily Win Arguments during my search (there's a better site about How to Argue Using the Socratic Method that's more comprehensive and isn't focused on "winning" an argument) as it brought to mind this scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) that makes hilarious sport of the Socratic Method:

Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!

Having had my fun, I'll begin by stating the obvious (which I assume will be repeated here, ad nauseum, if others participate in this discussion) that the Socratic Method is effective in teaching critical thinking, and refer to the site that gives the most comprehensive explanation for the Socratic Method (http://www.socraticmethod.net/) and describes, by implication, how it is used in the classroom (or, in Plato's case, The Symposium). For anyone unfamiliar with the Socratic Method, I recommend using that site as a quick guide for getting up to speed.

The first part of this three-part question, "Locate several websites that describe the Socratic method and how it is used in classrooms," seems redundant since, at least in all the websites I visited, the Socratic Method was described before any discussion about how it is used in the classroom. Having said that, all the sites I looked at and liked discussed how the Socratic Method promotes self-directed learning due to the method's emphasis on A), critical thinking and B), using questions to get students to probe deeper into a topic. Likewise, all the sites suggested that the Socratic Method promotes independent learning due to how it causes students to question themselves and the validity of their answers -- an existential dilemma that forces a learner to confront what they think they know by further researching their beliefs and the extent of their knowledge. Finally, none of the sites advocated any particular or unique method for using the method (other than contextualizing it) but rather made distinctions between the "classical" vs. "modern" approaches.

This site about using the Socratic Method in a third-grade math class was very interesting as far as it illustrated how critical thinking skills can be taught to even young learners. On the other hand, this site about the failure to use the method in a secondary English class was a nice reflective piece on teaching methods and how she would do things differently. Finally, there are some excellent strategies for using the Socratic Method in the classroom at ReadWriteThink -- one of my favorite websites.

Of all the sites I viewed, my favorite was from Stanford as it was more explicit about the self-directed and independent learner benefits of the Socratic Method. I highly recommend it.

A witch!

21st-century learning vs. 20th-century thinking

The members of this PLN are all students at an online university where we are currently pursuing Master's degrees in Adult Education and Training and, at the moment, taking a class in technology for adult learners (although much of the material we're studying applies to learners of all ages) -- thus, the impetus for starting this blog.

Although I consider myself fairly informed about new technologies (indeed, some of the readings have seemed quaint to me, even though they're only a few years old), I have to say that several of the assignments have opened my eyes to new methods, ideas, theories and yes, technologies, that I had not been aware of until just now. So much of the literature refers to "emergent" technologies, as well as the emergent properties of learning networks, and I feel something emergent in myself regarding my new-found knowledge.

And then, I get hit full in the face with the reality that, well into our second decade of this century, those of us thinking about how learning should and will occur in the 21st-century remain in a slender minority of thinkers.

This occurred to me when I was participating in this week's class discussion, one largely focused on webcast and podcast presentation technologies. A couple of responses from fellow students to the instructor's questions about the potential downside of those technologies had me wondering how prepared we are, as a society, to embrace how technology will not just demand a change in methods but in the theories and practice of pedagogy.

For instance, a student (in all earnestness) responded that a potential problem with webcasting lectures might be a bad feed or poor connection, disenfranchising the student(s) from the content of a lecture due to forces beyond their control; apparently, that student (the one who made the response, not the one experiencing the "bad feed" -- you know the vicissitudes of the Inter-tubes and all that) was not aware that a webcast can be archived and posted such that it can be viewed at any time. In fact, that student's argument (as I read it) was that a webcasted lecture could only be live, a one-time affair, and that students were at the mercy of a schedule, much like my Psychology 101 instructor who threatened with, "Class starts at 9 am and the doors would be locked from the inside at 9:05 am."

I confess that I was a bit dazed by the response, wondering if that student was oblivious to the fact that, with the Internet and the technology of online learning, instructors not only post the webcast so it can be linked at any time but, if they're good at what they do, they augment their presentations with additional elements (such as interactive capabilities where learners can attempt to emulate portions of the material or access supplemental materials that "plug in" with what is being taught, other video or graphic examples to use, etc.). Given the nature of the response, it was apparent that the commenter didn't understand that the direction of 21st-century education is the freedom of students to make decisions about the what, where and when of their learning. A one-time only, live webcast is counterintuitive to that direction and counterproductive to 21st-century educational goals.

That was one example; I won't spend much energy on another student's response of, "Well, the power could go out and then what are you going to do?" There's little reason to speak (aside from what that student said) on the academic laziness and intellectual paucity of that response.

I recognize that I didn't enroll into a particularly rigorous program (no GRE or GMAT was required), a fact that became abundantly clear when a past team member submitted some work that my HS Language Arts teacher wife said would not receive a passing grade in a Freshman (HS) composition class -- that has happened several times in this program, in fact. Early on, it was apparent to me that I was only going to get out of this program what I put into it (and I write that while attempting to place a tremulous hand on my 30-day Articulate free trial).

My point is not the level of intellect that has enrolled in this program (the we in this PLN share) but in asking, how ready are we to embrace the inevitable change that technology will bring to how education is done? Based on my experience and conversations  with other students and other people, most of us are still stuck in a 20th-century paradigm of education (that has a foundation on a 19th-century paradigm, the so-called "factory" method) and are unable to conceive that 21st-century learners will need and demand (based on the technology) a shift in how instruction is delivered.

Web 2.0 for this week

My Learning Team (and PLN cohorts) are charged this week with creating a presentation of Web 2.0 technologies for the ostensible purpose of introducing them to adult learners as well as providing a demonstration or even a brief training for those learners on the use of one of the 3-5 online technologies we choose for our project. I've suggested that we take advantage of 30-day free trials for either Articulate or Captivate for this project; the challenge is to learn either in a short amount of time (before next Monday, as usual) but I am bored, bored, bored with PowerPoint.

In the run up to this assignment, we checked out 50 links or so of so-called Web 2.0 technologies (not all the sites were, strictly speaking, Web 2.0 as it's defined) and, although I knew a few of the sites, the exercise of clicking links was enlightening. Really, I was surprised at how much is out there and how many tools there are to move education well outside of 20th-century conventions.

I'm not going to go into any of those sites with this post (so, you're probably wondering, "What's the point of reading this, then?") but it has occurred to me that I would like to use this space to discuss, one or a few at a time, those sites, reviewing them and journaling my own experience using them. I'm inviting my PLN pals to join in the fun -- at a later date, of course.

Until then, we're apparently on the verge of speeding on to Web 3.0, apparently for the sake of making me feel like a dinosaur. For no good reason, then, I feel compelled to share this as an excuse for why I'm asking my Learning Team to take up the gauntlet of using a presentation application other than PowerPoint:



My PBL rant for this week

I'll admit that I was immediately intrigued by the potential for encouraging problem-solving strategies in learners when I approached my first instructional design project, intuitively thinking that the approach led to more depth and breadth in learners. After all, in my own experience with problem solving, learning was deeper when I was required to identify the problem, think of a solution, test my solution (and then make revisions when my idea was less than satisfactory) and then present my results. It just made sense to me that, when challenged with having to look closely at a problem and then creatively and deductively develop a solution.

Indeed, in enumerating the ten key elements of PBL, John Barell provides a succinct rationale for why problem-solving strategies create more depth and breadth in learning objectives. Barell said those elements are real-world problems, choices about content, objectives reflecting the highest of intellectual challenges, experiences in small-group collaborations, feedback (from cohorts and instructors), revisions, modifications and elaboration on findings, engagement in planning, obtaining pre-, formative and summative assessment information, "clear and easy-to-follow curricular structure centered on authentic problems and inquiry," and shared control of decision making as well as instruction and learning. With those elements, it's evident how problem solving goes well beyond a teacher merely lecturing and explaining.

PBL is not without its critics, however, and Colliver (2000), in a review of research conducted between 1992 and 1998 on the effectiveness of PBL on outcomes, concluded that the evidence did not support the idea that PBL methods were more advantageous than traditional teaching methods. However, in a later review of the literature, Hmelo-silver (2004) reached a different conclusion regarding the research but cautioned, "[M]uch of the research has been restricted to higher education, predominantly in medical schools."

Although PBL may be a "flavor of the month" (which is all too common in education), it is apparent to me that it will continue to find support from both educators and students. In fact, the idea of the effectiveness of PBL has been around since at least Dewey who, by his own admission, recognized its effectiveness in the tradition of apprenticeship.

As far as my own prejudice regarding the effectiveness of problem-solving strategies, I believe it not just demands critical thinking skills but is complex (RE Barells elements) in a way that standard, flat pedagogy is not.