taking the "socratic method" one step further, into a more relevant land.

[brian lauter]

This morning on Concurring Opinions Professor Paul Ohm (University of Colorado Law School posted) an interesting item on the Socratic Method.

The Socratic Method is a traditional favorite of many law school professors (possibly due to a lack of competition in the discussion methods industry). However, as most law students and (hopefully) law professors know, the Socratic Method we use is a bastardized version of the Socratic Method envisioned and used by Plato/Socrates a couple thousand years ago.

Old school Socratic Debate involved two people, or a relatively small group, propounding a series of probing and argumentative questions, back and forth, in the search for truth. Law school Socratic Debate usually involves a number of people getting called on in a given class period. Usually several of these students are not paying attention, and are asked to recite the facts and rationale of cases. Sometimes a student may be asked what they thought of the decision, did it make sense to them, etc. These are not Socratic questions, and this is not Socratic Debate.

In Professor Ohm’s item, he shares a version of the law school Socratic Method that he has used recently with success. Many professors allow students to “pass” when they are on call but are unprepared. Ohm does this too, but adds a twist. When students feel especially prepared, or are excited or interested in a particular subject, they may email Ohm before class and get a “catch.” A “catch” essentially means that the student wants to be called on for that class period.

According to Ohm, the “catch” program has led to some of the most productive discussion he’s seen since he began teaching. This makes complete sense to me, and I think Ohm’s program is successful because it allows professors and students to more accurately mimic the original form of Socratic Debate.  Instead of asking random students to simply recite the facts and rationale of a case, professors asked a few students who were really interested in a particular subject matter or case, to participate in the kind of informed, adversarial debate envisioned by Plato and Socrates.

I think this kind of class discussion is less superficial and more interesting; I think we would all pay more attention during them; and I think we would end up with a better understanding of the subject matter.

I would even advocate going a little further than Professor Ohm. What if, at the beginning of the semester, a professor passed out a syllabus with the reading assignments and corresponding class periods, and then asked students to find a subject or couple of subjects they were interested in and sign up to be on call for the corresponding class periods? Only a handful of students would be on called each day, eliminating all the awkward "can you repeat the question" moments, and they would have an opportunity to really inform themselves with regards to the subject matter they picked in a meaningful and engaging way.

Comments

[m]

Why don't people just raise their hands? And more importantly, why do we still think that listening is not participation?