, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 291–311 | Cite as

Critical thinking: A Socratic model

  • John Hoaglund


A concept of critical thinking is developed based on the Socratic method and called accordingly a Socratic model. First the features of critical thinking stressed in this model are stated and illustrated. The Socratic method is presented and interpreted, then taken to yield a model of critical thinking. The process of internalization by which the Socratic model helps us to become critical thinkers is described. Argument analysis is considered as a widely used instructional strategy adaptable for teaching critical thinking on the Socratic model. This Socratic model is advanced as one helpful way of organizing our ideas about critical thinking, helpful in unifying disparate factors and anchoring them in the humanist tradition.

Key words

Argument argument analysis critical thinking Socratic method 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barry, Vincent: 1984,Invitation to Critical Thinking, Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Beyer, Barry: 1985, ‘Critical Thinking: What Is It?’Social Education 49 (4), 270–276.Google Scholar
  3. Copi, Irving: 1986,Introduction to Logic, 7th ed., Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Dewey, John, and J.H. Tufts: 1932,Ethics, rev. ed., Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Eemeren, Frans van, Rob Grootendorst, and Tjark Kruiger: 1987,Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Eemeren, Frans van: (1987a), ‘For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse’,Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, ed. by van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Ennis, Robert H.: 1986, ‘A Conception of Critical Thinking - With Some Curriculum Suggestions’,Conference 85 on Critical Thinking, ed. by J. Hoaglund, Christopher Newport College, Newport News, pp. 13–40.Google Scholar
  8. Ennis, Robert H. & Eric Weir: 1985,The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test, Midwest, Pacific Grove.Google Scholar
  9. Facione, Peter A.: 1990,Critical Thinking. A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction, California State University, Fullerton.Google Scholar
  10. Govier, Trudy: 1989, ‘Critical Thinking as Argument Analysis’,Argumentation 3, 115–126.Google Scholar
  11. Guthrie, W.K.C.: 1971,Socrates, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Hatcher, Donald L.: 1991, ‘Critical Thinking, Creativity, and Socratic Questioning’,CT News 10 (1), 4–6.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, Ralph H. & J. Anthony Blair,Logical Self-Defense, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.Google Scholar
  14. Kahane, Howard: 1992,Logic & Contemporary Rhetoric, 6th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont.Google Scholar
  15. Kirk, G.S., J.E. Raven, and M. Schofield: 1983,The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Mead, G.H.: 1962,Mind, Self, and Society, ed. by Charles Morris, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 164–173.Google Scholar
  17. Meiland, Jack: 1981,College Thinking, New American Library, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Mill, John Stuart: 1962,On Liberty, inUtilitarianism, ed. by Mary Warnock, Collins: Fontana Library, London.Google Scholar
  19. Nietzsche, Friedrich: 1968,Twilight of the Idols, excerpts translated and edited by Walter Kaufman inThe Portable Nietzsche, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp. 463–563.Google Scholar
  20. Norris, Stephen P. & Robert H. Ennis: 1989,Evaluating Critical Thinking, Midwest, Pacific Grove.Google Scholar
  21. Paul, Richard: 1985, ‘The Critical Thinking Movement: A Historical Perspective’,National Forum 65, 2f., 32.Google Scholar
  22. Paul, Richard: 1990, ‘Socratic Questioning’,Critical Thinking. What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  23. Perelman, C. & L. Olbrecht-Tyteca: 1969,The New Rhetoric, translated by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  24. Plato: 1961,Collected Dialogues, ed. by Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns, Princeton University Press: Bollingen Series LXXI, Princeton.Google Scholar
  25. Plato: 1951,Symposium, translated by Walter Hamilton, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  26. Rescher, Nicholas: 1977,Dialectics, State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  27. Robinson, Richard: 1971, ‘Elenchus’, in Vlastos (1971), pp. 78–93.Google Scholar
  28. Rogers, Carl: 1964, ‘Toward a Modern Approach to Values’,Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68, 160–167.Google Scholar
  29. Stone, I.F.: 1988,The Trial of Socrates, Little, Brown, Boston.Google Scholar
  30. Toulmin, Stephen: 1958,The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Vlastos, Gregory: 1971, ed.,Philosophy of Socrates, Anchor, Garden City.Google Scholar
  32. Vlastos, Gregory: 1971a, ‘The Paradox of Socrates’, in Vlastos (1971), pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  33. Vlastos, Gregory: 1991,Socrates. Ironist and Moral Philosopher, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  34. Walton, Douglas N.: 1984,Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies, University Press of America, Lanham.Google Scholar
  35. Zeller, E.: 1962,Socrates and the Socratic Schools, 3rd ed., translated by O.J. Reichel, Russell & Russell, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Hoaglund
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Critical ThinkingChristopher Newport UniversityNewport NewsUSA

Personalised recommendations