The Formal Models for the Socratic Method

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 453)

Abstract

In this paper, we present three formal models of three phases of the Socratic Method that is suggested by Nelson to be employed in teaching. The three phases are searching for examples, searching for attributes and generalizing the attributes. These formal models are intended to serve in a computerized learning environment where users can train with a chatbot to stimulate their critical thinking. This paper demonstrates the applicability and the usefulness of the formal models of the Socratic Method by showing an application that has been developed for group discussion where the chatbot acts as a discussion leader who applies the Socratic Method. The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, in the dialogue models, we integrated critical questions using the question taxonomy of Paul and Elder in the three phases of the Socratic Method. Second, the formalization of the three phases of the Socratic Method using state diagrams is a new innovation.

Keywords

Socratic questioning Socratic discussion Critical thinking 

References

  1. 1.
    Atkinson, J.M., Drew, P.: Order in Court. Macmillan, London (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, J.R., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R., Pelletier, R.: Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. J. Learn. Sci. 4, 167–207 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barlow, A., Cates, J.M.: The impact of problem posing on elementary teachers’ beliefs about mathematics and mathematics teaching. Sch. Sci. Math. 106(2), 64–73 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, G., Wragg, E.C.: Questioning. Routledge (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chafi, M.E., Elkhouzai, E.: Classroom interaction: investigating the forms and functions of teacher questions in Moroccan Primary School. J. Innov. Appl. Stud. 6(3), 352–361 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clayman, S., Heritage, J.: The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge University Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drew, P., Heritage, J.: Analyzing talk at work: an Introduction. In: Drew, P., Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 3–65. Cambridge University Press, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dillon, J.T.: Questioning and Teaching. A Manual of Practice. Croom Helm (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graesser, A.C., Person, N.K.: Question asking during tutoring. Am. Educ. Res. J. 31(1), 104–137 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoeksema, K.: Virtuelle Sokratische Gespräche - Umsetzung einer Idee aus dem Philosophieunterricht. In: Proceedings on “Modellierung als Schlüsselkonzept in intelligenten Lehr-/Lernsystemen” (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horster, D.: Das Sokratische Gespräch in Theorie und Praxis. Opladen (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lane, H.C., Vanlehn, K.: Teaching the tacit knowledge of programming to novices with natural language tutoring. J. Comput. Sci. Edu. 15, 183–201 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, L., Atkinson, R.K., Savenye, W.C., Nelson, B.C.: Effects of visual cues and self-explanation prompts: empirical evidence in a multimedia environment. Interac. Learn. Environ. J. (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morgan, N., Saxton, J.: Asking Better Questions. Pembroke Publishers, Makhma, ON (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nelson, L.: Die sokratische Methode. Gesammelte Schriften in neun Bänden, Band 1, Hamburg. Publisher Paul Bernays u. a. Meiner (1970)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Olney, A.M., Graesser, A., Person, N.K.: Question generation from concept maps. Dialogue Discourse 3(2), 75–99 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Otero, J., Graesser, A.C.: PREG: elements of a model of question asking. Cogn. Instr. 19(2), 143–175. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paul, R., Elder, L.: Critical thinking: the art of socratic questioning, Part I. J. Dev. Educ. ProQuest Educ. J. 31(1), 36–37 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Person, N.K., Graesser, A.C.: Human or Computer? AutoTutor in a bystander turing test. In: Cerri, S.A., Gouardères, G., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pp. 821–830. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pinkwart, N., Hoppe, U., Gaßner, K.: Integration of domain-specific elements into visual language based collaborative environments. In: Proceedings of 7th International Workshop on Groupware. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California, pp. 142–147 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rothstein, D., Santana, L.:. Teaching students to ask their own questions. Havard Educ. Lett. 27(5) (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tenenberg, J., Murphy, L.: Knowing what I know: an investigation of undergraduate knowledge and self-knowledge of data structures. Comput. Sci. Educ. 15(4), 297–315 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu, F.Y., Pan, K.J.: The effects of student question-generation with online prompts on learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 17(3) (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations