Evaluation of the Formal Models for the Socratic Method

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9684)

Abstract

In this paper, we report results of an evaluation study that investigate the applicability and usefulness of the formal models of the Socratic Method. Nelson suggested that the Socratic Method, which is employed in teaching consists of three phases: 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 and shows its effectiveness in group discussion where the chatbot acts as a discussion leader who applies the Socratic Method. The contribution of this paper is two-fold. 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 method Critical thinking Dialogue models 

Referneces

  1. Anderson, J.R., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R., Pelletier, R.: Cognitive tutors: lessons learned. J. Learn. Sci. 4, 167–207 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Graesser, A.C., Person, N.K.: Question asking during tutoring. Am. Educ. Res. J. 31(1), 104–137 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hoeksema, K.: Virtuelle sokratische gespräche - umsetzung einer Idee aus dem philosophieunterricht. In: Proceedings on Modellierung als Schlüsselkonzept in Intelligenten Lehr-/Lernsystemen (2004)Google Scholar
  4. Horster, D.: Das Sokratische Gespräch in Theorie und Praxis. Springer, Opladen (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Huse, N., Le, N.T.: The formal models for the socratic method. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Science Applied Mathematics and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  6. Lane, H.C., Vanlehn, K.: Teaching the tacit knowledge of programming to novices with natural language tutoring. J. Comput. Sci. Educ. 15, 183–201 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nelson, L.: Die sokratische methode. In: ders., Gesammelte Schriften in neun Bänden, Band 1, Hamburg (1970)Google Scholar
  8. Olney, A.M., Graesser, A., Person, N.K.: Question generation from concept maps. Dialogue Discourse 3(2), 75–99 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Otero, J., Graesser, A.C.: PREG: elements of a model of question asking. Cogn. Instr. 19(2), 143–175 (2001). Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Paul, R., Elder, L.: Critical thinking: the art of socratic questioning, part I. J. Dev. Educ. 31(1), 36–37 (2007). ProQuest Education JournalGoogle Scholar
  11. Person, N.K., Graesser, A.C.: Human or computer? Autotutor in a bystander turing test. In: Cerri, S.A., Gouardéres, G., Paraguaçu, F. (eds.) ITS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2363, pp. 821–830. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, pp. 142–147. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations