Socratic Methods in the Classroom

Encouraging Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Through Dialogue (Grades 8-12)

Erick Wilberding

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000503340
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Pedagogía
• Categoría: Educación general

Since the Renaissance, the Socratic Method has been adapted to teach diverse subjects, including medicine, law, and mathematics. Each discipline selects elements and emphases from the Socratic Method that are appropriate for teaching individuals or groups how to reason judiciously within that subject. By looking at some of the great practitioners of Socratic questioning in the past, Socratic Methods in the Classroom explains how teachers may use questioning, reasoning, and dialogue to encourage critical thinking, problem solving, and independent learning in the secondary classroom. Through a variety of problems, cases, and simulations, teachers will guide students through different variations of the Socratic Method, from question prompts to the case method. Students will learn to reason judiciously, gain an understanding of important issues, and develop the necessary skills to discuss these issues in their communities. Grades 8-12

CHAPTER 1

CRITICAL THINKING

RIGOROUS REASONING WITH BALANCED JUDGMENT

DOI: 10.4324/9781003238089-2

Nevertheless, philosophy has its raison d’être, and one ought to recognize that anyone who has not had some acquaintance with it is hopelessly uneducated.

—Jean Piaget

THE KNOWLEDGE-BASED GLOBAL COMMUNITY

In 2012, Harvard mathematician Samuel Arbesman published The Half-Life of Facts, explaining the surprising patterns in the growth of knowledge. The accumulation of knowledge is not a day-by-day, year-by-year, patient sweeping of facts into an ever higher pyramid. In reality, it involves a more fitful, but ultimately predictable, growth that often renders previous knowledge obsolete. Knowledge may decay. What we regard as a fact today may be reclassified as false tomorrow. For example, for decades in the early 20th century, scientists believed there were 48 chromosomes until two independent-minded scientists had the temerity to challenge this conception with a more accurate count of 46. Ingesting radium and smoking tobacco were once believed to be healthy. Arbesman (2012a) explained how knowledge predictably expands and contracts in trends that can be measured through scientometrics. Knowledge in mathematics, for instance, remains stable for long periods of time, but knowledge in medicine changes often. Generally, knowledge in the social sciences alters more quickly than in the physical sciences. There is no stasis. In a paradigm shift, knowledge might even utterly disappear, replaced by a more complete and useful model (Kuhn, 1962).

This perpetual expansion of knowledge challenges societies to focus the value and purpose of knowledge. On one hand, there is the reality (pithily phrased by Francis Bacon) that knowledge is power. But what kind of power? From one perspective, society’s knowledge has become the basis of economic growth and well-being—of economic power. According to Drucker (1999), a knowledge economy is one in which knowledge itself, rather than resources, labor, or capital, becomes the key asset. The news is rife with stories about nations hurrying to innovate their economies to become knowledge-based and therefore more competitive. The World Bank has devised indices, The Knowledge Index (KI) and the Knowledge Economic Index (KEI), that attempt to measure and rank nations according to indicators that include the education and skill of the population.

On the other hand, the value and purpose of knowledge are not restricted to its pragmatic economic impact (Nussbaum, 2010). The expansion of knowledge includes a deepened and more refined awareness of ethical responsibilities—the duties incumbent upon human beings as global citizens. Arbesman’s (2012b) study of quantifiable knowledge might also apply to the measurement of ethical knowledge. How does this knowledge grow and decay? Does one measure the extent to which human rights are respected? What about the extent of justice within the world, the degree of freedom within a society, the extent of equality, or the collective happiness in society? How does economic power influence these fundamental aspects of our lives? In order to meet such questions, as well as a host of related ones, we must engage in collective critical thinking. What are human rights? What do we mean by happiness, equality, freedom, or justice? “Knowledge is power” can inform the fundamental concepts and issues that give meaning to our lives.

In a global community whose knowledge unceasingly grows and decays, the habit and the challenge of critical thinking is urgent. Critical thinking skills impact the growth of nations in all of the ways that grant meaning to life. But what exactly do we mean by critical thinking?

RIGOROUS REASONING WITH BALANCED JUDGMENT

The word critical often has a negative connotation. Those who are critical seem to be fault-finding and ungenerous in judgment. However, the etymology of the word can be traced from the Latin criticus (able to discern or judge) directly to the Greek word κριτικός (able to discern), which in turn is related to κριτής (a judge) as well as to κριτήριον (criterion, a standard for judging). To think critically, then, means to think with balanced or discerning judgment. It is not so much to judge negatively, but to judge well.

However, this short definition can be developed much further. thinking itself is a complex phenomenon that continues to be investigated (Holyoak & Morrison, 2005, 2012). There are many competing contemporary definitions for critical thinking (Bensley, 2011). In the philosophical tradition, critical thinking is virtually synonymous with training in informal logic. There is close attention to the qualities that constitute what it is to be critical. In the psychological tradition, the focus is on the nature and dynamics of thinking itself. For the eminent psychologist Robert J. Sternberg (1986), “critical thinking comprises the mental processes, strategies, and representations people use to solve problems, make decisions, and learn new concepts” (p. 2). We will look at how these two traditions—the philosophical and psychological—complement and inform each other.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION

The philosophical tradition, which emerged from the ancient Greek figures of Plato and Aristotle, views logical reasoning in an ideal situation (Sternberg, 1986). One identifies arguments, their elements, and their structures, probing them for validity and soundness. Since the Middle Ages, logic courses have trained students in this capacity. The 17th century saw the rise of informal logic (i.e., the attempt to apply the basic tools of reasoning, without training in meticulous scholastic logic, to understanding arguments in ordinary daily life), which permitted educated people to reason well (Groarke, 2017). In the 18th century, Isaac Watts (1743), among others, continued this tradition with The Improvement of the Mind. In the 19th century, there were similar efforts in presenting reasoning and rhetoric. In 1946, Max Black, a professor of philosophy at Cornell University, published Critical thinking: An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method, which succinctly presented accessible lessons in deductive logic (including truth tables), language and fallacies, and inductive logic and the scientific method. In addition to examples from contemporary newspapers, magazines, and books, the volume contained summaries, comprehension tests, and exercises for each chapter. It also contained entertaining logic puzzles. Since the 1970s, university courses in critical thinking have proliferated, seeking to draw closer connections between informal logic and reasoning in daily life (Groarke, 2017). These courses focus on how one makes claims and supports them, how one may use or misuse statistics, how reasoning can be cogent or more strictly valid, and how one distinguishes value statements from factual statements. These courses may also cover the biases within the media, including the realities of the Internet, social media, and the strategic use of fake news.

Today a plethora of texts, both popular and scholastic, provide instruction in critical thinking from this point of view (e.g., Browne & Keeley, 2015; Kelley, 2014; Schick & Vaughn, 2014; Swatridge, 2014). In different orders and to different extents, these texts address the elements of argument and justification, deductive and inductive reasoning (and perhaps abductive reasoning as well), logical fallacies, and issues concerning values. Some texts go into great technical detail (e.g., Kelley 2014). Some texts restrict themselves to explanations of the essential critical thinking skills and concepts, whereas others (e.g., Moore & Parker, 2016) present a comprehensive textbook replete with exercises that will keep any class meaningfully busy for a semester or more. The exercises in these books are drawn from current affairs, bridging the chasm between theory and practice and making clear the relevance of the skills.

Moreover, several tests have been composed to assess an individual’s general ability for critical thinking (Ennis, 1993). One of the better known assessments, the Watson-Glaser Critical thinking Appraisal, was first assembled in the 1940s by Goodwin Barbour Watson and Edward Maynard Glaser, and has been modified and maintained over several decades (Ennis, 1958, 1993; Glaser, 1941; Gordon, 1993, 1994). An appraisal that is more appropriate for high school students, and one used by selected faculties at Oxford University for screening applicants, is the thinking Skills Assessment (the Oxford TSA), which measures problem-solving skills, including numerical and spatial reasoning, as well as the ability to understand and judge arguments (Cambridge Assessment Admissions Testing, 2019). Both of these appraisals attempt to quantify an individual’s ability to recognize assumptions, evaluate arguments, make inferences, deduce, and interpret reasonably. Ennis (1993) gave suggestions as to how a teacher might compose his or her own test of critical thinking.

Matthew Lipman (1988a) presented this philosophical tradition of critical thinking to children and documented the positive impact it made on education. Through the discussion of carefully composed philosophical novels (seven in all), Lipman sought to awaken and develop children’s reasoning skills in order to create a community of inquiry. For Lipman (1988b), critical thinking was “skillful, responsible thinking that facilitates good judgment because it (1) relies upon criteria, (2) is self-correcting, and (3) is sensitive to context” (p. 39).

SUMMARY Critical thinking in the Philosophical Tradition

• Critical thinking generally means training in informal logic.
• Students learn the elements of deductive and inductive argument and valid reasoning, including the awareness of assumptions, consequences, and implications.
• Students learn about logical fallacies.
• Students learn about precision in the use and interpretation of language.
• thinking appraisal tests attempt to quantify the level of students’ ability to understand and assess arguments.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRADITION

The psychological tradition describes how critical thinking “is performed under the limitations of the person and the environment,” that is, how people think with limited information, time, etc. (Sternberg, 1986, p. 5). In the last 30 years, continuing advances within cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and neuroscience have contributed fascinating insights about how human beings think (Holyoak & Morrison, 2005, 2012). There has been increased public understanding of dual processing, cognitive biases, and the maturation of reasoning and judgment.

DUAL PROCESSING AND COGNITIVE BIASES

In 2002, Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize “for having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty” (The Nobel Foundation). In 2011, he published thinking Fast and Slow, which summarized his research, conducted with his friend Amos Tversky, on dual processing. Tversky and Kahneman distinguished two interacting systems: System 1 and System 2. The first is intuitive, associative, effortless, and automatic. It makes instant decisions, permitting us to navigate through the day without the burden of extensive analysis and evaluation. “System 1 has been shaped by evolution,” Kahneman (2011) wrote, “to provide a continuous assessment of the main problems that an organism must solve to survive: How are things going? Is there a threat or a major opportunity? Should I approach or avoid?” (p. 90). System 2, in contrast, is slow, deliberate, and effortful reasoning, moving logically from premise to premise to reach a reasonable conclusion. It is discursive and reflective, making distinctions and seeking evidence for conclusions.

As human beings, using System 1 thinking, we rely on heuristics in reasoning and decision making. A heuristic is a short, time-saving process for arriving quickly at a solution or judgment. However, heuristics also predictably generate cognitive biases that condition and distort judicious reasoning. For instance, given our existing frames of reference and beliefs, we tend to interpret new situations or information in a manner consistent with these beliefs, which may compel us to ignore significant information. This is called confirmation bias. We filter new information to confirm our existing beliefs, interpreting the world around us in terms of our mental map. Yet, as the philosopher Alfred Korzybski (1958) memorably said, “the map is not the territory” (p. 58). There is always more to be apprehended beyond the simple or intricate mental maps that shape our interpretations. Another common bias, which is relevant for anyone teaching inductively, is anchoring bias, which refers to the tendency to rely and make judgments based on the first information received. Saliency bias is the tendency to make judgments or to forge attitudes based on dramatic events that grab our attention. Influenced by the media or our own experience, we make judgments based on striking but statistically improbable events. Availability bias refers to the tendency to rely only on the information that is immediately within reach, and not to actively explore. Bandwagon bias is the tendency to assent to the belief of the majority. Critical thinking, or reasoning with balanced judgment, is effortful and prone to errors due to these subtle cognitive biases.

MATURATION IN REASONING AND JUDGMENT

Insights on critical thinking are found in the paradigm of intellectual and ethical development suggested by William G. Perry, Jr. For 33 years, Perry led the Bureau of Study Counsel at Harvard University, and in the 1950s and 1960s he conducted a long-range study, the results of which he published in Forms of Intellectual andEthical Development in the College Years, a book hailed as a modern classic (Gilligan, Kegan, & Sizer, 1999; Perry, 1970).

Perry’s (1970) study charts three large phases of critical thinking: dualism (both simple and complex), relativism, and commitment in relativism (see Figure 1). These three broad phases are further articulated into nine positions (we may think of them as mindsets) through which students construct knowledge and values. The first mindset is a simple dualism in which there is always a clear-cut and absolute right or wrong answer; if there is an interpretation, there is a “correct” interpretation of which an authority approves. In its pure state, this mindset is uncommon even in the freshman year of college; students have developed beyond this mindset. The first half of Perry’s developmental schema shows the gradual modification of dualism.

Figure 1. Perry’s (1970) developmental scheme.

The second mindset perceives multiple viewpoints but does not regard them as legitimate or warranted; students still believe in a single correct answer or inter-pretation (Perry, 1970). There are two expressions of this mindset. First, there is the belief that the multiplicity of interpretations may be caused by an ineffective authority (i.e., teacher) who has not properly expressed the correct view; encountering this, the student may resist the confusion of pluralism by establishing a wall of opposition. A second expression of this mindset is the view that the presentation of multiplicity i...