"Socratic method" teaching - have you endured this

Post Reply New Topic

Has anyone else taken any university classes where the instructor used the "Socratic method"? I think that is really the worst type of classroom environment for someone with AS. At one point in the class that I took where the instructor used this, my left-arm and hand was literally shaking (I actually had to use my right hand to stop it from shaking). This was after being forced to argue with another student about a completely random (controversial) topic that had absolutely nothing to do with the cases that we had prepared briefs for!

I'm frequently going through this method internally... so it's hard to be completely confident when I argue.

Arguments need a couple of axioms and assumptions between parties in order to get anywhere...

And semantics... most of my disagreements are over semantics.

What exactly is the "Socratic Method" ?

Is it this, perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_M ... classrooms

One of the few classes I actually enjoyed in high school was a seminar class in which we had discussions like that.

It was very loosely structured though. No one was obligated to speak unless they actually had something to say, and there were days when I'd sit through an entire class period without really saying anything (although on average I'd end up contributing plenty). If I'd been forced to lead a conversation at times when I didn't have an opinion to offer, it might have been a lot less pleasant.

Yeah, your teacher sounds like he fouled it up. The point of it is, I believe partially anyhow, to get people to understand what is really sought: not to be parroting the teacher's views or even those of the other students, but to arrive at your own conclusions based on firm grilling being done on you and by you on others, with the teacher being only a springboard to launch the Great Questioning. Heidegger was perhaps the greatest exponent of that approach, in our time, in his writings.
Also, it was devilish in an abstract algebra directed reading course to be told proofs are wrong, and why, but only clues were given as to how to overcome the mistakes. It really made a better thinker scientifically I think to be subjected to it for a whole summer!

The point of it is to teach how to logically reason and use correct reasoning to think.
The selected topic is basically irrelevant. Only the method and procedure and flexibility for coming up with answers to the questions is relevant.

Like Pugly, I think that I also mentally go through a process like this when forming my own ideas on something. The problem when doing this yourself is that you can't challenge yourself with a way of thinking that you have not though of.
I also end up with most disagreements hinging on minute differences in semantics usually concerning the agreed upon assumptions.

I seemed like my Intro to Psychology teacher was attempting to use this method, but instead of coming back with a question to make us think why our answer was wrong she would just state that we were wrong. If we didn't say the exact term or phrase she wanted to hear we would have to restate it. It was like skipping half the steps in the process and I found it highly irritating. It did jump start my thinking a few times, but other times I just got fed up with what seemed to be a slight misunderstanding of the unspoken assumptions that I basically would shut down for the rest of the class.
She had a very forceful personality and I often noticed attempts at motivating or slight manipulations on the thoughts of people in the class. I am sure that they were intended to be subtle, but many of them stood out like a sore thumb to me and some caused me to shift my path of thought in the wrong direction.

Most of my teachers and professors did not really use this method that much. The ones that did, from what I remembered, did implement it perfectly and I don't think I was picked.

Kclark, it seems like your psych. teacher probably had never used it before, the point isn't generally to make the person say "the right thing", certainly it shouldn't be used that way, not word for word anyhow, that's just silly to assume that if you keep making hints they'll finally say "it."
The abstract algebra prof. I had was genius at it. He mostly always got me to see the light of what was wrong with my proofs. By far though the best teacher I had with it was my political philosophy prof. that I took for three terms, he would lecture, ask a few open-ended philosophical questions, than act as a mediator, and let us go at it. He said he wanted to know what WE thought, why we thought, etc. It was great.

Another ret*d teaching method geared towards ret*d newt sheeple.

I've heard of the Socratic Method but I don't know what it is. I think Socrates created it or something.

Anyhow. I use something similar, but
don't force students to just play bs out.
Rather, wander into topics in order to
discuss and refine the issue itself.

Normally though, I just do boring
old lectures. But, somehow this seemed
really appropriate to teaching 3-SAT
outdoors.