The Socratic classroom : reflective thinking through collaborative inquiry

This book was written to serve two functions. First it is an exploration of what I have called Socratic pedagogy, a collaborative inquiry-based approach to teaching and learning suitable not only to formal educational settings such as the school classroom but to all educational settings. The term is intended to capture a variety of philosophical approaches to classroom practice that could broadly be described Socratic in form. The term ‘philosophy in schools’ is ambiguous and could refer to teaching university style philosophy to high school students or to the teaching of philosophy and logic or critical reasoning in senior years of high school. It is also used to describe the teaching of philosophy in schools generally. In the early and middle phases of schooling the term philosophy for children is often used. But this too is ambiguous as the name was adopted from Matthew Lipman’s Philosophy for Children curriculum that he and his colleagues at the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children developed. In Britain the term ‘philosophy with children’ is sometimes employed to mark two methods of teaching that have Socratic roots but have distinct differences, namely Philosophy for Children and Socratic Dialogue developed by Leonard Nelson. The use of the term Socratic pedagogy and its companion term Socratic classroom (to refer to the kind of classroom that employs Socratic teaching) avoids the problem of distinguishing between various approaches to philosophical inquiry in the Socratic tradition but also separates it from the ‘study of philosophy’, such as university style philosophy or other approaches which place little or no emphasis on collaborative inquiry based teaching and learning. The second function builds from the first. It is to develop an effective framework for understanding the relationship between what I call the generative, evaluative and connective aspects of communal dialogue, which I think are necessary to the Socratic notion of inquiry. In doing so it is hoped that this book offers some way to show how philosophy as inquiry can contribute to educational theory and practice, while also demonstrating how it can be an effective way to approach teaching and learning. This has meant striking a balance between speaking to philosophers and to teachers and educators together, with the view that both see the virtues of such a project. In the strictest sense this book is not philosophy of education, insofar as its chief focus is not on the analysis of concepts or formulation of definitions specific to education with the aim of formulating directives that guide educational practice. It relinquishes the role of philosopher as ‘spectator’, to one of philosopher ‘immersed in matter’ – in this case philosophical issues in education, specifically those related to philosophical inquiry, pedagogy and classroom practice. Put another way, it is a book about philosophical education.

Socratic flipped classroom : What types of questions and tasks promote learning?

Socratic questioning stresses the importance of questioning for learning. Flipped Classroom pedagogy generates a need for effective questions and tasks in order to promote active learning. This paper describes a project aimed at finding out how different kinds of questions and tasks support students’ learning in a flipped classroom context. In this study, during the flipped courses, both the questions and tasks were distributed together with video recordings. Answers and solutions were presented and discussed in seminars, with approximately 10 participating students in each seminar. Information Systems students from three flipped classroom courses at three different levels were interviewed in focus groups about their perceptions of how different kinds of questions and tasks supported their learning process. The selected courses were organized differently, with various kinds of questions and tasks. Course one included open questions that were answered and presented at the seminar. Students also solved a task and presented the solution to the group. Course two included open questions and a task. Answers and solutions were discussed at the seminars where students also reviewed each other’s answers and solutions. Course three included online single- and multiple choice questions with real-time feedback. Answers were discussed at the seminar, with the focus on any misconceptions. In this paper we categorized the questions in accordance with Wilson (2016) as factual, convergent, divergent, evaluative, or a combination of these. In all, we found that any comprehensible question that initiates a dialogue, preferably with a set of Socratic questions, is perceived as promoting learning. This is why seminars that allow such questions and discussion are effective. We found no differences between the different kinds of Socratic questions. They were seen to promote learning so long as they made students reflect and problematize the questions. To conclude, we found that questions and tasks promote learning when they are answered and solved in a process that is characterized by comprehensibility, variation, repetition and activity.

Who's at risk: Answerability and the critical possibilities of classroom discourse

Our aim in this article is twofold. First, we challenge the essentialized notion of adolescents and young people as perpetually driven to resist the authority of adults. At the same time, we disrupt linguistic conceptions of adolescent discourse, along with the discourse of youth at risk, by analyzing a transcript of classroom discourse that reflects an exchange between a highly regarded and well liked preservice teacher and his students. This representative transcript highlights the preservice teacher's ability to query, without a concomitant ability to listen, respond, and build a classroom dialogue with his students; what we call here a Socratic monologue. Second, we link the notions of dialogue and responsiveness to Bakhtin's concept of answerability, emphasizing the joint construction of classroom discourse as an ethically answerable relation between teacher and students.

Task profiling : A task-Based approach to measuring the integration of ICT in the classroom

The measurement of ICT (information and communication technology) integration is emerging as an area of research interest with such systems as Education Queensland including it in their recently released list of research priorities. Studies to trial differing integration measurement instruments have taken place within Australia in the last few years, particularly Western Australia (Trinidad, Clarkson, & Newhouse, 2004; Trinidad, Newhouse & Clarkson, 2005), Tasmania (Fitzallen 2005) and Queensland (Finger, Proctor, & Watson, 2005). This paper will add to these investigations by describing an alternate and original methodological approach which was trialled in a small-scale pilot study conducted jointly by Queensland Catholic Education Commission (QCEC) and the Centre of Learning Innovation, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in late 2005. The methodology described is based on tasks which, through a process of profiling, can be seen to be artefacts which embody the internal and external factors enabling and constraining ICT integration.

Measuring the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the classroom

In 2003, the “ICT Curriculum Integration Performance Measurement Instrument” was developed froman extensive review ofthe contemporary international and Australian research pertaining to the definition and measurement of ICT curriculum integration in classrooms (Proctor, Watson, & Finger, 2003). The 45-item instrument that resulted was based on theories and methodologies identified by the literature review. This paper describes psychometric results from a large-scale evaluation of the instrument subsequently conducted, as recommended by Proctor, Watson, and Finger (2003). The resultant 20-item, two-factor instrument, now called “Learning with ICTs: Measuring ICT Use in the Curriculum,” is both statistically and theoretically robust. This paper should be read in association with the original paper published in Computers in the Schools(Proctor, Watson, & Finger, 2003) that described in detail the theoretical framework underpinning the development of the instrument.