6 reasons why teachers do not engage in critical thinking (Socratic dialogue)

What is Socratic dialogue?

Socratic dialogue (referred to as the Socratic method or Socratic questioning in modern education nomenclature) is a way of teaching critical thinking through discussions originating in the philosophical tradition dating back to Plato and Aristotle. The teacher does not provide all the answers but instead encourages deeper thinking and students’ enquiry, looking into matters from different angles, corroborating and negotiating often conflicting ideas and opinions. John Dewey, an American philosopher, education reformer, and psychologist who graduated from Johns Hopkins University, widely considered as the father of active learning and pragmatism in education, referred to it as “a conversation of thoughts” (Dewey, 1916). There is a very close relationship between Socratic dialogue and critical thinking skills. Socratic dialogue with its logical structure to analyse, evaluate and infer meaning is a very useful pedagogical tool (Facione, 2020, The Delphi Report; 1988, Dwyer et al., 2013).

?Is” kritikos” in critical thinking critical enough?

The etymology of the word “critical” is Latin “criticus” and Greek “kritikos’ i.e., meaning the ability to discern or judge (Coney,2015). Critical thinking does not have negative connotations. To think critically means to be able to think with balance and offer discerning judgement (Wilberding, 2019). As learners mature in their critical thinking skills, there is a confluence with reflective judgment as the highest form of thinking (King and Kitchener, 1994, 2002 in Wilberding, 2019).

Asking the most important question of all questions asked at schools is the “why”. Since Socratic dialogue focuses on the “why”, it can be a very effective pedagogical tool to teach students through the lens of critical thinking. Socratic dialogue can help students to understand how knowledge is constructed and justified.

?Socratic dialogue in the classroom – teachers’ perspectives

While teaching critical thinking to student teachers is explicit in the Western universities, the choice of pedagogical approaches often observed in the classrooms is leaning towards teacher led instruction.?The ability and willingness of teachers to deploy Socratic dialogue as a tool to teach critical thinking is sometimes at odds with students’ vital agency to acquire such skills. Then why is that teachers don’t use such useful pedagogical tools if there is a lot of evidence in the literature that Socratic dialogue can be effective in learning crtitical thinking skills?

There are several plausible causes:

1.???Teacher led instruction can be a lot more effective in certain subject areas such as foreign languages or mathematics. Some abstract concepts cannot be just learned by student led enquiry. Sometimes the most effective way of teaching is just plain instruction where there is no logical explanation as to “why”. For example, how do you teach English grammar with an enquiry approach why we say a mouse in singular, but mice in plural. In short, expert teachers know which tool is best for the job and are not afraid to skip Socratic dialogue if they think they will schieve better outcomes with other pedagogies.

?2.???There is an assumption that all teachers are reflective practitioners willing to engage in critical reflection. Morley and Fook (2005) described critical reflection as the process of deconstruction and reconstruction aiming to empower teachers. Mezirow (1997) talks about transformative learning and “applying different frames of reference and using imagination to redefine problems from a different perspective”. Critical reflection requires self-discipline and open mindedness to change own dominant ways of thinking. I will be the first to admit that in today’s crowded curricula, and especially in the highly stressful and unpredictable post pandemic reality, many teachers are too exhausted to engage in critical reflection. For many it is just survival in the classroom every academic year.

??3.???Asking the ever important “why” requires from teachers not only deep subject knowledge and general knowledge but also a certain vulnerability and courage to admit that one may not know all the answers that students may ask. It is hard for some teachers to admit that they may actually not know the answer.

4.???Another challenge to Socratic dialogue in the classrooms is the lack of time in overcrowded curricula. For example, the IB DP economics course offered as an elective in Years 12 and 13 is a very demanding course with lots of dense content. Recently, the textbook was vastly improved, but until two years ago it had a very traditional causational (cause and effect) format with limited scope for teaching critical thinking skills. Teachers, even those with the best intentions, would struggle to engage in Socratic dialogue as it takes proportionately more time than teacher led instruction.

?5.???Additionally, teachers themselves need to be critical thinkers if they are expected to teach such skills (Schon, 1983). However, criticality as a subject at universities started being regularly taught as a mandatory course only in the past 15 years. The vast majority of teachers in service today would not have had learning opportunities to learn critical thinking themselves. It is no surprise then that teachers may not fully embrace it in their practice.

?6.???Last not least, there are societal tensions and challenges in using Socratic dialogue. Foucault’s (1981a) analysis of power relations and concept of dominant discourses in society supports the argument that schools are bound by educational policies prescribed in a particular country and led by the prevalent political forces. The degree to which critical thinking skills are valued in a society largely remains a subjective matter underpinned by political and sociocultural powers (Morley, 2008). Therefore, a teacher’s role to “deliver” and teach knowledge and skills is dependent upon definitions of knowledge or “the regimes of truth” (Foucault, 1981a) prevalent in a society. Francis Bacon said that knowledge is power, and knowledge is highly controlled in today’s societies. Despite technological advances of the internet, modern knowledge is often hidden behind high paywalls or removed from equitable access for various often politically motivated reasons.

?Students’ perspectives

Students face their own challenges in learning through Socratic dialogue. Language acquisition plays an important part in developing critical thinking skills (Wilberding, 2019). In international schools, the language of instruction is not necessarily the mother tongue of the majority of students. Active student participation in debates requires sophisticated command of the spoken second or even third language. Group social dynamics and the acceptance of perceived failures also plays a role. Students often focus on getting answers ‘right’, however, in Socratic dialogue there is often no right or wrong, but a question, or rather a process of interpretation of concepts. Additionally, Socratic dialogue may not suit all students’ preferences in respect of their learning styles (despite multiple critiques of learning style theory and models).

?Another dimension of critical thinking at schools is to what extent students really embrace learning to think and/or learning to pass exams and secure admission to a university of their choice.?It is a seldom questioned statement that the purpose of education is not to merely pass exams. However, many curricula create highly pressurized and high stakes learning and testing environments not conducive to think outside the accepted norms and hence counterproductive to promoting crtitical thinking skills.

?The way forward

The use of Socratic dialogue is a useful pedagogical tool to teach critical thinking skills. It can be supported by instructional scaffolding, Vygotsky’s concept of zone of proximal development (Daniels, 2016), which is widely accepted and used in schools. Teachers become learners and learners become teachers resulting in roles that intersect and interplay, eliciting greater collaboration and engagement (Wilberding, 2019). Conceptions of teachers’ learning also point to the importance of critical thinking and critical reflection (Cochrane-Smith and Lytle, 1999). In conclusion, educational bureaus, school administrators, teachers and students should not be afraid of Socratic dialogue. Ultimately, thinking and knowledge are founded upon questions and answers, i.e. a dialogue.

Bibliography

Bay U. and Macfarlane S. (2011), Teaching Critical Reflection: A Tool for Transformative Learning in Social Work?, Social Work Education, 30(7), pp. 745-758

bell hooks b. (1994), Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom, Routledge, London

Cochrane-Smith M. and Lytle S. (1999), Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, pp. 249-305

Coney C.L. (2015), Critical Thinking in its Contexts and in Itself, Educational Philosophy & Theory, 47(5), pp. 515-528

Daniels H. (2016), Vygotsky and Pedagogy, Routledge

Davies N. and Sinclair A. (2014), Socratic questioning in the Paideia Method to encourage dialogical discussions, Research Papers in Education, 29(1), pp. 20–43

Dewey J. (1916), Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education, New York: The Free Press.

Dwyer C.P et al (2013), An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, pp. 43-52, Elsevier

Facione P.A. (2020), Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts, Measured Reasons LLC, Hemosa Beach, CA

Foucault, M. (1981a), ‘Governmentality’, in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, eds Burchell G. et al, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

Fook J. and Gardner F. (2007), Practicing critical reflection: A resource handbook, Berkshire: Open University Press

Giroux H.A. (1997), Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: Theory, Culture, and Schooling, Westview Press, Boulder, CO

Hargreaves A. at al (2004), About Learning, DEMOS Report of the Learning Working Group

King P.M. and Kitchener K.S. (1994), Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood, Educational Psychologist, 39(1), pp. 5-18

Mezirow, J. (1997), Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, pp. 5-12

McKay J. and Kember D. (1997), Spoon feeding leads to regurgitation: A better diet can result in more digestible learning outcomes, Higher Education Research and Development, 16(1), pp. 55-67

Morley C. (2008), Teaching Critical Practice: Resisting Structural Domination through Critical Reflection, Social Work Education: The International Journal, 27(4), pp. 407-421

Morley, C. and Fook, J. (2005), Empowerment: a contextual perspective, In Social Work: A Critical Turn, eds Hick S. et al, Thompson, Toronto.

Davies M. and Sinclair A?(2014),?Socratic questioning in the Paideia Method to encourage dialogical discussions,?Research Papers in Education,?29(1),?pp. 20-43

Schon D. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals Think in Action, Temple Smith, London

The Delphi Report (1988), Executive Summary: Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction, Insight Assessment

Wilberding E. (2019), Socratic Methods in the Classroom: Encouraging Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Through Dialogue, Sourcebooks, Naperville