# data[].attributes.body
Help build confidence in participation by providing discussion promps / sentences starters.

Can be merged with other praqctices

Ideal for every discussion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Encouraging Academic Conversations With Talk Moves

# data[].attributes.body
Simultaniously as you are having a discussion, students use a chat option that is open on your board to ask questions and/or comment.

Other students can answer/reply without disrupting the main conversation. It can also spark new questions or related topics.

Presenter can refer to it once in a while

Can be merged with other practices

Ideal for mature students

# data[].attributes.body
Use the chat box as the class is ongoing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Socratic Seminar with Brian West of East Hall High School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I'm about an hour away from heading back to Spokane (and yes back to farming) from Washington DC and the NECC conference and just had a great back channel chat session where like many conversations ideas start to come and before I know it....I have to think through a couple things.

In the back channel we got into a conversation about back channels. What are their purpose and how do you use them?

What I've seen is a transformation of what a back channel is and what it has become and what it can be.

So here's my take on back channels and their different uses:

BackChannel: Here's Wikipedia's take on what a back channel is:

Backchannel is the practice of using networked computers
to maintain a real-time online conversation alongside live spoken
remarks. The term was coined in the field of Linguistics to describe
listeners' behaviours during verbal communication, Victor Yngve 1970.

The term "backchannel" generally refers to online conversation about
the topic or the speaker. Occasionally backchannel provides audience
members a chance to fact-check the presentation.

First growing in popularity at technology conferences, backchannel is increasingly a factor in education where WiFi connections and laptop computers allow students to use ordinary chat like IRC or AIM to actively communicate during class.

So a back channel allows your students and audience to communicate "behind the scene". It's used to connect people and ideas around something being presented/taught. This is a true back channel. It's behind the channel of communication that is the presentation.
Front Channel:
I threw this term out in a back channel chat I was in. A "Front Channel" (for lack of a better term at the moment) is using a chat as part of your lesson or presentation. It's part of your lesson. You use it to field questions, it's on the screen in front of the room and the participants/students are aware that what they write can/will become part of the lesson or presentation.
Feedback Channel:
Scott Smeech threw this out as we were talking though this at the Blogger's Cafe. The idea that you use a chat with participants as a way to gather feedback about your lesson or presentation.

What I'm trying to do is break down the different ways to use a live chat in the classroom or presentation. Up until now we have called all of these "back channels" but I think they serve a different purpose. Sure, the tool is the same but the purpose and outcome can be different. Helping educators understand that there are different uses for the tool is important for them to wrap their heads around just how a tool can be used.

Thoughts? Feedback?

I started blogging in 2005 and found it such a powerful way to reflect and share my thinking about technology, this generation, and how we prepare students for their future not our past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'm about an hour away from heading back to Spokane (and yes back to farming) from Washington DC and the NECC conference and just had a great back channel chat session where like many conversations ideas start to come and before I know it....I have to think through a couple things.

# data[].attributes.body
using an app sush as Voxer or Flipgrid, students interact on their time replying to each other.

# data[].attributes.body
snowball effect discussion

teams of 2, then 4, then 8.

# data[].attributes.body
une students plays a role (character, historical figure, artist) others ask question to the persona

Can be used for a more ludic interaction (yes-no questions, headbands, vocabulary, etc)

Ideal for research presentation or game setting.

# data[].attributes.body
same as in class, but in a virtual class.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This is an exercise to deepen understanding of character. An actor sits in the hot-seat and is questioned , spontaneously answering questions they may not have considered before.

Hot-seating helps an actor become more familiar with their role. The questioners should also act as observers as feedback can be very useful.

Ask questions that force the actor to consider the life of their character in depth and beyond the world of the play. You could ask them about home life, childhood, family relationships, hopes, fears, hobbies and how they feel about other characters.

Make a note of any mannerisms that emerge which can be incorporated into performance, such as twisting hands out of nervousness or speaking slowly with a serious tone of voice and fixed eye contact. If something works for the character you are playing, keep it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Thought-tracking and hot-seating - Explorative strategies - GCSE Drama Revision - BBC Bitesize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is an exercise to deepen understanding of character. An actor sits in the hot-seat and is questioned , spontaneously answering questions they may not have considered before. Hot-seating helps an actor become more familiar with their role. The questioners should also act as observers as feedback can be very useful.

# data[].attributes.body
A student driven Socratic seminar

A group has the discussion, the rest of the classe observes their partner and provide feedback.

Ideal for helping students get better at interacting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using a "Fishbowl" for Discussions: Classroom Management Tricks of the Trade

# data[].attributes.body
one on one discussions

completely random and changing teams.

many quick discussions

Ideal for interview setting or "speed dating" data collection.

# data[].attributes.body
????
difficult

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Inside-Outside Circle (Kagan, 1994) is a technique in which students move around and interact with each other. It can be used as a cooperative strategy and a summarizing strategy. During inside-outside circle, students either sit or stand facing each other in two concentric circles. Students respond to teacher questions or note-card prompted questions and then rotate to the next partner. In the end of this type of structure, students will have both been teachers and learners of new information. The activity encourages community building among students while incorporating movement and interaction. This structure also facilitates peer tutoring and checking for different levels of knowledge acquisition.

Implementation

1. Place an engaging question or statement prompt on the board.

Â· Alternately, place a variety of different, but related questions on index cards.

2. Questions that require higher level thinking skills questions should be selected.

3. Standing inside the circle allows for better teacher management.

4. When students have appropriate "think time" the quality of their responses will improve.

5. Students are actively engaged in thinking, with different questions and different partners.

6. One benefit of this activity stems from the fact that some students find it safer or easier to enter into a discussion with another classmate, rather than in a large group.

Classroom Management

1. Students create one large circle and pair up.

2. One partner moves to the inside; partners face each other.

3. Give students at least ten seconds of "think time" to react to the prompt.

4. Ask students in the inside circle to share their response with the classmate facing them in the outside circle.

Â· When they have done this, ask them to say "pass", at which point the students in the outside circle will share their responses with the classmate facing them.

Â· Student groups can demonstrate that they are finished by both turning to face the teacher in the center.

5. Have the outside circle move one step to the left or right and discuss the same question with a different partner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Inside-Outside Circle (Kagan, 1994) is a technique in which students move around and interact with each other. It can be used as a cooperative strategy and a summarizing strategy. During inside-outside circle, students either sit or stand facing each other in two concentric circles.

# data[].attributes.body
Based on business brainstorming format.

Individual thinking on problem

"Posting" ideas

Discussions in cluster  categories

Can be the start of a writing.

Ideal for brainstorming

# data[].attributes.body
Three part discussion (individual, teams of two, whole group / teams of 4 (square))

Ideal for exchanging ideas, to compare ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
Preset teams of two in independant channels.

Share in big group after team discussion.

Square option present a second set of teams, but of 4 this time.

# data[].attributes.body
Fully student centered.

Three or four position teams + Provocateur teams.

Text based

Speaking as an author/character/ideology/etc. Forgetting their individual opinions.

Ratation of speaker

Ideal for reinvesting discussions

# data[].attributes.body
First part in independent channels/teams.

Students share rotation plan with teacher who transfers to a schema to keep track of rotations.

In a whole Group proceed as in class, following the rotation plans.

# data[].attributes.body
Cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals.

Text-based

Ideal for asking and answering question towards critical thinking.

# data[].attributes.body
Create small independant teams/channels in TEAMS, Google CLASSROOM or ZOOM.

# data[].attributes.body
Use a whiteboard or padlet (the app we are on presently)

# data[].attributes.body
Hardious in team making but managable.

Merging virtual teams together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you read my earlier post on establishing a shared vision ahead of emergent curriculum design work, then you'll be better prepared to consider today's post.

Shared targets help learners (including teachers) understand what they learn during a lesson, how deeply they might learn it, and what they might do to demonstrate their learning. Drop by Ed Leadership to read more about learning targets, if you aren't yet familiar with them. Connie Moss, Susan Brookhart, and Beverly Long provide helpful insight and a tidy process for creating shared targets.
Here's what I'm wondering: How might we invite students to design targets with us, rather than crafting them alone or with our colleagues behind closed doors?
My first thought: If you've invited students to create and share their own vision, you might help them use it to frame their own targets, too. How? Well, by modeling the process yourself. Show them how you might break your vision into meaningful and manageable learning targets that can be attended to in a single lesson. Place each target on its own sticky note, and create a post-up, like this one:

Once they've created their own targets, encourage them to create a post-up as well.

Then, begin affinity mapping. If you follow that link to Dave Gray's post, you'll get a sense of how Gamestorming works beyond the world of education. Here's how I use it to foster collaborative curriculum design processes that include teachers and students:

1. Everyone articulates the vision of the teacher or writer or learner they long to become, as explained in my previous posts.

2. They use this vision to begin articulating learning targets: Goals that define what will be learned in a single lesson, the degree to which it will be learned, and what "good" looks like. Each individual target should live on its own sticky note or index card, because as you will soon see, it's important that these targets can move, mix, mingle, and play with other important targets.
A quick aside: We do this with the Common Core Learning Standards all of the time. So, why aren't we prioritizing the standards that help us achieve our shared vision the same way, and what happens when we don't?
3. Once everyone has created a sticky note post up of the targets that align to their individual visions, they should work together to merge all of the sticky notes into one shared post-up. It might look a bit like this:

4. Next, team members should work together to cluster the sticky notes according to affinities: Similarities and relationships. These clusters, a synthesis of the targets conceptualized by the individuals in the group, become the shared learning targets for the whole.
Another aside: Repetition is common here, and it's okay to leave identical sticky notes in the mix. They reveal a lot about the numbers of people who think alike and whose visions are closely aligned. Also: Sometimes, trends and relationships are easy to notice. Affinities surface quickly and clearly from the mix. This isn't always the case, though. You may want to consider prompting a solid analysis by asking questions that help the group notice what's most important.
5. Once clusters are created, the group should consider how they might name them. What defines each cluster? What does each cluster represent? These were the categories that emerged from some recent work with middle school writers:

6. Finally, the group should consider how the clusters will inform the curriculum as they begin to sketch out potential frames. Consider various iterations, interpretations, and possibilities. Attend to as many clusters as possible. Work toward this kind of alignment before you bring in the Common Core or any other set of standards that aren't really your own. I'll share some ideas for that phase of the work on Thursday.
Most learners will be able to define how the clusters could make the curriculum more relevant and meaningful for everyone in the room. Even our littlest learners can make these connections when skillfully prompted. More experienced learners may also be able to sketch out blueprints for curriculum frameworks that reveal where within the design the shared learning targets will be attended to. When this isn't possible, prompt better thinking. If this doesn't work, offer several frameworks of your own design as examples. Let the group iterate from there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Affinity Maps Support Curriculum that is Co-Designed with Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you read my earlier post on establishing a shared vision ahead of emergent curriculum design work, then you'll be better prepared to consider today's post. Shared targets help learners (including teachers) understand what they learn during a lesson, how deeply they might learn it, and what they might do to demonstrate their learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
💬 Talk Science in the classroom - using 'snowball' to get everyone involved | #STEM

# data[].attributes.body
Debate discussion. No winners or loosers.

Whole class or big group discussion

Listening and pondering are most important

Ideal for no stresss debates

# data[].attributes.body
Synchronous: Ask student to identify their position (i.e. "those who are for, put a green filter on your camera) have them debate one another in a similar way as in class.

Assychronous: using FlipGrid, students can bounce back and forth  on other students arguments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Philosophical Chairs is an exercise that fosters careful listening and encourages every student to contribute their thoughts.

An exercise called Philosophical Chairs is a versatile way to get students speaking and listening to one another. It's a student-centered strategy that can be used in any content area around a multitude of topics. It's set up like a debate-and one explicit objective is for students to be open to changing their minds.

The other objectives-which can be tied to standards-are for students to practice respectful dialogue, provide evidence for claims using prior knowledge, organize their thinking and logical reasoning, and avoid disputable statements. The exercise also provides a venue to challenge students' assumptions.

Getting Set Up

The teacher or a student presents a statement for the class to consider;

All students spend three minutes writing their ideas about the statement;

They decide which position they'll take on the statement (yes, no, undecided);

They discuss their ideas and positions for about 10 to 15 minutes; and

They write a reflection that includes the comment that most challenged their thinking; whether they changed their mind or not; and how open-minded they were at the start of the conversation.

The basic outline of Philosophical Chairs is this:

One person speaks at a time;

Look at the speaker and use body language that shows you're listening;

Restate what the person before you said;

Let three people on your side speak after you before you speak again; and

Gently and quietly remind others if they're not following the norms.

Before starting any speaking and listening activity, it's important to have discussion norms. In my class, the norms generally include:

I provide students with a sheet of sentence stems for politely disagreeing, adding on to someone else's comments, and redirecting the conversation back to the topic. We use these for the first few discussions, but after that students generally don't need them.

An In-Depth Look

A more detailed explanation of Philosophical Chairs goes something like this. A statement about a topic is presented to the class by the facilitator-it can be either teacher- or student-generated.

It's a statement that doesn't have a right or wrong answer, but is relevant to the content. For example, in a health class, Philosophical Chairs could begin with this: "Tobacco products should be allowed for ages 12 and up if monitored by an adult." In math class: "Using a car-sharing service makes more financial sense than owning a car."

I like to give students at least five statements to ensure that we have some with sufficient disagreement to generate a good discussion, and they spend a few minutes writing their responses to each one-yes, no, or undecided-and providing a rationale. I quickly poll the class before we begin to ensure there's a fair division of opinion-if there is not enough for a robust discussion, I'll drop a statement, or participate with the side that has less advocates, but otherwise I'm an observer.

After students write their initial responses and thoughts, they move to sit or stand in a yes row and a no row facing each other. Undecided students stand at the end of the two rows, facing them.

A student facilitator moderates the discussion. They read the statement, call on students to speak, and gently remind students to stay focused on the topic. I coach facilitators ahead of time, teaching them how to ask clarifying questions, and asking them to call on those who seem like they have something to say but are not raising their hand.

The two sides alternate speaking at first. But as the year goes on, and the class gets better at listening and respecting each other, it's normal for students to relax about the order-everyone still contributes.

I give the facilitator a roster so they can mark off who they've called on, in an effort to broaden the number of students who talk at least once. Students are not required to speak. I ask for everyone to show that they're listening respectfully, but it's important to let kids not talk. Eventually they will-I've never had a student who never speaks, because their classmates eventually prompt them, and they do share their thoughts.

As the discussion begins, the first person to speak gives a clear rationale for their belief. The next student must then summarize what that person said before they share their own thoughts.

Students are allowed to switch sides at any time. They don't give an explanation-they just move. They frequently speak up soon after moving to share what point changed their mind, and then add their thoughts.

Students who are undecided never have to pick a side, but they do have to share what they see as the strongest points from either side and say why they thought those points were the most compelling, even it they were not ultimately convinced. The facilitator shares their opinion at the end of the discussion.

Occasionally, when I sense that both sides are not being open-minded about a statement, I'll have them do something I call a Lincoln Debate-everyone has to switch sides and argue for the opposing position. This challenges students' thinking and pushes them to see other perspectives.

I think it's important to praise students for open-mindedness, and not for their excellent points. They get a lot of positive feedback on zingers, but how often do we acknowledge open-mindedness as a skill we want to cultivate?

It's illuminating for me to listen to the insightful commentary my students share. But the best part is reading their reflections, and seeing the growth on the page: "I changed my mind because...," or "I didn't change my mind because..., but I learned that...." I can see their growth in their own words.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Philosophical Chairs is an exercise that fosters careful listening and encourages every student to contribute their thoughts. An exercise called Philosophical Chairs is a versatile way to get students speaking and listening to one another. It's a student-centered strategy that can be used in any content area around a multitude of topics.

# data[].attributes.body
Roled disscussion in teams of two (solver and listener)

Solver explains, Listeners questions. Roles switch for each "problem"

Problem based

Ideal for observation of the discussion process.

# data[].attributes.body
Create channels/teams of two.

Plan a "whiteboard" for students to jolt down notes as the discussions unfold.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Marcello Bacciarelli's Alcibiades Being Taught by Socrates (1776)

The Socratic method (also known as method of Elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate) is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. It is named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates and is introduced by him in Plato's Theaetetus as midwifery ( maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding.

The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions.

The Socratic method searches for general commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, explore definitions, and characterize general characteristics shared by various particular instances.

In the second half of the 5th century BCE, sophists were teachers who specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric to entertain, impress, or persuade an audience to accept the speaker's point of view. Socrates promoted an alternative method of teaching, which came to be called the Socratic method.

Socrates began to engage in such discussions with his fellow Athenians after his friend from youth, Chaerephon, visited the Oracle of Delphi, which asserted that no man in Greece was wiser than Socrates. Socrates saw this as a paradox, and began using the Socratic method to answer his conundrum. Diogenes Laërtius, however, wrote that Protagoras invented the "Socratic" method.

Plato famously formalized the Socratic elenctic style in prose-presenting Socrates as the curious questioner of some prominent Athenian interlocutor-in some of his early dialogues, such as and , and the method is most commonly found within the so-called " Socratic dialogues", which generally portray Socrates engaging in the method and questioning his fellow citizens about moral and epistemological issues. But in his later dialogues, such as Theaetetus or Sophist, Plato had a different method to philosophical discussions, namely dialectic.

Elenchus ( Ancient Greek: ἔλεγχος, elenkhos, 'argument of disproof or refutation; cross-examining, testing, scrutiny esp. for purposes of refutation') is the central technique of the Socratic method. The Latin form elenchus (plural elenchi) is used in English as the technical philosophical term. The most common adjectival form in English is elenctic; elenchic and elenchtic are also current. This was also very important in Plato's early dialogues.

In Plato's early dialogues, the elenchus is the technique Socrates uses to investigate, for example, the nature or definition of ethical concepts such as justice or virtue. According to Vlastos, it has the following steps:

1. Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example "Courage is endurance of the soul".

2. Socrates decides whether the thesis is false and targets for refutation.

3. Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example "Courage is a fine thing" and "Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing".

4. Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, these further premises imply the contrary of the original thesis; in this case, it leads to: "courage is not endurance of the soul".

5. Socrates then claims he has shown his interlocutor's thesis is false and its negation is true.

One elenctic examination can lead to a new, more refined, examination of the concept being considered, in this case it invites an examination of the claim: "Courage is wise endurance of the soul". Most Socratic inquiries consist of a series of elenchi and typically end in puzzlement known as .

Frede points out Vlastos' conclusion in step #5 above makes nonsense of the aporetic nature of the early dialogues. Having shown a proposed thesis is false is insufficient to conclude some other competing thesis must be true. Rather, the interlocutors have reached aporia, an improved state of still not knowing what to say about the subject under discussion.

The exact nature of the elenchus is subject to a great deal of debate, in particular concerning whether it is a positive method, leading to knowledge, or a negative method used solely to refute false claims to knowledge.

W. K. C. Guthrie in The Greek Philosophers sees it as an error to regard the Socratic method as a means by which one seeks the answer to a problem, or knowledge. Guthrie claims that the Socratic method actually aims to demonstrate one's ignorance. Socrates, unlike the Sophists, did believe that knowledge was possible, but believed that the first step to knowledge was recognition of one's ignorance. Guthrie writes, "[Socrates] was accustomed to say that he did not himself know anything, and that the only way in which he was wiser than other men was that he was conscious of his own ignorance, while they were not. The essence of the Socratic method is to convince the interlocutor that whereas he thought he knew something, in fact he does not."

Socrates generally applied his method of examination to concepts that seem to lack any concrete definition; e.g., the key moral concepts at the time, the virtues of piety, wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. Such an examination challenged the implicit moral beliefs of the interlocutors, bringing out inadequacies and inconsistencies in their beliefs, and usually resulting in aporia. In view of such inadequacies, Socrates himself professed his ignorance, but others still claimed to have knowledge. Socrates believed that his awareness of his ignorance made him wiser than those who, though ignorant, still claimed knowledge. While this belief seems paradoxical at first glance, it in fact allowed Socrates to discover his own errors where others might assume they were correct. This claim was based on a reported Delphic oracular pronouncement that no man was wiser than Socrates.

Socrates used this claim of wisdom as the basis of his moral exhortation. Accordingly, he claimed that the chief goodness consists in the caring of the soul concerned with moral truth and moral understanding, that "wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and to the state", and that "life without examination [dialogue] is not worth living". It is with this in mind that the Socratic method is employed.

The motive for the modern usage of this method and Socrates' use are not necessarily equivalent. Socrates rarely used the method to actually develop consistent theories, instead using myth to explain them. The Parmenides dialogue shows Parmenides using the Socratic method to point out the flaws in the Platonic theory of forms, as presented by Socrates; it is not the only dialogue in which theories normally expounded by Plato/Socrates are broken down through dialectic. Instead of arriving at answers, the method was used to break down the theories we hold, to go "beyond" the axioms and postulates we take for granted. Therefore, myth and the Socratic method are not meant by Plato to be incompatible; they have different purposes, and are often described as the "left hand" and "right hand" paths to good and wisdom.

Socratic seminar

A Socratic seminar (also known as a Socratic circle) is a pedagogical approach based on the Socratic method and uses a dialogic approach to understand information in a text. Its systematic procedure is used to examine a text through questions and answers founded on the beliefs that all new knowledge is connected to prior knowledge, that all thinking comes from asking questions, and that asking one question should lead to asking further questions. A Socratic seminar is not a debate. The goal of this activity is to have participants work together to construct meaning and arrive at an answer, not for one student or one group to "win the argument".

This approach is based on the belief that participants seek and gain deeper understanding of concepts in the text through thoughtful dialogue rather than memorizing information that has been provided for them. While Socratic seminars can differ in structure, and even in name, they typically involve a passage of text that students must read beforehand and facilitate dialogue. Sometimes, a facilitator will structure two concentric circles of students: an outer circle and an inner circle. The inner circle focuses on exploring and analysing the text through the act of questioning and answering. During this phase, the outer circle remains silent. Students in the outer circle are much like scientific observers watching and listening to the conversation of the inner circle. When the text has been fully discussed and the inner circle is finished talking, the outer circle provides feedback on the dialogue that took place. This process alternates with the inner circle students going to the outer circle for the next meeting and vice versa. The length of this process varies depending on the text used for the discussion. The teacher may decide to alternate groups within one meeting, or they may alternate at each separate meeting.

The most significant difference between this activity and most typical classroom activities involves the role of the teacher. In Socratic seminar, the students lead the discussion and questioning. The teacher's role is to ensure the discussion advances regardless of the particular direction the discussion takes.

Various approaches to Socratic seminar

Teachers use Socratic seminar in different ways. The structure it takes may look different in each classroom. While this is not an exhaustive list, teachers may use one of the following structures to administer Socratic seminar:

1. Inner/outer circle or fishbowl: Students need to be arranged in inner and outer circles. The inner circle engages in discussion about the text. The outer circle observes the inner circle, while taking notes. The outer circle shares their observations and questions the inner circle with guidance from the teacher/facilitator. Students use constructive criticism as opposed to making judgements. The students on the outside keep track of topics they would like to discuss as part of the debrief. Participants in the outer circle can use an observation checklist or notes form to monitor the participants in the inner circle. These tools will provide structure for listening and give the outside members specific details to discuss later in the seminar. The teacher may also sit in the circle but at the same height as the students.

2. Triad: Students are arranged so that each participant (called a "pilot") in the inner circle has two "co-pilots" sitting behind them on either side. Pilots are the speakers because they are in the inner circle; co-pilots are in the outer circle and only speak during consultation. The seminar proceeds as any other seminar. At a point in the seminar, the facilitator pauses the discussion and instructs the triad to talk to each other. Conversation will be about topics that need more in-depth discussion or a question posed by the leader. Sometimes triads will be asked by the facilitator to come up with a new question. Any time during a triad conversation, group members can switch seats and one of the co-pilots can sit in the pilot's seat. Only during that time is the switching of seats allowed. This structure allows for students to speak, who may not yet have the confidence to speak in the large group. This type of seminar involves all students instead of just the students in the inner and outer circles.

3. Simultaneous seminars: Students are arranged in multiple small groups and placed as far as possible from each other. Following the guidelines of the Socratic seminar, students engage in small group discussions. Simultaneous seminars are typically done with experienced students who need little guidance and can engage in a discussion without assistance from a teacher/facilitator. According to the literature, this type of seminar is beneficial for teachers who want students to explore a variety of texts around a main issue or topic. Each small group may have a different text to read/view and discuss. A larger Socratic seminar can then occur as a discussion about how each text corresponds with one another. Simultaneous Seminars can also be used for a particularly difficult text. Students can work through different issues and key passages from the text.

No matter what structure the teacher employs, the basic premise of the seminar/circles is to turn partial control and direction of the classroom over to the students. The seminars encourage students to work together, creating meaning from the text and to stay away from trying to find a correct interpretation. The emphasis is on critical and creative thinking.

Text selection

Socratic seminar texts

A Socratic seminar text is a tangible document that creates a thought-provoking discussion. The text ought to be appropriate for the participants' current level of intellectual and social development. It provides the anchor for dialogue whereby the facilitator can bring the participants back to the text if they begin to digress. Furthermore, the seminar text enables the participants to create a level playing field - ensuring that the dialogical tone within the classroom remains consistent and pure to the subject or topic at hand. Some practitioners argue that "texts" do not have to be confined to printed texts, but can include artifacts such as objects, physical spaces, and the like.

Pertinent elements of an effective Socratic text

Socratic seminar texts are able to challenge participants' thinking skills by having these characteristics:

1. Ideas and values: The text must introduce ideas and values that are complex and difficult to summarize. Powerful discussions arise from personal connections to abstract ideas and from implications to personal values.

2. Complexity and challenge: The text must be rich in ideas and complexity and open to interpretation. Ideally it should require multiple readings, but should be neither far above the participants' intellectual level nor very long.

3. Relevance to participants' curriculum: An effective text has identifiable themes that are recognizable and pertinent to the lives of the participants. Themes in the text should relate to the curriculum.

4. : The text must be approachable from a variety of different perspectives, including perspectives that seem mutually exclusive, thus provoking critical thinking and raising important questions. The absence of right and wrong answers promotes a variety of discussion and encourages individual contributions.

Two different ways to select a text

Socratic texts can be divided into two main categories:

1. Print texts (e.g., short stories, poems, and essays) and non-print texts (e.g. photographs, sculptures, and maps); and

2. Subject area, which can draw from print or non-print artifacts. As examples, language arts can be approached through poems, history through written or oral historical speeches, science through policies on environmental issues, math through mathematical proofs, health through nutrition labels, and physical education through fitness guidelines.

Questioning methods

Socratic seminars are based upon the interaction of peers. The focus is to explore multiple perspectives on a given issue or topic. Socratic questioning is used to help students apply the activity to their learning. The pedagogy of Socratic questions is open-ended, focusing on broad, general ideas rather than specific, factual information. The questioning technique emphasizes a level of questioning and thinking where there is no single right answer.

Socratic seminars generally start with an open-ended question proposed either by the leader or by another participant. There is no designated first speaker; as individuals participate in Socratic dialogue, they gain experience that enables them to be effective in this role of initial questioner.

The leader keeps the topic focused by asking a variety of questions about the text itself, as well as questions to help clarify positions when arguments become confused. The leader also seeks to coax reluctant participants into the discussion, and to limit contributions from those who tend to dominate. She or he prompts participants to elaborate on their responses and to build on what others have said. The leader guides participants to deepen, clarify, and paraphrase, and to synthesize a variety of different views.

The participants share the responsibility with the leader to maintain the quality of the Socratic circle. They listen actively in order to respond effectively to what others have contributed. This teaches the participants to think and speak persuasively using the discussion to support their position. Participants must demonstrate respect for different ideas, thoughts and values, and must not interrupt each other.

Questions can be created individually or in small groups. All participants are given the opportunity to take part in the discussion. Socratic circles specify three types of questions to prepare:

1. Opening questions generate discussion at the beginning of the seminar in order to elicit dominant themes.

2. Guiding questions help deepen and elaborate the discussion, keeping contributions on topic and encouraging a positive atmosphere and consideration for others.

3. Closing questions lead participants to summarize their thoughts and learning and personalize what they've discussed.

Psychotherapy

The Socratic method, in the form of Socratic questioning, has been adapted for psychotherapy, most prominently in classical Adlerian psychotherapy, logotherapy, rational emotive behavior therapy, cognitive therapy and reality therapy. It can be used to clarify meaning, feeling, and consequences, as well as to gradually unfold insight, or explore alternative actions.

The Socratic method has also recently inspired a new form of applied philosophy: Socratic dialogue, also called philosophical counseling. In Europe Gerd B. Achenbach is probably the best known practitioner, and Michel Weber has also proposed another variant of the practice.

Scholars such as Peter Boghossian suggest that although the method improves creative and critical thinking, there is a flip side to the method. He states that the teachers who use this method wait for the students to make mistakes, thus creating negative feelings in the class, exposing the student to possible ridicule and humiliation.

Some have countered this thought by stating that the humiliation and ridicule is not caused by the method, rather it is due to the lack of knowledge of the student. Boghossian mentions that even though the questions may be perplexing, they are not originally meant for it, in fact such questions provoke the students and can be countered by employing counterexamples.

Benson, Hugh (2000) Socratic Wisdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bensen, Rebecca (2007) The Socratic Method in Continuum Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Frede, Michael (1992) 'Plato's Arguments and the Dialogue Form' in Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary Volume, 201-19.

Jarratt, Susan C. (1991) Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Overholser, J. C. (1993). "Elements of the Socratic method: II. Inductive reasoning". Psychotherapy. 30: 75-85. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.30.1.75.

Sprague, Rosamond Kent (1972). . Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. ISBN 0-87220-556-8.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Socratic method (also known as method of Elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate) is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Edutopia is a free source of information, inspiration, and practical strategies for learning and teaching in preK-12 education. We are published by the George Lucas Educational Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Snowball Technique - A Teaching Strategy - Book Units Teacher

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Snowball Technique is a teaching method which allows students to teach each other important concepts and information.