You can feel your heart knocking on the walls of your chest, and every breath, no matter how deep you try to make it, shallows out into arrhythmic, nervous panting. You're clutching a pack of note cards in one hand and a book filled cover to cover with a rainbow of sticky notes in the other. The Socratic Seminar: we have all breathed in the anxiety that flushes in with just a glance of the classroom, organized in daunting circles of desks. Though school inevitably brings about stress into the student's life, could it be that one of the heavily weighted assessments is actually quite flawed?
Now, don't get me wrong: the Socratic Seminar as inspired by the famous philosopher Socrates, in theory, could be an effective and wonderful vehicle for discussion, one of the very most essential skills curated by the classroom and definitely my favorite part of class: I love being able to vocalize my ideas and learn from others in an easy-going environment. Socrates believed "in the power of asking questions, prize inquiry over information and discussion over debate." Thus, his seminars were meant to promote cognitive development as well as social skills for the student so that they may be able to have powerful conversations in their adult lives.
Students are given the opportunity to share their ideas, whether it be about symbolism in literature or about important political and social issues that we might not otherwise be exposed to; after all, school is the most prominent socializing agent apart from the family to the student. Socratic Seminars should provide an open, civil and meaningful platform for students.
Right?
Unfortunately, the Socratic Seminar as hosted by the classroom has more flaws than most of us are willing to admit.
The Socratic Seminar can have the atmosphere of a battleground, where only the most assertive classmates successfully cash in their minimum time to talk within the twenty minutes given. Ironic, since the same classroom without a grade book in the teacher's hand is quieter than crickets during daily, ungraded discussions. However, in a Socratic, as soon as the teacher trails off their last words of the prompting question, an immediate cacophony of voices head-butt into each other, raising volumes to compete for space to talk. You simply can't help it: the Socratic usually has the worth of a major assessment, which puts a lot of pressure on your average. If you want to survive, you'll have to fight back with your voice. This almost suffocating setting was obviously not a purpose of the seminar's original design, which was supposed to be a effectual learning experience.
Instead, Socratic Seminars often foster an uncomfortable mood, as students may actively defend and debate their point of view without considering the suggestions of others, cutting off effective communication. Thus, this kind of egocentric mindset tends to follow teenagers in their daily conversations, and as they venture into more social and political issues independently as they grow into adults, they risk developing close-minded attitudes that cannot be so easily opened up again.
Furthermore, despite how many annotations you may have, no matter how thought-out and insightful your ideas are, they may all get lost in the wind as the time ticks away mercilessly, as the same students continue dominating the floor and as the discussion topic trails away from the quote you've been eyeing. Shy or introverted students, while they may even be better prepared, can become extremely anxious, nervous and even exhausted by the seminar's quite aggressive nature that favors fierceness over timidness. Maybe once in a while, they'll part their lips in effort to get a comment out there, but afraid to publicly embarrass themselves with an underwhelming comment, inevitably sulk into their seats in silence with their grade at stake. What kind of lesson does this teach those who fail to speak up over all the clamoring voices? What kind of lesson can they learn if they aren't given any opportunity to even speak?
At the same time, perhaps the fundamental flaws of the Socratic don't even begin with the discussion itself, but in fact, its preparation. Hear me out: annotating and doing research on a topic are excellent ways to prepare for a discussion. However, every student knows that the only way to survive a Socratic is to weed out evidence for the assessment beforehand. The general formula for a comment then becomes, "yeah, I agree with Student's comment, so if you look on page xxx, Character says, 'Interesting quote that I may or may not have only picked because it was on Sparknotes.' This represents..." These kind of comments, though obviously well-meant and indicative of the student's effort to participate, usually offer nothing of substance, sucking the seminar dry of meaning. Once we count down the number of times we need to speak in order to get a maximum grade for participation, we just withdraw from the conversation
This is all not to say that high school students are simply incapable of having brilliantly insightful thoughts: everyone has the capacity to share these ideas as well, and some can even thrive well in Socratic. But the means for discussion provided complicate and ultimately distort the conversation into a debate where not everyone can prove their abilities. The Socratic Seminar is flawed, and perhaps it needs to change—or even cease existing.
