The point of the socratic seminar seems to have been lost on me. The forced simulation of deep, intellectual discourse to be viewed and critiqued by others; the fixed time limit in which the discussion must be accomplished in; the strict regulations that could potentially hinder/intimidate the participants: all criticisms of the act.
The idea of an organized meeting designed to nurture the intellect and thought is, of course, a noble idea and something that should be pursued. Gathering information from the indicated source in the light of a proposed question/idea yields a greater understanding of the text, a greater understanding of the underlying themes.
My actual experience in the socratic seminar is not comparable to what is desired, ideal. Not liking the idea that the conversation is forced (though I do understand upon retrospect that this is really the only perceptible way to be able to grade the act), the fact that interrupting others is frowned upon and that anything mispoken or thought wrong by the majority would result in ridicule or a complete unacknowledgement in the future, to speak seemed an impossibility. Again, the concept is respectable; the actual act in action leaves much to be desired.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So, why--exactly--did you find it difficult to enter the conversation? You mention fearing saying something that might be thought "wrong." But, the point of a Socratic Seminar is to discus with an open mind, being willing to listen and hear others' viewpoints. Can there be a "wrong" in such a conversation?
ReplyDelete