Socratic Method

I always thought the Socratic Method was just what lawyers do where they keep challenging every one of a speakers' premises until one is found to be wrong. Here's my take on the articles:

I very much agree with Metzger's assertion that fast reading doesn't necessarily mean good reading, but that students are kind of made to feel that it's a good indicator, or required. This is why it's vaguely frustrating when classes at SI stipulate the 9 hour per week quota of work...as if that number necessarily has something to do with how long each of us are going to take to get what we need or deserve out of a class. Which should be the focus. Anyway. Metzger was obviously teaching from the experience of working in a somewhat feisty school with some unmotivated students, which perhaps slightly distanced it from how I might imagine things working in a typical library setting...at least libraries I am most used to and discussions I've helped lead. I'm a little bit skeptical that the socratic method makes discussions more "non-competitive" especially in a class setting as there are still grades to be had, along with the satisfaction of saying something really great and compelling before anyone else. In fact, from my limited experience of participating in these kinds of discussions, being in the "inner circle" and having an audience explicitly told to monitor and break down your every move in a rather personal way is a bit nerve-wracking, and certainly can come off as a popularity contest.

I do very much like how it facilitates a teacher "standing back" and allowing discussion to progress naturally, showing in a more natural and organic way the problems and issues students have with a text. And I agree that getting students to abstractly name or "label" their understanding processes is very tricky...I was always one of the more confident English students in high school and I didn't like to and probably couldn't really describe the processes I was going through...part of the beauty of English is that to some degree different perspectives or paths can be taken to get to the meaning of a text. And while the idea that Romeo and Juliet has nothing to do with broccoli farming in Idaho is well taken and true especially in a high school classroom setting...the creative in me really wants to write on how Romeo and Juliet absolutely has something to do with broccoli farming in Idaho. Part of mastering a great text sort of has to do with making those sorts of connections. Maybe I'm just insane.

Finally, the breaking down and airing of group dynamics seems good in a class setting, especially one where folks aren't being as respectful or productive as they could...but I reeeally don't see that as a stage I'd want to go to as a Public Librarian leading a discussion. People (I'm thinking adults mostly) come to discuss, and are generally motivated to discuss, not to be told how they present themselves. In most library discussions, participants will be relative strangers, so there's little background or ongoing usefulness of that aspect. Then again, if the discussion was framed as a sort of "learn how to be a rhetorician" sort of workshop, feedback on group dynamics could be very useful.