Action Research: Using Socratic Seminars to Aid Comprehension. Rationale

1 Pat Watson Action Research: Using Socratic Seminars to Aid Comprehension Rationale In an effort to improve comprehension in struggling, as well as in competent, high school readers, I wish to explore the efficacy of Socratic Seminars, organized conversation about text, through an action research project. Socratic Seminars apply collaborative, intellectual dialogue facilitated with open-ended questions about a text (Billings and Roberts 2003, p. 16). The seminar s format follows that of the classical Greek philosopher Socrates (470 399 BC) with the goal of empowering students, through conversation and questioning, to build their own understanding and to learn to think analytically. Discussion about text involves components of comprehension instruction including summarization, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation without burdening students with meaningless worksheets designed to show recall of memorized details from the text. I believe that responding to literature through talking about it can demonstrate to struggling readers how more proficient readers engage in and relate to the text and interact with it (thereby, deriving greater and deeper understanding) and these forums will encourage them to participate in like manner. I believe that this method could be applied across all curriculums and for all types of text, and therefore, be of use to other disciplines. Existing research supports that conversing about text heightens thoughtful literacy. Richard Allington reports that studies conducted by Applebee et.al. (2003) and Taylor et. al. (2003) show that discussion-based instruction was more effective at each grade level and for

2 students from every achievement group and ethic group (Allington, 2005). I intend to show that Socratic Seminars aid comprehension by increasing this thoughtful literacy. Questions Some of the questions I will need to answer through research are: What is my role as a teacher in the discussion: facilitator, or participant, or both? What questions will be asked? How will I implement effective questioning? How will I deal with irrelevant conversations? How will I engage reluctant participants, as well as keep eager students from dominating the discussion? How will I assess comprehension improvement? What data will I collect, and how will I evaluate it? How will I ensure that my project objectives meet curriculum requirements? What accommodations will I need to make for my ELL and Special Ed. students? Research Regarding Socratic Seminars Databases:

3 Using the TWU databases, Academic Search Complete for the most part, I found many related articles that confirmed that using Socratic Seminars in the classroom improved reading comprehension skills. Some articles were located using Socratic Seminars as the subject; others were found perusing the references listed in other articles. Sometimes, searching the authors of published works yielded results. Socratic Seminar s history: As I read, I learned that Socratic Seminars, though rooted in the philosophical discussions held by Socrates are the result of the work of Mortimer Adler, director for the Institute for Philosophical Research in Chicago, and the author of The Paideia Proposal (1982) and Paidiea Problems and Possibilities (1983). In these works, Adler advocated that education should concern three goals: the acquisition of knowledge, the development of intellectual skills, and the enlarged understanding of ideas and values which may be achieved through Socratic Seminars (Billings & Taylor, 2003). Findings: Improves Comprehension In answer to my original query: Do Socratic Seminars improve reading comprehension? I found positive results. A study conducted in a suburban Chicago elementary district in three lower to middle class campuses using students with low scores in reading achievement showed 1.5 grade levels of improvement and that individual responses were two to four words longer than the previous year when implementing Socratic questioning strategies (Falk-Ross, Grossi, Nordmeyer, Stanfield, Griffin, & Wallace, 2010). Activating prior student knowledge and student generated questioning (Socratic seminar methods) improves what Allington calls

4 thoughtful literacy (Allington, 2005). Students ability to read difficult texts improved; connections between texts increased; subtler issues of style and meaning were recognized; and depth of student responses increased (Metzger, 1998). Kelly (2007) cites studies that show that students involved in peer led discussions made more gains in comprehension those those in control groups ( Klinger, Vaughn, & Schuman, 1998). Keene noted that probing beyond student s initial responses, leading them into provocative, in depth conversation about text, coupled with specific strategy instruction, deepened understanding (Keene, 2010). Individual comprehension depends greatly on personal knowledge and experiences, reflections, and exposure to thoughts of others. With conversation, we can explore and expand our developing thoughts (Ketch, 2005). Goldenberg calls these Instructional conversations, wherein students construct their own knowledge and understanding through making connections, building mental schemata, and developing new concepts from previous understandings rather than receiving knowledge transmitted by teachers. He found them especially suited to educational goals such as comprehension, learning complex concepts, and considering various perspectives on issues (Goldenberg, 1993). Improves depth of critical thinking While improving the depth of critical thinking is inextricably linked to improved comprehension, several articles specifically indicated this skill was strengthened through Socratic Seminar discussions. The procedures and justifications for the use of Socratic seminars as a means of developing critical thinking skills are well documented in middle and high school classrooms ( Kelley, 2007; Chorzempa & Lipidus, 2009; Metzger, 1998; Polite & Adams, 1997). Chorzempa and Lapidus used Socratic Seminars successfully in elementary inclusive classrooms and noted the same increases in their students understanding : Ms. Lapidus watched her

5 students move from a literal interpretation of the text to a deeper understanding about a journey of self-worth (Chorzempa & Lipidus, 2009). Ketch says that discussions promote reflective, critical thinkers whose writing reflects this depth (2005). A study conducted in high poverty classrooms indicated that effective teachers stimulate higher level thinking and cognitive engagement through effective, purposeful questioning, involving students in literacy activities by giving them responsibility for holding their own discussions about text, and through maintaining high pupil involvement (Taylor, Pearson, Peterson, & Rodriguez, 2003). Polite and Adams (1997) state that 80% of the student sample engaged in at least intermittent metacognitive or Piagetian formal operational activity in seminars. Another indicator of comprehension revealed through Socratic Seminars is the students ability to support their thoughts with details from the text (Keene, 2010; Chorzempa & Lipidus, 2009; Le & DeFillipo, 2008; Goldenberg, 1993). Improves writing Another benefit of Socratic seminars is that they improve the student s writing along with improving their discussion skills. The oral process helps students clarify and solidify their thoughts. Conversation helps students make sense of their world. With conversation, we can explore and expand our developing thoughts (Ketch, 2005). Hence, evidence of these expanded thoughts reflects in their writings in Writers s Workshop noted Ketch (2005). Metzger reported that After one [high school] class spent 21.2 days discussing the two short opening paragraphs of Their Eyes Were Watching God, three students wrote papers on the same few sentences, and found there was still more to say (Metzger, 1998). Socratic seminars, or the same type of organized discussion, appears to stimulate and provide gateways to further inquiry that enhances writing (Beghetto & Kaufman, 2009; Allington, 2005; Metzger, 1998; Goldenberg, 1993). A

6 study conducted by Swafford and Bryan noted that when students in science classes collaborated on writing after discussion it helped students to consider both confirming and disconfirming evidence;they were better able to use relevant data from observations and other sources to support scientific theories, and their writing became increasing more explicit and clear when they applied what they learned to new situations (2000). When using writing as a follow-up activity after discussions, student writing reflected a more sophisticated understanding of the topics discussed (Goldenberg, 1993). Other findings In addition to the aforementioned findings, I found the answers to some of my previous questions. For example, I asked, How will I engage reluctant participants, as well as keep eager students from dominating the discussion? Nearly every article indicated high levels of engagement and motivation to participate from all ability levels including ELL, Special Ed, and GT students (Falk-Ross, et al., 2010; Allington, 2005; Ketch, 2005; Taylor, et al., 2003; Swafford & Bryan, 2000; Metzger, 1998; Polite & Adams, 1997; Goldenberg, 1993). One reason could be that it engages prior knowledge and connects what is real in the students experiences to what they are learning (Falk-Ross, Grossi, Nordmeyer, Stanfield, Griffin, & Wallace, 2010; Allington, 2005; Ketch, 2005; Goldenberg, 1993). I wondered, What accommodations will I need to make for my ELL and Special Ed. students? The suggested procedures were to mix ability groups, carefully choose and train the student facilitator in soliciting responses from all, and to scaffold instruction by tapping understanding, seeking clarification, inviting participation, and orchestrating discussion (Kelley, 2007). The discussions provide modeling for lower ability levels and demonstrate that sometimes there is not any correct answer (Chorzempa & Lipidus, 2009;Beghetto & Kaufman, 2009; Le & DeFillipo, 2008; Ketch, 2005). Indeed, nearly all the

7 articles mentioned that Socratic Seminars build community, empathy and understanding (Falk- Ross, et al., 2010; Mangrum, 2010; Chorzempa & Lipidus, 2009; Taylor, et al., 2003; Swafford & Bryan, 2000; Metzger, 1998; Polite & Adams, 1997). Plan of Action for Action Research I intend to conduct a series of Socratic Seminars in my AP and regular English IV classes to determine if Socratic Seminars aid improved reading comprehension, improved critical thinking, and improved writing. Procedures and materials: The first step will be to familiarize students with the process, procedures, goals, and assessment for successfully holding a Socratic Seminar. I plan to do this with distributing and discussing related handouts which will include: Overview of Socratic Seminars goals and procedures, Participant Responsibilities, Suggested Stem Questions (Classroom Poster and handouts), Examples of different types of Questions, Assessment Criteria including: Facilitator Assessment Rubric, Student Self-Assessment Survey, and Teacher Observation Form. I also will need to obtain and have on hand a video camera, an audio tape recorder and tape, extension cords, in addition to copies of my handouts. The second step will be to hold a practice seminar on a short reading, a poem with richness of meaning open to interpretation. I plan to use Gerard Manley Hopkins Spring and Fall: To a young child. All students will be given copies of the text to take home to read prior to the seminar, as well as be instructed to come prepared with at least five discussion questions they

8 have formulated even if they are not discussion participants. Students will form an inner circle of desks facing each other for the discussion participants, 4-5 members, and an outer circle for the rest of the class. An extra empty chair will be designated the Hot Seat for outer circle members to join in the inner circle when they have a question, response, connection, or comment to add. For the first part of this seminar, I will serve as facilitator in order to model the role. After a while, when students appear to understand and are familiar with the concept, I will retire and allow a student volunteer to take this role. Outer circle students are instructed to follow the discussion and make notes on their charts about who asks questions, who responds to them, and what the response evokes: another question, further discussion, countering opinion, etcetera. They will indicate behavioral issues, non-participation, or lack of preparation as well. In addition, they may keep journal entries for future reference or extensions. (This phase may have to wait until they become more adept at recording the seminar.) By having all the outer circle participating in recording the seminar in various ways, I will gain multiple viewpoints. After discussion regarding the literature, I will call the seminar through, and we will discuss how we should evaluate our seminar and practice using our assessment instruments. Volunteers for the role of facilitator for the next session will choose teams. The inner and outer circles will change each seminar on a rotation. The third step will be to apply what we have learned by having a seminar over Crime and Punishment, which the AP classes have been reading. This session will be video-taped and possibly audio-taped as well. Those who volunteered to serve as facilitators chose their own teams which should have resulted in a mixed ability group who like each other and will be eager to talk together. (One option for another seminar is for me to form the groups; I might try this next time as a control experiment or if I encounter problems with the gender mix, seriousness of

9 the participation or other unforeseen problems arise.) We will follow the procedures as addressed in the practice session with the exception of the discussion regarding evaluation. Each group will be given a teacher generated discussion topic related to their text as a focus and a springboard to begin. The five student generated questions should be prepared in advance of the seminar and presented when appropriate during the course of the discussion. As far as determining the end of a session goes, this will have to be based upon the time allotted to our period which will vary according to announcements, interruptions, time spent in setting up the chairs or desks, and the involvement in the discussion. However long is spent, when I declare that it is the end (at least for now), students will be given time to reflect upon the seminar and assess their own participation in either circle, their group s outcome, and those in the outer circle will evaluate those they observed and recorded, as well as any notes they have made in their journals. As an extension to the Socratic Seminar and as confirmation of its efficacy, students will be given a writing assignment related to the discussion. Data Collection and Assessment: At this point, I will collect the assessments from the outer circle, self assessments from the inner circle, journal entries or notes, video and audio tapes, the essays, and my observation notes and collate my data into a triangulated visual representation. I will assess the data for motivation, engagement, and participation, length and depth of responses, number of responses, number of new questions generated, quality and type of connections made, supports given from text, and general strength of comprehension of the text demonstrated. Hopefully, this evidence will support that Socratic Seminars improved

10 comprehension, improved critical thinking, improved writing and provide an impetus to using them frequently in my literature classes as well as in other high school courses. Results Socratic Seminars were held in two classes of AP English. I had originally intended to try them in the English IV classes as well, but time constraints and curriculum requirements made this impossible. However, based on my observations, I would anticipate that the results might be similar. Students were grouped by choice of partners and assigned a general discussion topic relating to Crime and Punishment. The seminars were intended to be videotaped with some technical difficulties resulting in only three sessions recorded. (The camera person recorded over the prior sessions.) I took notes and had outer circle students do so as well while watching and recording one person s contributions. Afterward, students completed a self-evaluation survey and the outer circle evaluated their participant s responses. I watched the videos again later, noting who commented, the number of times they commented, the length of their responses, and the comprehensive depth and quality of their remarks. Student Self-Evaluation Positive Behaviors: Period 2 (22students) Period 3 (23 students) 1. I came prepared for the seminar. 9 8 2. I listened to others tell their opinions. 22 23 3. I kept an open mind for opinions different from my own. 21 16

11 4. I paused and thought before speaking. 21 17 5. I acted as a positive role model for other students. 15 12 6. I built on what was said just before I gave my own 14 16 opinion. 7. I was courteous to the other students. 21 21 8. I used examples from the text to support my statements. 7 7 9. I felt comfortable speaking in the seminar. 14 12 10. I gave my opinions clearly. 14 14 Negative Behaviors: 11. I interrupted others. 2 2 12. I acted silly. 4 2 13. I did not look at the person who was speaking. 3 3 14. I talked off the topic. 5 4 15. I talked too much or not at all. (Circle one) 5 Too much:1 boy Not at all: 4 (3 girls; 1 boy) 9 Too much:1 boy Not at all: 8 (7 girls; 1 boy) Motivation, engagement, and participation Based on the above responses and my observation, it seems clear that the students were courteous toward each other and were well behaved as indicated by responses to statements # 2,#4, #5, #6, which ranged from 100% to 56%, and the very small percentage (18% - 8%)

12 responding to the negative behaviors of statements # 11, #12, and #13. (When percentages are given, Period 2 s are stated first then Period 4 s.) I inquired of my students why some (31% - 52%) answered that they were not a positive role model as per statement # 5, and they said it was because they did not talk enough, not because they misbehaved. Length and depth of responses and number of responses The responses to whether the students came prepared were disappointing, only nine of twenty-two (40%) and eight of twenty-three (35%) indicated that they did so. This correlates to the findings of statement # 8; did they use examples from the text as supports? Only seven in each class responded that they did (30% - 31%). These students were given the discussion topics in advance with ample time to prepare and asked to bring some questions and their texts marked. However, I noted many instances of relating events from the text, if not actually using direct quotes to support statements. Most students indicated that they were thoughtful about their responses (95% - 73%) and built upon previous statements (64% - 70%). The majority felt that they answered questions and stated opinions clearly (64% of both classes). Only a few thought they got off topic (23% - 17%). Although I tried to stay totally out of the discussions, on occasion I had to indicate that their discussion was infringing on the topic of another group. Some students in one group thought that they should not use personal anecdotes, to support opinions and chastised one another when they did. I intervened to indicate that this was allowed, and to my observation, their associations were relevant when expressed. After that, when one student commented that given the protagonist s Superman philosophy, all crime could be justified which instigated a resounding chorus of No way! and a fresh onslaught of examples. It was very exciting to hear the students defending

13 their positions with examples from varied disciplines: other literature including The Bible, history, current events, politics, philosophy, and sociology. Cultural and Gender Issues Statement # 15 stimulated some deep reflection. Of the four in Period 2 who talked not at all, three were girls (two Asian, one Hispanic) and in Period 4, seven were girls (five Asian, two Hispanic). In addition, these girls are some of my very best students and excellent writers. It was certainly not that they were unprepared, had not read the book, or that they had no worthwhile comments to make. The facilitators tried to draw them out, asked them direct questions, and even indicated that their grades would suffer if they did not participate to no avail. In one article I read in preparation for this project it was noted that boys were more confident to speak out in these situations and often would speak over or ignore the comments of girls (Clarke, 2007). The author warned, Teachers must be aware of the deeper layers of conversations that occur and be critical of the messages about gender, power, and ideology that are transmitted (Clarke, 2007). This was consistent with my findings as well. My observation notes indicate that in the videos, nine boys spoke 48 times (average 5.3 times each) while 13 girls spoke only 39 times (average 3 times each). In the recorded video sessions, responses from the Hot Seat were from six boys and only two girls. I had to ask myself if it were the group dynamics that silenced these girls, the facilitator or group members comments, the presence of the camera, or their cultural backgrounds. The young men did not intentionally exclude or denigrate any of the girls comments; some girls simply never made any. I also needed to know if it were unfair of me to ask them to step out of their comfort zone and participate. Another article encouraged teachers to persist because the skills associated with Socratic Circles could

14 be helpful in future situations, such as job interviews, and in interacting with people who had power over them (North, 2009). Consequently, I reviewed my notes and noted that one group was composed of all girls. Unfortunately, this group s seminar was one that had been erased in the video. Yet, my notes indicate that all the girls, Asian, African American, and Hispanic participated fully. When cross-referencing the members of that group with the self-evaluations, I noted that none of them had indicated that they spoke not at all. Perhaps, the implication would be to form gender specific groups, but that would impede them from gaining experience in communicating with others in such settings. Further research is required in this area before I can make any assumptions about the best course of action to take. Student attitudes regarding Socratic Seminars In an informal discussion regarding the Socratic Seminars, I asked the students how they felt about them, and whether they thought they were effective as a teaching tool. Most liked them, but a few did not think they were schoolwork. Interestingly, the ones who did not consider them to be proper schoolwork were also those who talked the most, the longest, and the most confidently. Perhaps, conversing is so easy for them that it seems like play. The ones who did not like them were, not surprisingly, the ones who were unprepared or those who did not speak at all. Evidence of Comprehension To my observation, the students appeared to delve deeply into the text to find the answers to the questions asked and their responses indicated that they had shown some thought to connecting the text to self, world, universal themes, and other readings. Several students linked the protagonist s punishment of eight years in a labor camp, or gulag, in Siberia to a previously

15 read novel, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, and pointed out to those who thought Rodya s punishment light that it would be a miracle if he survived it a year given his weakened state. Many related to the theme of suffering and related personal experiences of experiencing guilt and its debilitating effects. Others talked about megalomania and the theory of the Superman, while still others brought up Russian history and its effect upon the novel. Through these various comments, students demonstrated deepened understanding of the novel. Writing In order to get a better evaluation of the efficacy of Socratic Seminars upon comprehension and to extend the discussion, a writing task was assigned. Students had to choose two essay prompts from a list of seven choices and write both in a timed 45 minute period to simulate the AP test. The grades for the essays often seemed to parallel the level of participation in the seminar for the most part with those who spoke most often, scoring highest on the essay. However, as noted previously, some of those who spoke not at all were excellent writers, whether boys or girls. Therefore, this evidence does not appear to be conclusive as proof of the Socratic Seminar s effect upon their writing. Boys top eight essay scores Name # of times to speak in seminar Essay grade

16 Khai 10 100 Nam 5 80 Andrew 7 90 Sergio 5 88 Jennri 5 71 Chris 10 90 Rey 5 100 Sam 0 100 Girls top eight essay scores Name # of times to speak in seminar Essay grade Alex 4 100 S. Cortez 5 90 An 0 96 Tuyet 0 98 My Le 0 100 Christina Be 0 100 I noted that some of the connections expressed in the discussions found their way into the essays of students who did not state the comment in the seminar. This would indicate that the outer circle was paying attention to the discussion. Conclusions and Implications

17 Initially, I had several questions regarding how to address issues that would arise with Socratic Seminars. * What is my role as a teacher in the discussion: facilitator, or participant, or both? Although most of the research suggested that the teacher take the role of planner and be fairly invisible during the seminar, I thought there were times that I could have directed the questions to a more meaningful response. Yet, perhaps, relinquishing control made the students seek their own meanings. *What questions will be asked? How will I implement effective questioning? This is the part where I am in control through selecting the text, developing the initial areas of inquiry, and instructing the students in the procedures and protocols. *How will I deal with irrelevant conversations? Although I did intervene at some points when the conversations drifted into another group s topic, for the most part the students monitored themselves. *How will I engage reluctant participants, as well as keep eager students from dominating the discussion? Engaging reluctant students still remains a problem as does the gender issues noted. Still, as noted in my research, it appears that students who are not participating by speaking, are at least hearing and observing and are thus, engaged. *How will I assess comprehension improvement?

18 Since reading comprehension is mostly an invisible act involving multiple forms of cognitive and meta-cognitive acts, objective, qualitative observations seem to have been the most pertinent; yet, the self-evaluations did yield informative data when co-related to the teacher s observation and tally of who spoke, how often, and what they said. The writing was the most difficult to assess for the efficacy of the Seminars, but the easiest to assess for depth of understanding. It was impossible to determine which was the chicken and which the egg. *What data will I collect, and how will I evaluate it? I collected student evaluation surveys, teacher observation surveys, student notes from outside circles, and teacher notes, video-tapes, and transcripts of the videos. *How will I ensure that my project objectives meet curriculum requirements? The TEKs for English IV and AP support this type of activity in multiple objectives. *What accommodations will I need to make for my ELL and Special Ed. students? Since only AP classes participated, this question was not relevant; yet, it could be easily done by adjusting the text, introducing the vocabulary needed from both the text and the procedural handouts, and adjusting the essay requirements. Before beginning this project, I believed strongly in the idea that conversations about text improved the depth of understanding. I still agree with that, and I believe that Socratic Seminars are a good way to employ those conversations. However, I was surprised by several things. One was my reluctance to cede control to the students. It is difficult to observe without taking part,

19 not because I believe I know best, but because I enjoy discourse about literature, too. I must be content to direct their inquiry by text selection, selecting the objectives I wish to cover, prior instruction and practice in procedures, and developing really stimulating prompts to initiate and direct the discussions. Another surprise I learned was that I must have faith in the intellect and curiosity of the students to lead them to delve deeply into the text (with the proper foundations laid through planning and pre-teaching). Another troubling surprise concerns the gender issues that arose regarding the reluctance of my girls to speak in public. I hope to plan other speaking activities where they feel more comfortable to participate. I also plan to try some all girl Socratic Seminar groups and assess if the outcome is similar. Hopefully, with more practice and experience, my students will continue to enhance their comprehension through conversations and grow more voluble, while their teacher will learn to remain quiet. References Allington, R. L. (2005). What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based Programs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

20 Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Intellectual Estuaries: Connection learning and creativity in prograqms of advanced academics. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20 (2), 296-324. Billings, L. a. (2003). The Paideia seminar: Active thinking through dialogue. Chapel Hill: National Paideia Center. Billings, L., & Taylor, R. T. (2003). The Paideia Seminar: active thinking through dialogue. Chapel Hill: National Paideia Center. Chorzempa, B. F., & Lipidus, L. (2009, Jan/Feb). "To Find Yourself,Think for Yourself" Using Socratic Discussions in Inclusive Classrooms. Teaching ExceptionalL Children. Chowning, J. T. (2009, October). Socratic Seminars in Science Class. The Science Teacher, 36-41. Clarke, L.W. (2007). Discussing Shiloh: a conversation beyond the book. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. 51:2. Eisen, P. S. (2007). "Yo Socrates! Amend This!". School Library Media Activities Monthly, XXIV (2), 18-21. Falk-Ross, F., Grossi, J., Nordmeyer, J., Stanfield, D., Griffin, K., & Wallace, A. (2010). Implementing language scaffolds for struggling readers: expansions in questioning strategies. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 33 (2). Flippo, R. F. (2003). Assessing readers: qualitative diagnosis and instruction. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.

21 Goldenberg, C. (1993). Instructional conversations: promoting comprehension through discussion. the Reading Teacher, 46 (4), 316-326. Keene, E. O. (2010). New horizons in comprehension. Educational Leadership, 69-73. Kelley, M. J. (2007). Comprehension Shouldn't Be Silent: From Strategy Instruction to Student Independence. Newark: International Reading Association. Ketch, A. (2005). Conversation: the comprehension connection. The Reading Teacher, 59 (1), 8-13. Le, K. G., & DeFillipo, C. (2008). Little Philosophers. Educational Leadership, 66 (2). Mangrum, J. (2010, April). Sharing practice through Socratic Seminars. Phi Delta Kappan, 40-43. Metzger, M. (1998, November). Teaching Reading Beyond the Plot. Phi Delta Kappan, 240-246,256. North American Division of Seventh Day Adventists. (n.d.). Socratic Seminars. Retrieved 10 18, 2010, from Journey to Excellence: http://www.journeytoexcellence.org/practice/instruction/theories/miscideas/socratic/ North, C. (2009). The Promise and Perils of Developing Democratic Literacy for Social Justice. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto Curriculum Inquiry, 39 (4). Polite, V. C., & Adams, A. H. (1997). Improving critical thinking through Socratic seminars. Urban Education, 32 (2), 256.

22 Swafford, J., & Bryan, J. K. (2000). Instructional strategies for promoting conceptual change: supporting middle school students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 139-161. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, D. P., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading growth in high poverty classrooms: the influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. the Elementary School Journal, 104 (1).