Improving Critical Thinking

Through Socratic Seminars

by

Vernon C. Polite and Arlin Henry Adams

1996
Publication Series No. 3

The research reported herein is supported in part by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement
(OERI) of the U.S. Department of Education through a grant to the Mid-Atlantic Laboratory for Student
Success (LSS) at the Temple University Center for Research in Human Development and Education
(CRHDE). The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position of the supporting agencies, and no
official endorsement should be inferred.
 INTRODUCTION

This article reports on the effects of Socratic Seminar methodology at Lookout Valley Middle
1
School, located in Chattanooga, Tennessee. An integral part of the emerging Paideia Schools Movement
among urban public schools of Chattanooga, Socratic Seminars are well-planned opportunities for middle-
level students to engage in intelligent discussions in which ideals, values, social issues, and principles are
critically scrutinized in nonthreatening environments. Socratic Seminars are fashioned after the instruction-
through-questioning methods of Socrates; they focus a wide range of topics, including specific readings,
scientific demonstrations, and the arts. Additionally, enhanced abstract thinking, win-win conflict
resolution styles, and values clarification are desired residual effects of the Seminar process.

The Seminars have been implemented at Lookout Valley over the past two school years, with
approximately 20 Seminars held per year at each grade level; thus, seventh and eighth graders had
experienced 40 Seminars at the time of this assessment, while the figure for sixth graders was about 20.

The Setting
One of 11 middle-level schools in the Chattanooga Public Schools system, Lookout Valley Middle
School is located on the city's fringe. It maintains a relatively small and highly stable student body,
serving approximately 220 students in grades 6, 7, and 8. White students account for 85% of the school's
population; the remaining 15% are African American. The instructional staff consists of 10 teachers.

The student population can be best described as urban and working-class. Approximately 25% of
the students participate in the federally funded free and/or reduced-price lunch program. According to the
Tennessee-sponsored achievement test outcomes for 1993, 73% of Lookout Valley's students ranked within
the average range, 11% scored below average, and 16% ranked above average in mathematics, reading, and
science.

The Assessment
The overarching goal of the assessment was to determine whether the Socratic Seminar
methodology has significantly affected students' and teachers' attitudes towards learning at Lookout Valley
Middle School. The outcome of this study will influence future programming efforts systemwide.

The authors began the assessment with the following facts in mind: (1) the middle school standards
and objectives for communication arts state that students should engage in fluent and responsible speech
and writing by drawing on the fundamental processes of analyzing, classifying, comparing, hypothesizing,
inferring, and generalizing; (2) the middle school concept encourages exploratory experiences for all
students; (3) Lookout Valley's teachers have noted that many students lack the ability to think critically,
and thus fail to contribute significantly to in-class discussions; (4) there was significant evidence that
Socratic Seminars can contribute to increasing students' abilities in the areas of critical thinking and fluent
communication; and (5) research indicates that Socratic Seminars contribute tangentially to increased

1
For an in-depth discussion of the Paideia Schools Movement, see Anne Wheelock's (1994) article in the
Journal of Negro Education (volume 63, issue number 1) entitled "Chattanooga's Paideia School: A
Single Track for All--And It's Working."

1
student achievement.

Related Literature
In attempting to assess the worth of Socratic Seminar methodology at Lookout Valley, the authors
relied heavily upon the extant literature on the middle school concept, interdisciplinary teams, and
metacognition. The middle school concept is perhaps best described by Sara Lake (1988) as "a bridge
between elementary and secondary schooling that helps children pass from childhood to adolescence" (p. 1).
While there are many interpretations of the exact makeup of a middle school program (Warren & Allen,
1994), there are several universally accepted components, including exploratory programming, block
scheduling, advisory sessions, and interdisciplinary teaching teams (Alexander & McEwin, 1989; Arnold,
1991; Becker, 1990; Hinman, 1992; Schumacher, 1992a).

Exploratory programming might best be defined as those classes that allow students to gain
experience in a wide variety of areas that may or may not be strictly academic. For example, Alexander
and McEwin (1989) cited both traditional exploratory courses, such as home economics, music, and
industrial arts as well as nontraditional subjects--creative writing, computer science, Socratic Seminar, and
career exploration, to name a few. While the diverse nature of this type of curriculum is intended to offer
the student choices, it must be stressed that the middle school curriculum does not simply do away with
traditional core course requirements (Lake, 1989).

Historically, educators have been hesitant to include exploratory curricula as part of the middle
school experience (Warren & Allen, 1994). There is evidence to suggest, however, that these curricular
innovations are much more than simply a pleasant addition to students' days. Hinman (1992) argued that
exploratory curricula increase students' satisfaction, while decreasing discipline referrals. Additionally,
Shafer (1990) documented that interdisciplinary, exploratory middle school models have strong positive
influences on students' self-esteem. Indeed, the more the effects of diversified educational experiences are
studied, the more potent they appear.

When investigating extant research on the middle school concept, the importance of the
interdisciplinary team emerges as critical to the success of middle-level practices. Highly effective teams
are seen as engaged in decision making in several different spheres of influence: designing the content and
form of instruction; focusing on individual student development (including both academic and self-esteem
issues); promoting student behavior for a constructive learning environment; communicating with parents
about student progress; and team planning (Arhar, 1992; Clark & Clark, 1990).

As a result of the inherently diverse nature of the middle school experience, the implementation of
interdisciplinary teaching teams is deemed essential (Polite, 1994; Schumacher, 1992b; Sevick, 1989;
Shafer, 1990). Forming such teams, which are usually culled from a combination of generalist-oriented
elementary school teachers and single-subject secondary school teachers, is an intense process (Beranis,
1992; Lake, 1988; Miller & Aboudara-Robertson, 1993; Schumacher, 1992a) that requires strong
educational leadership (Frana, 1994; Polite, 1994; Shafer, 1990; Toepfer, 1992).

To function effectively as a team, the various faculty members involved must make their plans
democratically, with input from all team personnel (Beranis, 1992; Drake, 1991; Meichtry, 1990; Powell &
Mills, 1994; Schumacher, 1992a; Sevick, 1989). Interdisciplinary team planning sessions foster teacher
2
collegiality (Altersitz, 1994), allowing teachers to communicate openly, negotiate decisions, accommodate
personal preferences (Polite, 1994), and identify connections and commonalties across the curriculum
(Sevick, 1989). Additionally, careful planning facilitates a team's progression along the five-level
continuum (Departmentalized, Parallel, Complementary, Webbed, and Integrated Themes) of true
interdisciplinary programmatic structure identified by Schumacher (1992a). Indeed, the further the teams
progress along this continuum, the more essential such planning becomes.

Finally, the authors reviewed the literature on abstract thinking skills. While the exact point at
which students begin to think abstractly is still a subject of much debate (Burkhalter, 1994; Lauth &
Wiedl, 1989; Obrand, 1989), it is generally accepted that middle school students are only beginning to
move into the early phases of Piaget's formal operational stage of development, and their ability to think
hypothetically and logically is nascent (Cowan, 1978). The ability to reflect abstractly is essential for
making metacognitive connections (Reid & Stone, 1991) which, in turn, allows students to integrate
exploratory experiences into their lives. Hough (1994) documented the positive effects of curriculum
integration on the ability of middle school students to function in formal operational environments (that is,
environments that require abstract, metacognitive thought), though he cited data that indicated such
environments are most effective with students who have already begun to develop higher order thinking
skills. Because of the inherent limitations of middle school-aged children's abilities to abstract, as well as
the intermittent and unpredictable nature of their metacognitive functioning (Lockledge, 1994), students,
especially those in the early middle grades, must be given repeated opportunities to practice and develop
logical, higher order thinking skills--opportunities that Socratic Seminar methodology is designed to
provide.

Methods
The authors collected school/teacher-related data using a variety of means: in-depth interviews with
eight of the nine middle school teachers; observations of interdisciplinary team meetings and Seminar
sessions during the 1994-95 school year; and analysis of official documents. The teacher interviews
provided both factual information regarding the school's present operations and also valuable perception-
based data needed to develop realistic suggestions for modification. All nine teachers were interviewed and
recorded on magnetic tape. Subsequently, the recorded interviews were transcribed, and the transcriptions
were coded and analyzed using standard qualitative research methods (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992).

Student data were collected from a random sample of Lookout Valley's students. Data collection
consisted of one-on-one interviews between students and the authors, using a semistructured interview
format.

Each respondent's answers (teachers and students) were initially analyzed separately. Three levels
of analysis were performed on the data. The first considered only the information provided by the
respondent in direct response to a specific question; the second compared and contrasted the respondents'
answers on related questions; the third was performed to disclose general patterns across multiple answers.

The student responses were also stratified by grade and gender, with subsequent aggregation
between grades, retaining gender stratification. This was done to provide a generalized picture of the
student body, as well as to reveal patterns that remained consistent throughout the student sample
population. The student respondents (n=34) made up more than 16% of the school's population (219
3
students).

Findings
Teachers' Perspectives
There was sufficient evidence that Seminar planning occurs on at least three levels: district, team,
and individual. The teachers seemed less clear about planning at the district level, but all reported that they
were aware that ongoing district-level planning does occur. Three of the nine teachers complained that the
Seminar pieces selected at the district level often had a puissant African-American cultural focus, reflective
of the overall makeup of the district but not the largely white Lookout Valley student population; they felt
that the ethnic pieces often were powerful in content, but not relevant to the students. There was also a
perceived problem acquiring age-appropriate content material, particularly for the eighth-grade students:
We have found in our school district that many of the district-planned pieces for the eighth
graders really lack appeal for both the eighth graders and their teachers. I think the eighth-
grade teachers will need to start selecting more of their own pieces based on the needs and
interests of their students. (Teacher 6)
The structure of the school's schedule appeared to be appropriate to support interdisciplinary team
planning for Socratic Seminar sessions. Each teacher reported that their respective teams met daily, in
accordance with the traditional middle school philosophy. A typical teacher's comment regarding
interdisciplinary team planning follows:
We have team meetings every day or as often as possible, and for sure we meet every other
day and several times per week, but sometimes conferences and extracurricular obligations
and meetings cause us not to be able to meet every day. . . . So we meet and revise
whatever we're doing if we need to, or we add to it, or we take something away if it is not
positive. (Teacher 3)
The team planning, however, was not taken seriously by all the teams and teachers. There was
decidedly diverse thinking among the teachers regarding the effectiveness of the team planning. In fact,
some of the teachers inferred that although the team planning occurred, it was not always well received:
My team would rather wing it as a whole. . . . we will agree to do this or this with respect
to the Seminar sessions. [There wasn't] a great deal of enthusiasm, therefore the team is
very reticent . . . we don't spend very much time talking about them. (Teacher 1)
The teacher interviews revealed that the average teacher spent time engaged in individual planning for
Seminar sessions. The teachers reported that prior to a Seminar session, they reviewed the content,
checked for vocabulary, and developed a series of related discussion questions. It was not clear that higher
order thinking was always a primary and governing part of the teacher planning. Two teachers' comments
seemed to summarize the individual teachers' planning:
I read the materials myself, try to analyze my thoughts about it, and determine what kind
of impact the piece has on me [personally]. (Teacher 1)
Basically I look over the material to see if there's any vocabulary we need to go over ahead
of time and formulate certain comprehension questions that I feel the children will respond
to, can respond to, or possibly lead to higher level thinking. (Teacher 2)

4
 In sum, planning occurred at the district, team, and individual levels, and not all Lookout Valley
teachers placed equal value on the planning time across the three grade levels.

Perceived Needs for Additional Training

At first glance, training did not appear to be a critical need linked to the success of the Socratic
Seminar methodology at Lookout Valley, largely because the teachers were clearly capable of articulating
the "how to" of the Seminar approach. The teachers reported that they understood the Seminar concept,
but merely needed additional practice with specific facilitation strategies. One teacher's comments were
particularly insightful:
When you conduct a Seminar with the children, you've got to know how to use "wait time,"
give them time to think about what you've asked them, formulate their answer rather than
just a sporadic one-word type sentence. That's the trouble I have in my class sometimes.
They just want to chip in, and I'll make them stop and think out what they want to say
before they say it and formulate an answer . . . and then we have some serious discussion
on the topic. . . . Probably the hardest thing for a teacher to do is . . . they [teachers] want
to interject immediately instead of waiting on the child to comment on their own
conclusions and to use what prior knowledge [they have] to make certain conclusions.
(Teacher 2)
Upon closer scrutiny, however, it appeared that teachers at Lookout Valley could benefit most
from training that provides specific answers to the question, "What is so different about this approach from
what we have always done?" There was a need for an operational definition of the Socratic Seminar
method at Lookout Valley, one that not merely defined the pedagogical concepts upon which it is founded,
but explained the rationale that supports its use. The interviews revealed that Lookout Valley teachers
were divided with regard to their perceptions of the Seminars' utility. Many teachers seemed very
concerned about issues of cognition and metacognition, and were very supportive of the Seminars'
usefulness as tool for building higher order thinking skills. A second group seemed to question the "why"
behind the Seminars:
I've been "Seminaring," if that's what you call it, since I started teaching. That's the way I
was taught. It's not even new for me as far as I can see. I don't feel like I personally need
any more training. (Teacher 2)

Perceived Teachers' Problems

Teachers generally expressed "no major problems" when asked to consider difficulties encountered
with the implementation of Socratic Seminars. Most notably, teachers alluded to minor problems related to
(1) perceived curriculum fragmentation; (2) lack of uniform teacher support; (3) inadequate student
involvement; and (4) the logistics of day-to-day implementation.

Two teachers expressed a concern that the Seminars have a fragmenting effect, and represent a
superfluous line of demarcation in the school's curriculum. Further, they felt the content was not relevant
to Lookout Valley Students:
I think what we really want these kids to do is to Seminar on an everyday basis in their
classes and be able to discuss and learn and get involved with their studies rather than take
some piece of material that means absolutely nothing to them and say, "Okay, we're going
5
 to sit down and discuss . . . . " The problem that I see is having to stop what you are
doing, and go to a different mode, a different subject matter that has nothing to do with
anything. For the kids, it's like switching channels on television . . . . Maybe [we need] a
consensus of what would be best for our particular school. Here again, if we could sort of
stay within our subject realm and come up with our own topics . . . . We don't have the
social problems that other schools have. Our students cannot relate to the [pieces] that
center on teen violence. I can think of several Seminars that went over their heads.
(Teacher 2)
The teachers also noted that there was a need for strategies for getting students involved in the
Seminars, particularly for the sixth-grade students. This appeared to be a transitional problem that often
resolves itself with practice and increased student understanding of the Seminar process. The teachers
further suggested that the students were somewhat distrusting and skeptical about the process:
At the beginning I think the problem was behavioral--getting the kids involved, winning
their trust . . . . First it wasn't being graded, that was a big thing because, for some reason,
they didn't believe it. They were very skeptical and questioned, "Why are we doing this if
it's not graded and why is it necessary?" Surprisingly, they also wanted to know how the
Seminars relate to subject matter. (Teacher 3)
The faculty had many concerns related to the need and purpose of the Seminars. There appeared to
be much confusion regarding the advantages of Seminars over traditional class discussions. One teacher's
words seemed to confirm the need for an operational definition of the Socratic Seminar at Lookout Valley
that all teachers can avidly support:
Well, I think one of the biggest problems is [that] we still have trouble getting all the
faculty to buy into it. The fact that we need to have it is still a problem for some teachers .
. . Seminars are not clearly understood by all teachers. (Teacher 5)

Students' Perspectives
Conflict Resolution
The findings of the study indicated that the use of Socratic Seminars was strongly associated with
students' conflict resolution skills. As shown on Table 1, only 20% of the students reported relying on
direct confrontation as their primary method of conflict resolution. Eighty percent showed consistent
knowledge of some conflict resolution skills, with two thirds of this group providing evidence of elaborate
resolution strategies. The following exchange captures the students' preference for nonconfrontational
interactions:
Researcher: When kids are talking in Seminar and someone says something that upsets
somebody . . . what do kids think about that?
Student: It's mostly the way they try to talk to you. They don't mean to put you
down or hurt your feelings. But in Seminars, when they say something,
it's their tone of voice that make you feel one way or the other.
Researcher: What can you do when that happens?
Student: Not be really argumentative about it. Just express your feelings again,
and just say, ". . . if you've got different feelings about it, then that's your
6
 opinion." (seventh-grade girl)
The level of conflict resolution expertise demonstrated by the Lookout Valley students interviewed
for this study was significantly higher than would normally be expected from a middle school population.
Complex skills, including recognition of the need to cooperatively research areas of dissidence, and the
concept of "agreeing to disagree," indicated that significant portions of the sample population had
experienced a wide variety of conflict situations, involving diverse goals and solutions.

Perhaps the most notable finding with regard to conflict resolution was that approximately 25% of
all the students interviewed reported working to achieve win-win outcomes (that is, a resolution in which
the parties in the conflict find mutually satisfying common ground, for example, simply agreeing to
disagree).

Table 1 also shows the stratification of the interview responses by gender. Because girls are
generally regarded as maturing faster than boys, one might expect to find more elaborate conflict resolution
schemes among the female students. While the table does indicate that more girls than boys (slightly less
than 66%) utilized such schemes, it also revealed that almost 50% of the boys were employing advanced
conflict resolution strategies. It would appear, then, that a significant proportion of the sample population
regularly employed advanced resolution skills in Socratic Seminar sessions, a surprising finding in a largely
monocultural school environment.

Higher Order Thinking Skills

Table 2 suggests that approximately 80% of the student sample engaged in at least intermittent
metacognitive activity or Piagetian formal operational activity. This is a significant point because one
would generally expect the vast majority of sixth graders, and many seventh graders, to be functioning
primarily at the level of Piagetian concrete operations (little or no metacognitive activity possible). While
girls showed more mature cognitive skills than boys, the levels of metacognitive activity for both groups
were higher than would be expected from a random sample of middle school students. Fully 33% of the
girls were consistently performing metacognitive tasks, while less than 15% demonstrated no metacognitive
ability whatsoever. While none of the boys had yet reached a level of consistent metacognitive
performance, 70% gave evidence of at least intermittent metacognitive abilities.

Though the present sample contained large numbers of sixth graders, overall, the observed
incidence of metacognition was roughly equivalent to what might be anticipated of a random sampling of
eighth graders. As with the conflict resolution skills discussed above, metacognition was a function of both
maturation and experience. While we cannot discount the possibility that Lookout Valley students were
simply much more mature than their peers, the results discussed thus far appear to indicate that almost all
the students considered here have engaged in at least some significant practical metacognitive experiences.
Barring influences unknown to the authors, it seems reasonable to assert that their relatively advanced
metacognitive behaviors are related to the practice they have acquired in the Socratic Seminars, as the
following comments illustrate:
Researcher: Have you ever had a situation where you changed your mind while you
were in Seminar?
Student: The Seminar about [how] fear is an illusion. At first I didn't think fear
was an illusion. I thought if you had fear, then you're afraid. But then I
7
 went through it and read it [the Seminar piece], I thought fear is an
illusion because if you are afraid of something, you can overcome that
fear. (seventh-grade girl)
Second- and third-order analysis of the responses of only those students who exhibited intermittent
or consistent metacognitive abilities yielded the data summarized in Table 3. Approximately 40% of these
students attempted to utilize metacognitive skills throughout their life experiences. Additionally, nearly
20% endeavored to utilize metacognitive skills in all areas of the school environment. Approximately 60%
of the students represented in Table 3 perceived metacognitive skills as valuable outside of the Seminar
environment.

Two groups were of particular interest to the authors: the 36% who appeared to believe that the
only time they needed to think metacognitively was within the confines of the Seminars, and the small
percentage (7%) who appeared unclear when, if ever, metacognition might be appropriate. While
somewhat uncertain as to their rationales for these beliefs, several students in the former group indicated
that they felt Socratic Seminars were designated as times when they were required to attempt metacognitive
activity. Though the authors surmise that students in the latter group may have been, at the time of the
study, in the first stages of Piagetian formal operations and subsequently lacking in metacognitive
experiences, data were not sufficient to indicate any general patterns. Finally, perhaps more so than the
other tables presented thus far, Table 3 shows indications of the maturation differential between boys and
girls, most strikingly in that none of the girls reported having no understanding of the uses of metacognitive
skills.

As shown in Table 4, 100% of the students in the sample indicated that other people's opinions
were of value at least some of the time; most notably, approximately 80% expressed that other people's
positions were of value, even when the beliefs in question directly conflicted with their own. The following
exchange is illustrative of the sample students' high regard for the thoughts of their classmates:
Researcher: Have you ever had a Seminar where everybody in the class thought one
thing except for one person?
Student: No, I don't think I've ever been in a Seminar like that. Most of us either
have the same opinion or we all have different opinions.
Researcher: How important is it that everybody has a different opinion?
Student: I think it's kind of important because we get to see different views in
different ways and then after they say something, you might start thinking
about it a little and say, "Yeah, that's right . . . that is better," or
something. (seventh-grade girl)
Again, the authors feel that the high regard with which the sample students held the thoughts, feelings, and
opinions of their classmates was developed in large part through the students' experiences in Socratic
Seminars.

The girl-boy maturation differential discussed earlier does not seem to apply with respect to
valuing the opinions of others. While the reasons for this were not readily discernible, one might
hypothesize that sufficient levels of experiential reinforcement had been achieved to move even the
marginally less mature boys "up a notch," thus accounting for the similarity between the two groups.
8
Conflict Resolution Rule Recall
Table 5 shows a breakdown of the responses regarding students' knowledge of the Seminar rules--a
central component of the Socratic Seminar method. While very few students were unable to cite any of the
rules, almost all of the students who cited rules did so verbatim, or verbatim with a strong example. A
small number of students were able to operationalize the rules through paraphrasing or using personal
examples of how the rules operated in daily practice. These results appear to indicate that students
perceived the rules to have limited universal value. Indeed, almost all of the students emphasized that the
rules applied only to Seminar. Several students made specific mention of the difficulty (possibly caused by
cognitive dissonance) they had in switching between the Seminar rules and the "normal" rules of day-to-day
classroom operations when dealing with teachers whose classrooms functioned primarily under the
"normal" set. This cognitive discontinuity was also cited by several students with regard to their
ambivalence to both the regular class and the Seminar environments.

Best Seminar Experiences

More than half of the sample students reported that the most important factor in rating Seminar
materials was relevance to their own life experiences. Forty percent indicated that a particular Seminar
was their favorite because it was "interesting"; while this term was used both vaguely and with great
liberty, it appeared to connote both a topic of personal interest and one in which a majority of the class
participated actively. A majority of the students in both categories cited the Seminar entitled, "Fear is an
Illusion," which was based on professional basketball star Michael Jordan's book I Can't Accept Not
Trying: Michael Jordan on the Pursuit of Excellence, as an example of a well-received Seminar.

In this seminar, the students were guided through the following excerpt, a reflection on Michael
Jordan's personal thoughts on the metaphorical construct of fear as an illusion:
I can accept failure. Everyone fails at something, but I can't accept not trying. That's why
I wasn't afraid to try baseball. I can't say, "Well, I can't do it because I'm afraid I may not
make the team." That's not good enough for me. It doesn't matter if you win as long as
you give everything in your heart and work at it 110 percent. (p. 1)
Only approximately 5% of the students queried indicated that their favorite Seminar topics were
largely metaphorical in nature, and none used that specific term. One unexpected phenomena was found
with regard to positive responses to metaphorical Seminar topics: all of the positive responses to
metaphorical topics came from boys, and none from girls. There was insufficient data to determine exactly
why this occurred, but the results were sufficiently anomalous to suggest that a factor other than the
Seminar material was involved in the boys' choices.

9
Worst Seminar Experiences
Roughly a third of the interviewed students indicated specific negative responses to metaphorical
topics that were highly abstract, frequently describing them as incomprehensible or "weird." Comments
from further discussion with these students indicated that while they enjoyed metaphorical topics they could
"relate to" (for example, the "Fear" Seminar described above) or with which they were familiar (for
example, the Seminars that drew from various fairy tales or popular comic book characters), they often felt
lost in sessions that were deeply abstract and, after a few minutes, simply "tuned out" (see Table 7). Many
of these students stated that their least favorite topics were irrelevant to them--that is, they could find no
relationship between the topic material and any element of their own lives. Common responses of this
nature included comments such as "it doesn't really happen that way" and "nobody really does that."

Slightly less than 25% of the students indicated a general feeling of disinterest, giving no specific
rationale. Fourteen percent of the students reported that their Seminar experiences were so positive that
they could not think of a specific case they considered to be "worst." These tended to be the same students
who also noted that they liked to talk, and felt themselves capable of forming an opinion on "just about any
topic."

An examination of Table 7 reveals that, while the girls' responses generally parallel the overall
analysis, fully one half of the boys specifically indicated a negative response to metaphorical situations.
Further elaboration by these students suggested that the boys' responses may have been primarily due to
developmental differences between the two target populations. When compared to the girls, significantly
more boys indicated that metaphorical content "didn't make any sense." In addition, while difficult to
assess, it is likely that, in many cases, an aversion to metaphorical content may have been secondary to a
disinclination for unfamiliar subject matter, as the following comments made by a sixth-grade boy suggest:
Researcher: Think about your least favorite Seminar . . .
Student: (pause) . . . "Nightingale" . . . I think that's what it was, or something
about Chinese people. I just couldn't understand it because it was in a
different place, talked about different things I hadn't seen before, and I just
couldn't get it in my mind because I wasn't there. It's just harder than if
you get a Seminar about something that you know . . . you can put
yourself in that place, but if it is about somewhere else, you just can't
understand it that well. (sixth-grade boy)

General Perceptions of the Seminar Environment

One half of all students strongly preferred the Seminar environment to that of the regular
classroom. Reasons given included students' perceptions that they accomplished more in Seminar
environments; they felt their thoughts and feelings were taken seriously in Seminar; and that the Seminar
topics were always more interesting. The following comments illustrate the ambivalence with which some
students regard the Seminars:
Researcher: Think about the way kids act in regular class . . . is there anything special
about the way kids act in Seminar?
Student: When you're in Seminar, you want to talk more than when you're in
regular school because you're supposed to be sitting there being quiet in
10
 regular class.
Researcher: Would it be a good or bad thing if the Seminar environment was applied
to the rest of school?
Student: It would be sort of good because you would be able to talk out your
problems and stuff, and talk about the work but, I can also see where it
wouldn't be that good because some people like to get into arguments
about it [Seminar topics] and they might go off school grounds and fight
about it or something. (eighth-grade girl)
The comments below echo the feelings of many of the "pro-Seminar" students:
Researcher: Think about the way teachers act. Is there anything special about the way
teachers act in Seminar?
Student: They [the teachers] are in class, they're teaching . . . getting their jobs
done, but in Seminar, they're getting more involved and everything and
getting involved with the students.
Researcher: Would it be good or bad if they acted that way all the time?
Student: I think it would be better. That way you could make learning more fun.
Researcher: Can you explain what you mean by that?
Student: I think some teachers are just teaching the subject. The Seminar way
causes you to understand it and stuff like that, I think it would be better if
we could do that. (eighth-grade girl)
The consistent responses from both the pro-Seminar group and the ambivalent group concerning
how much more polite their fellow students appeared to act in Seminar as compared to regular classroom
settings was notable. The ambivalent students generally expressed discomfort due to a perceived lack of
structure in the Seminar environment, while at the same time citing much of the same affective criteria as
mentioned by the pro-Seminar group.

The minority that strongly preferred the traditional classroom categorically declared their dislike
for the Seminar environment's lack of traditional classroom social structures and authority figures. These
students also consistently indicated that they only felt they were learning when the teacher (as authority
figure) was dispensing the information. Whether this attitude was a function of maturity level or a cultural
artifact due to the conservative backgrounds of these students was not determinable given the data
provided.

11
 CONCLUSION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
EFFECTIVE MIDDLE-LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION
The standpoint from which the authors conducted their assessment was to evaluate how well
Seminar methodology embraced key principles of the "middle school concept," citing research on the
specific developmental abilities and needs of middle school-aged children, the utility of interdisciplinary
teacher teams, and essential components of middle school curricula. Though a number of problem areas
were unearthed--mostly implementation and staff issues--overall, the array of findings suggest the potential
of Socratic Seminars as a viable means of increasing the cognitive and social functioning of middle school
students.

Teacher interviews revealed significant dissonance among instructional staff with regard to how the
Seminars differed from regular class instruction. It became apparent that this issue would likely be best
addressed through enhanced teacher training that emphasized the importance of using the Seminars as a
forum for developing higher order/critical thinking and conflict resolution skills. Other teacher-related
concerns included problems with: district-level Seminar planning; engaging students in Seminar
discussions; a perceived lack of uniform teacher support; and day-to-day logistical issues with regard to
Seminar implementation.

The student interviews indicated that Socratic Seminars provide students with ample opportunities
to develop a number of cognitive and social skills commonly regarded as key goals for children at the
middle school level. For example, there was significant evidence that Seminar discussions were effective in
engaging students in tasks that called upon their metacognitive and critical thinking abilities, while
simultaneously developing both conflict resolution skills and an increased respect for the opinions and
feelings of their peers.

Given the positive impact of the Socratic Seminar methodology implemented at Lookout Valley
Middle School, the following recommendations are offered to local educational decision makers who are
considering adopting Socratic Seminars in middle school settings:

· Involve a key school administrator in the overall planning and implementation Seminars.
· Encourage team members to plan Seminars that (a) are based on student exigencies and interests;
and (b) compel students to utilize higher order and abstract thinking skills (keeping in mind the
developmental/cognitive abilities of middle school students).
· Encourage cross-grade planning to afford the various teaching teams a holistic understanding of
the school's efforts.
· Provide teacher workshops that: (a) clearly define metacognition; (b) underscore the importance of
linking metacognitive development to the Seminars; and (c) delineate means by which this linkage
can be established.
· Provide training opportunities through which teachers across grade levels can construct an
operational definition of Socratic Seminars.
· Stress, during training sessions, the importance of understanding the distinction between traditional
classroom teaching that incorporates focus groups and discussion sessions from the Seminar

12
 approach.
· Encourage each interdisciplinary team to assess its development as a team. Schumacher's phase
model might be helpful in this endeavor.
· Insure that all teachers value and understand the exploratory needs of middle school students and
are able to link those understandings to Seminar implementation.
· Apprise parents of the general concepts and theories behind Socratic Seminars from the outset of
their implementation. Parents at Lookout Valley embraced the Seminars once they fully
understood their methods and the rationale for their inclusion in the school's curriculum.

13
 References
Altersitz, J. K. (1994). A principal reflects. Schools in the Middle, 4(1), 8-10.

Alexander, W. M., & McEwin, A. (1989). Earmarks of schools in the middle: A research report. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 312 312)

Arhar, J. M. (1992). Interdisciplinary teaming and the social bonding of middle level students. In J. L. Irvin
(Ed.), Transforming middle level education: Perspectives and possibilities (pp. 139-161).
Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

Arnold, J. (1991). The revolution in middle school organization. Momentum, 22(2), 20-25.

Becker, H. J. (1990). Opportunities for learning: Curriculum and instruction in the middle grades.
Baltimore: Center for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools.

Beranis, T. A. (1992). Reorganizing middle-level education: What to consider and how to proceed. In S.
N. Clark & D. C. Clark (Eds.), Schools in the middle: A decade of growth and change. Reston,
VA: NASSP.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Burkhalter, N. (1994). Applying Vygotsky: Teaching preformal-operational children a formal-

operational task. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 208)

Clark, S. N., & Clark, D. C. (1990). Arizona middle schools: A survey report. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona
Department of Education.

Cowan, B. (1978). Piaget with feeling. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Drake, M. S. (1991). How our team dissolved the boundaries. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 20-22.

Frana, B. S. (1994). The micropolitical influence of SES on a building principal and the implementation
of school innovation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 605)

Hinman, E. B. (1992). Reducing discipline referrals and improving student satisfaction through the
implementation of middle school practices at Ramey School. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 360 726)

Hough, D. L. (1994). PATTERNS: A study of the effects of integrated curricula on young adolescent
problem-solving ability. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 051)

Jordan, M. (1994). I can't accept not trying: Michael Jordan on the pursuit of excellence. San Francisco:
Harper.

Lake, S. (1988). Scheduling the middle level school: Philosophy into practice (Practitioner's Monograph
14
 #1). Sacramento: California League of Middle Schools.

Lake, S. (1989). Interdisciplinary team organization in the middle level school (Practitioner's Monograph
#7). Sacramento: California League of Middle Schools.

Lauth, G. W., & Wiedl, K. H. (1989). Cognitive teaching methods for special education: Development of
approaches for intervention and assessment in Germany. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 36(3), 187-202.

Lockledge, A. (1995). Opening windows: A better view of middle level students. Schools in the Middle,
4(3), 35-38.

Meichtry, Y. J. (1990). Teacher collaboration: The effects of interdisciplinary teaming on teacher

interactions and classroom practices. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 326 499)

Miller, H. G., & Aboudara-Robertson, L. (1993). Redwood Middle School responds to the
interdisciplinary challenge (Practitioner's Monograph #14). Irvine: California League of Middle
Schools.

Obrand, S. C. (1989). Increasing levels of abstract reasoning ability in first and second graders through
instruction in inferential thinking and analogical reasoning. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 323 015)

Polite, M. M. (1994). Team negotiation and decision-making: Linking leadership to curricular and
instructional innovation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 929)

Powell, R. R., & Mills, R. (1994). Five types of mentoring build knowledge on interdisciplinary teams.
Middle School Journal, 26(2), 24-30.

Reid, D. K., & Stone, C. A. (1991). Why is cognitive instruction effective? Underlying learning
mechanisms. Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 8-19.

Schumacher, D. H. (1992a). A multiple case study of curriculum integration by selected middle school
interdisciplinary teams of teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356 518)

Schumacher, D. H. (1992b, April). A multiple case study of curriculum integration by selected middle
school interdisciplinary teams of teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, Ca.

Sevick, M. J. (1989). A program to increase effective teaming in the middle school. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 324 109)

Shafer, J. E. (1990). Evaluation of an interdisciplinary model of middle school organization: Its impact
on student self-esteem and basic skill achievement, school year 1989-1990. Focus on F. B. Leon
Guerrero Middle School. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 296)

15
Smith, H. W. (1987). Comparative evaluation of three teaching methods of quantitative techniques:
Traditional lectures, Socratic dialogue, and PSI format. Journal of Experimental Education,
55(3), 149-154.

Toepfer, C. F., Jr. (1992). Middle school issues: Programs and guidelines. In S. N. Clark & D. C. Clark
(Eds.), Schools in the middle: A decade of growth and change (pp. 35-48). Reston, VA: NASSP.

Warren, L. L., & Allen, M. G. (1994). Exploratory programming in Georgia's middle schools. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 369 538)

Wheelock, A. (1994). Chattanooga's Paideia schools: A single track for all--and its working. Journal of
Negro Education, 63(1), 77-92.

16
 Table 1
Conflict Resolution Skills

Category All Girls Boys

Confrontation 20% 17% 22%

Limited Zero 29% 26% 34%
Elaborate Zero 27% 31% 22%
Win-Win 24% 26% 22%

Table 2
Observed Indications of Metacognition

Category All Girls Boys

None 19% 14% 30%

Intermittent 58% 53% 70%
Consistent 23% 33% 0%

Table 3
Application of Metacognitive Skills

Category All Girls Boys

None 7% 0% 14%
Beyond School 39% 43% 36%
School Context 18% 14% 21%
Seminar Context
Only 36% 43% 29%

Table 4
Valuing Opinions of Others

Category All Girls Boys

Never 0% 0% 0%
Sometimes 21% 20% 22%
Always 79% 80% 78%

17
 Table 5
Socratic Seminar Rule Recall

Category Responses

No Recall 8%
Verbatim Only 33%
Verbatim Recall and Example 42%
Explication and Personal Example 17%
Total 100%

Table 6
Explanation of "Best" Seminar Rationale

Category All Gir Bo

ls ys

Generally Interesting 41 50 30
Positive Response to Metaphor % % %
Relevant to Personal Experience 5% 0% 10%
54% 50% 60%

Table 7
Explanation of "Worst" Seminar Rationale

Category All Gir Bo

ls ys

Couldn't Think of One 14 8% 20

Generally Uninteresting % 42% %
Negative Response to Metaphor 23% 25% 0%
Irrelevant to Personal Experience 36% 25% 50%
27% 30%

18