If you’re a student who takes English, you likely know this feeling all too well: You read a novel and prepare four different types of questions based on it. You may have a feeling of dread until and on the day of. You walk into your class to the anxiety-inducing sight of the desks arranged in a circle.
You sit down, and for the next 40 minutes, you’re scrutinized and analyzed. You have to speak a minimum of three, four, or even five times, or else you lose points. Instead of focusing on what others are saying, you’re consumed with thoughts including “How do I add to this discussion? What could I possibly say right now? How do I make my point without interrupting? When this person finishes speaking, I NEED to jump right in there and say something to add to it to get my points, even if it doesn’t make sense”—the pressure is overwhelming for everyone during those fateful 40 minutes.
But why are Socratic seminars a necessity in most English classes? The practice originates from the Greek philosopher Socrates, who believed that learning happens best through continuous questions that help individuals arrive at answers on their own, rather than solely listening to information. Many teachers believe the seminars promote valuable discussion. Without their intervention, students can bounce ideas off each other and listen to viewpoints they haven’t considered about the novel being discussed.
However, these seminars are inherently unfair, especially toward introverted students who are less confident in large group settings. For example, a student who speaks only twice might bring up thoughtful and valuable points, while another who speaks five times within the first ten minutes may add less meaningful or repetitive comments just to meet the requirement. The structure generally leads students to focus more on meeting their quota rather than continuously actively engaging in the discussion.
Yet, rather than eliminating student participation-based class discussions altogether, I believe that the current system should be reformed to be more inclusive. One solution is breaking up Socratic seminars into multiple groups of about 4-5 students, enabling conversation to flow much more naturally.
In a typical English class of 25-30 students, a Socratic seminar can feel daunting. However, by conducting the activity in smaller groups, teachers could make rounds, checking in on each group and asking what the current topic is, without grading students according to how many times they have spoken. That way, students who have a hard time sharing ideas in a group setting won’t feel as much pressure; thus, they will be far more likely to make insightful comments when they aren’t filled with anxiety over meeting a quota against the threat of receiving a bad grade. This method is better than having a full-class discussion involving the raising of hands, as in that setting certain students might still feel pressure from the number of listeners and be less likely to add to the discussion.
Ultimately, Socratic seminars aren’t entirely awful. They should just be rethought so they become more inclusive toward every student regardless of how much confidence they have to share their thoughts within the setting of a large group.
_______________________________
Editors’ note: All opinions expressed on The Uproar are a reflection solely of the beliefs of the bylined author and not the journalism program at NASH. We continue to welcome school-appropriate comments and guest articles.
