rationale - pat watson's professional...

Running Head: Using Socratic Seminars to Aid Comprehension 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


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:


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


“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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

opinion.

14 16

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%)


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


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


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


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


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


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?


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,


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.


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.


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.


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).

rationale - pat watson's professional...

Documents