Producing or reproducing reasoning? Socratic dialog is very effective, but only for a few

Successful communication between a teacher and a student is at the core of pedagogy. A well known example of a pedagogical dialog is ‘Meno’, a socratic lesson of geometry in which a student learns (or ‘discovers’) how to double the area of a given square ‘in essence, a demonstration of Pythagoras’ theorem. In previous studies we found that after engaging in the dialog participants can be divided in two kinds: those who can only apply a rule to solve the problem presented in the dialog and those who can go beyond and generalize that knowledge to solve any square problems. Here we study the effectiveness of this socratic dialog in an experimental and a control high-school classrooms, and we explore the boundaries of what is learnt by testing subjects with a set of 9 problems of varying degrees of difficulty. We found that half of the adolescents did not learn anything from the dialog. The other half not only learned to solve the problem, but could abstract something more: the geometric notion that the diagonal can be used to solve diverse area problems. Conceptual knowledge is critical for achievement in geometry, and it is not clear whether geometric concepts emerge spontaneously on the basis of universal experience with space, or reflect intrinsic properties of the human mind. We show that, for half of the learners, an exampled-based Socratic dialog in lecture form can give rise to formal geometric knowledge that can be applied to new, different problems.

[1]  N. Newcombe,et al.  When is a triangle not a triangle? Young children's developing concepts of geometric shape , 1998 .

[2]  Sang Ah Lee,et al.  Beyond Core Knowledge: Natural Geometry , 2010, Cogn. Sci..

[3]  D. Chazan High school geometry students' justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof , 1993 .

[4]  Dorothy Tse,et al.  References and Notes Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S5 Tables S1 to S3 Electron Impact (ei) Mass Spectra Chemical Ionization (ci) Mass Spectra References Schemas and Memory Consolidation Research Articles Research Articles Research Articles Research Articles , 2022 .

[5]  Judith Bar Tikva Socratic teaching is not teaching, but direct transmission is: Notes from 13 to 15-year olds' conceptions of teaching , 2010 .

[6]  Diego E. Shalom,et al.  The teaching and the learning brain: A cortical hemodynamic marker of teacher–student interactions in the Socratic dialog , 2013 .

[7]  J. Mukundan,et al.  The Use of Socratic Method as a Teaching/Learning Tool to Develop Students' Critical Thinking: a Review of Literature , 2015 .

[8]  James Hiebert,et al.  Teaching for Thinking in Mathematics. , 1984 .

[9]  David H. Uttal,et al.  Whorf versus Socrates, round 10 , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[10]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Teaching Children to be Mathematicians vs. Teaching About Mathematics. Artificial Intelligence Memo Number 249. , 1971 .

[11]  E. Spelke,et al.  Sources of mathematical thinking: behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. , 1999, Science.

[12]  Richard Paul,et al.  Critical Thinking: The Art of Socratic Questioning, Part III. , 2007 .

[13]  Valeria Anna Sovrano,et al.  Doing Socrates experiment right: controlled rearing studies of geometrical knowledge in animals , 2009, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[14]  Jon R. Star,et al.  RE-"CONCEPTUALIZING" PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE IN MATHEMATICS , 2000 .

[15]  Andrea Paula Goldin,et al.  From Ancient Greece to Modern Education: Universality and Lack of Generalization of the Socratic Dialogue , 2011 .

[16]  Orit Zaslavsky,et al.  Is a visual example in geometry always helpful , 2007 .

[17]  Maxine E. Pincott Journal for Research in Mathematics Education: Everyday and Academic Mathematics in the Classroom (Book) , 2002 .

[18]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Mathematics : Does One Lead to the Other ? , 2004 .