Out of the Hot Seat: Socratic seminars are unproductive in the classroom

The smile on my face instantly faded when I saw the dreaded inner and outer circle after walking into my English classroom.

I forgot the Socratic seminar was today.

For the next 45 minutes, due to our large class size, I was talked over, ignored and scrutinized by my 30 classmates, trying to interrupt and earn as many summative points as possible.

Sitting in that circle, based on the anxious faces around me, I could tell what other people were thinking, myself included. “Ok, when this person finishes, I need to jump in. Was that comment “contributing” enough? How can I add to this discussion again?”

These were my least favorite days of the year as a freshman — worse than any test days. 

Socratic seminars — structured group discussions designed to encourage learning and analysis — always go poorly because they are not executed correctly in classrooms. Worse than that, they fail to achieve their goal of student-led discussion and learning, resulting in grades that poorly reflect students’ actual knowledge.

Teachers must change their Socratic seminars to literature circles, small discussions used in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate classes, to better benefit students.

Socratic seminars are usually used in English classes to analyze a text or book that the class has read. They’re supposed to allow students to look closely at the story, build on what they’ve covered in class and ask each other questions to analyze the text deeply.

But, Socratic seminars aren’t all what they’re said to be. The definition overlooks the fact that it creates unproductive pressure on students.

Introverts, simply put, struggle. The majority of students don’t look forward to speaking in front of the class, with all eyes on them. Some would rather take a bad grade than have 30 of their peers stare at them while trying to come up with something to say. 

And, for extroverts, this is the easiest type of test. All they have to do is dominate the conversation with mostly meaningless points and they get an A plus.

Teachers claim they’ll ensure everyone gets the chance to speak, but helping once and abandoning a student to get the rest of their points on their own is ineffective — especially when 30 other students are also trying to force their way into the conversation.

Not to mention the grading. To determine a grade, teachers look at how prepared a student is, if their comments contribute to the conversation and how many times they speak. 

However, the grading of the speaking portion itself varies from teacher to teacher. Most of the time, it’s based on how other students perform. 

One method is tallying up the total number of comments, then dividing by the number of students to find the average amount each person should’ve spoken. After seeing the average, individual grades are given based on whether students performed above or below average. Another way is grading a student’s total times speaking out of the student who spoke the most. 

For example, even if an introvert makes three deep, insightful comments, it doesn’t compare to an extrovert who has five surface-level comments. 

To combat these shallow comments, teachers say that a comment only counts if it contributes to the conversation. But in every class, that changes because “contributing” is subjective. 

One day it’s using textual evidence, the next it’s making an argumentable claim, asking a question or just sharing your thoughts. Then, there’s the teacher who thinks contributing means the length of your comment or how many times you speak. 

But I’m not writing an entire story just to say we should completely eliminate Socratic seminars. They have good concepts and goals like discussion, learning and analysis. Yet they are ineffective in 30-person classes.

AP and IB English classes use methods similar to Socratic seminars; however, they’re called literature circles.

In these, students gather in groups of five to seven to discuss the recent book the class read. 

The teacher then circulates the room, listening to snippets of each conversation to ensure the students are on track and gathering the necessary information for grading, still allowing it to be completely student-led.

Literature circles encourage actual discussion, not just making statements in an overcrowded circle and in turn, students are more comfortable discussing their analysis and connecting with their classmates — ultimately improving their learning.

The bottom line is, Socratic seminars are outdated and overused. It’s time for teachers to switch it up and admit that what they’re doing isn’t working. Literature circles are more beneficial to students, promoting the same skills as Socratic seminars, but without the anxiety and constant pressure.