Week 6 Readings: Book Clubs and Socratic Seminars

Two of this weeks articles, Dempsey and Hoffert, are happy to report that book clubs have been revitalized! All it took was a departure from the traditional "pick a book and read it, then we'll discuss it at the library" structure. Groups now hold discussions with readers having read different pieces with a common subject or theme, or they might not all be at the same point in a book (some events don't require that attendees have even started the book at all), and the reading material can be more adjusted to readers' interests; more contemporary, not just classics or Oprah list items. Readers can talk at locations and times that fit their schedules, sometimes online and outside of the library itself. While Dempsey focuses on fitting book groups to modern lives, Hoffert seeks means of mixing things up, including varied media in discussion, video- and teleconferencing, publisher-offered extras such as podcasts, and sneaking nonfiction into discussion sections.

Tredway and Metzger both write about the intellectually transformative powers of the Socratic seminar, in which students discuss a reading with minimal instructor influence. Metzger went well beyond Tredway's introductory information to describe developed methods for analysis, as she used the seminar to instill both critical analysis skills and metacognitive abilities in her high school students. The strength of the Socratic seminar lies in its group discussion focus and open-endedness, wherein participants are not expected to touch on all points of a rubric, and the emphasis on participation, as the outer, non-speaking 'ring' of participants are included through their role as recorders and summarizers of the inner group's free-range commentary. Overall, the approach aims to get students to really interpret a reading instead of having the "right" answers spoken at them by a lecturer.

As a freshman at UMich back in 2006, I misguidedly took three, maybe four first year seminars, which were nothing but constant discussion. They weren't actually Socratic, but the instructors still urged us to get a bit tangental and encouraged all thoughts on the readings, be they traditional or not.Come to think about it, my 400-level English lit class involved a lot of free-range discussion, too. But the prof still outlined the important concepts we were all supposed to get, and there were definitely "right" and "wrong" concepts when it came time to write papers. Would the class have helped us to develop better critical skills if we had had fewer guidelines, less structure from the prof? It certainly would have taken more time to get through the material. And what would true Socratic form have lent to my other seminars? Is it advantageous to have the two separate rings in the discussion? Is it enough to take the instructor down from the lecture podium to the participant's chair, or is it important to assign certain members to observe the critical discussion? I find that my own metacognition begins as soon as I am reminded of it, but the Socratic form would have me study others' methods of cognition and analysis and apply them to myself asynchronously. Perhaps the method is good for beginning students, but the separation seems cumbersome with a group experienced enough in reflection.