importance of socratic method to critical thinking and problem solving

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BMC Med Educ
• PMC10026783

Thinking more wisely: using the Socratic method to develop critical thinking skills amongst healthcare students

Yueh-ren ho.

1 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

2 School of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Bao-Yu Chen

3 Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Chien-Ming Li

4 Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, Zhonghua Raod No.901, Yongkang District 710, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Associated Data

Due to conditions on participant consent and other ethical restrictions, the datasets used and analysed in the current study are not publicly available. If you have any database data requirements, please contact the corresponding author of this study.

In medicine, critical thinking is required for managing and tolerating medical uncertainty, as well as solving professional problems and treating diseases. However, the core of Confucianism, teacher-centered and exam-oriented settings in middle and high school education may pose challenges to developing critical thinking in Han Chinese or Taiwanese students. Students may be adversely affected by these pedagogies since student-centered settings were more effective in stimulating their critical and reflective thinking, as well as a sense of responsibility, in the ever-changing world. Therefore, guiding students with less stable foundations of critical thinking might require a different approach. A review article highlighted the potential utility of the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking in the healthcare field. The method involves posing a series of questions to students. More importantly, medical students and residents in clinical teaching are familiar with the method. Almost all healthcare students must complete a biochemistry laboratory course as part of their basic science training. Thus, we aimed to train students to develop critical thinking in the biochemistry laboratory course by using learning sheets and teacher guidance based on the Socratic method and questioning.

We recruited second-year students from a medical school, of whom 32 had medical science and biotechnology majors (MSB), 27 had pharmaceutical science majors (PS), and 85 were medical undergraduate (MU) students. An exercise in critical thinking was conducted during a biochemistry laboratory course, which consisted of five different biochemical experiments, along with learning sheets that contained three or four critical thinking questions. Then, the teacher evaluated the students’ ability to think critically based on nine intellectual dimensions (clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fairness, and significance) based on the universal intellectual standards developed by Prof. Linda Elder and Richard Paul. In the following analysis, regression models and multivariate analysis were used to determine how students improved over time, and trajectory analysis were carried out in order to observe the trends in students’ critical thinking skills construction.

Clarity and logic dimensions were identified as the key elements to facilitate the development of critical thinking skills through learning sheets and teacher guidance in students across all three different healthcare majors. The results showed that metacognitive monitoring via Socratic questioning learning sheets have demonstrated potential encourage students to develop critical thinking skills in all dimensions. Another unique contribution of current study was present the heterogeneous learning patterns and progress trajectories of clarity and logic dimensions within classes.

Using the Socratic learning model could effectively develop students’ critical thinking skills so they can more effectively care for their patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04134-2.

Introduction

Emerging trends in information technology requires that the new generation of medical students become critical thinkers [ 1 ]. The General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom encourages teachers to facilitate the acquisition of critical thinking skills by students in the medical and health professions [ 2 ]. Decades of research have proven that critical thinkers can present dispositions like flexibility, persistence, and willingness when faced with a range of tasks; they display meta-cognitive monitoring and a willingness to self-correct to seek long-term consensus[ 3 ]. Although, critical thinking is constructed from childhood in most Western countries and are valued by higher education as a necessary skill for coping with society [ 4 ]. However, critical thinking constructing and teaching has attracted little attention in Eastern education systems until recently [ 5 , 6 ].

Aside from the development of critical thinking skills is a key component of educational systems, recent educational philosophy also emphasizes both thinking processes as well as metacognitive integration skills [ 7 ]. Metacognitive monitoring includes making ease-of-learning judgments (i.e., processing fluency and beliefs), judgments of learning, feeling-of-knowing judgments (i.e., assessing the familiarity of the cue and the question itself or the domain of the question), and having confidence in the retrieved answers [ 8 , 9 ]. It is an adaptive skill of personal insight that health-profession students need to succeed in the rapidly changing and challenging healthcare industry [ 2 , 10 ]. Despite this, higher education curriculum does not emphasize on teaching these skills [ 7 ]. Additionally, any attempts to change the standards in higher education are generally met with resistance and challenges since they are require to encourage teachers to create new curriculum and change the current teaching content by researchers in current study who have more than 40 years’ teaching experience observaions. Healthcare curriculum, in general, remains conservative; Taiwan is not an exception.

Critical thinking is a fundamental component of innovative thinking and has thus become the fundamental skill for cultivating innovative talents in Western education [ 11 ]. Western scholars have asserted that teaching critical thinking should start at an early age and that its foundations should be laid in elementary and secondary schools. There are many ways to define critical thinking. A leading educational expert, Prof. Dewey, defined critical thinking as inclusive of reflective thinking and argued that the thinking process should also be taken as one of the objectives of education [ 12 ]. There are a few general dispositions that an ideal critical thinker would present according to Prof. Ennis’ observation of the constitutive abilities, such as (1) provide a clear statement of the conclusion or question; (2) provide clear reasons and be specific about their relationships with each other; (3) try to be well informed; (4) always seek and use credible sources, observations and mention them frequently; (5) consider the entire situation; (6) be mindful of the context’s primary concern; (7) be aware of alternative options; (8) be open-minded toward other points of view and refrain from making a judgment when there are insufficient evidence and reasons; (9) be willing to change your position when sufficient evidence and reasons support it; (10) seek as much precision as the nature of the subject admits; (11) whenever possible, seek the truth, and more broadly, strive to “get it right”; and (12) utilize their critical thinking abilities and dispositions [ 13 – 16 ]. In the eyes of Profs. Dewey and Ennis, critical thinking is a process of careful thought and reflection before a decision is made [ 17 ].

Nevertheless, the measurement or evaluation of critical thinking skills and abilities does not seem easy. Based on another perspective on critical thinking, intellectual standards are evolving [ 18 ]. According to Profs. Elder and Paul, critical thinking is the ability to use the most appropriate reasoning in any situation [ 18 ]. To evaluate these abilities, they established nine dimensions of critical thinking to represent different aspects of critical thinking: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, and fairness [ 18 ]. As Profs. Elder and Paul concluded, those who possess discipline and critical thinking skills would make use of intellectual standards every day; thus, people should target these standards when they ask questions during the thinking process [ 18 , 19 ]. As a result of teachers’ regular introduction of the tools of critical thinking in their classrooms, the Socratic questioning and discussions become more productive and disciplined, thereby enabling students to realize the significance of questioning during the learning process [ 20 – 22 ].

According to a review article, teaching critical thinking to healthcare students (primarily medical and pharmacy students) through Socratic methods is more effective in developing critical thinking for a number of reasons [ 23 ]. In particular, Socratic questioning provides students with the opportunity to justify their own preconceived beliefs and thoughts after a series of specific, targeted inquiries [ 24 ]. Using Socratic questioning can also assist healthcare students, interns, or residents in thinking critically by understanding the “deep structure” of the question, i.e., deconstructing the question and understanding its true meaning [ 23 ]. The effectiveness of Socratic questioning lies in ascertaining the current knowledge of the students [ 25 ] and establishing a foundation for teaching at their level [ 26 ]. The teacher can accomplish this probing by asking progressively more challenging questions until the limits of the students’ knowledge are discovered [ 25 , 27 , 28 ], as well as by allowing students to express their existing knowledge, which in turn will allow them to synthesize new knowledge [ 26 ], and the dialogue represents the Socratic method [ 29 ]. Alternatively, a critical thinker is more likely to engage in certain established metacognitive strategies under the Socratic paradigm and/or channel the intellectual dimensions of critical thinking [ 17 ].

Unfortunately, Han Chinese students have struggled with learning critical thinking, which is thought to be part of their characterological profile [ 30 ]. This struggle has been faced by students studying abroad [ 11 ] and in students enrolled in the Han Chinese education system, which mainly cultivates Confucianism [ 31 ]. There are at least two types of problems with developing critical thinking in Han Chinese or Taiwanese education. The first involves the core of Confucianism, where foreign teachers have tried to promote critical thinking in elementary and high schools but sensed ethical concerns from the students who refused to participate. This is likely because if they chose to participate, they would have felt obligated to express disagreement and negative feelings to the instructor. The Han Chinese culture values harmony and “not losing face,” emphasizing a holistic perspective and collective good. Thus, students would feel uncomfortable because disagreeing with someone’s opinion in public is consciously or often avoided [ 30 ]. Therefore, encouraging the student to participate in healthy discussions and respectfully challenge their teachers is the starting point for promoting critical thinking in students enrolled in the Han Chinese educational system.

Second, in the Western education approach, learners take an active role in and are responsible for their learning process. On the contrary, the Han Chinese and Taiwan education systems are teacher-centered and exam-oriented; students are expected to follow their teachers’ instructions and perform well in class. More importantly, the textbook or teacher-centered framework lacks half of Ennis’s twelve constitutive abilities for critical thinking [ 13 – 15 ], such as judging the credibility of a source, observing and judging observation reports, drawing explanatory conclusions (including hypotheses), making and judging value judgments, and attributing unstated assumptions. As a result, Han Chinese students may find it difficult to develop critical thinking skills and present key traits and dispositions that are indicative of an ideal critical thinker. Hence, guiding and evaluating critical thinking in students might not be implemented through the same approach in Eastern educational circumstances as in the West. By understanding the difficulties that Han Chinese students face in developing critical thinking, the current study aims to design a set of critical thinking models that are suitable for Han Chinese students as a starting point for reform teaching.

Research questions, hypotheses and objectives

Research has shown that the laboratory class is not just limited to a step-wise approach to experimentation. It also allows students to develop their critical thinking skills by repeatedly engaging a simple learning framework [ 32 ]. To explore this further, the current study’s primary purpose is to use Socratic questioning in a biochemistry laboratory course with specifically designed learning sheets and feedback from teacher to guide students to improve their critical thinking skills. The learning sheets were evaluated following the universal intellectual standards for critical thinking developed by Prof. Elder and Paul [ 19 , 33 ]. For this study, we hypothesized that students with different healthcare majors might present different improvement trajectories in their intellectual dimensions according to the years of teaching observations in the three healthcare majors. Based on the research and rationale described above, the intervention effect of Socratic questioning in a biochemistry laboratory course was hypothesized as follows (see Fig.  1 ):

Socratic method framework and structure of the research hypotheses behind the biochemistry laboratory course

• Pre-intervention critical thinking abilities are different amongst students of different healthcare majors, especially in each intellectual dimension (H1a). Post-intervention critical thinking abilities would develop in students from each healthcare major after using the Socratic method (H1b).
• Critical thinking abilities differs significantly between pre- and post-assessments of the intellectual dimensions of students with the three different healthcare majors (H2).
• After clarifying the relation of Socratic method interventions in the class, we aim to scrutinize the trajectories of students between majors further to understand the learning style in class (Aim 1). Furthermore, we also aim to identify the key intellectual dimensions that could lead to an overall improvement in the critical thinking of students in each major (Aim 2). Additionally, we observed improvement trajectories of specific intellectual dimensions within major (Aim 3).

Literature review

Critical thinking engagement in the eastern and western medical education.

Over the last decade, medical education has been undergoing a variety of approaches for effectiveness teaching and transformation [ 34 ]. Many paradigms of active teaching/learning methodologies have been adopted in both Eastern and Western medical education systems, some of which are used partially (actual or conceptual similar) Socratic questioning to challenge students’ critical thinking. In this regard, the primary philosophy of case-based learning (CBL) established in the 1920s by Harvard Medical School is to guide students to apply their acquired knowledge base via critical thinking to make clinical decisions to solve the problems that they may encounter in the healthcare environment [ 35 ]. A meta-analysis study of China’s dental education reported that the CBL was a practical pedagogical method across the Chinese dental education system [ 36 ]. The results showed that the CBL method significantly increased knowledge scores, skill scores, comprehensive ability scores, and teaching satisfaction compared with the traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) mode in 2,356 dental students. Hence, there is an urgent need to change the traditional didactic lecture or teacher-centered classroom setting in which students are passive listeners instead of active participants.

Healthcare professionals are also required to solve complex problems and efficiently integrate didactic preclinical knowledge into actual clinical application in patient care [ 35 ]. On the other hand, the design thinking process may enhance both creativity and innovation so that healthcare professionals can respond to clinical problems effectively [ 37 , 38 ]. Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach widely accepted in medical education. It promotes active learning and results in better outcomes [ 39 – 41 ]. PBL focuses on active lifelong learning by triggering problems, directing student focus, and facilitating tutor involvement [ 39 , 42 – 44 ]. However, it is noteworthy that some hybrid PBL models have become less effective over time, as well as less aligned with the intended philosophy of student-centered learning [ 45 ]. Another alternative blended learning approach of PBL is team-based learning (TBL), which allows medical educators to provide students with pre-class work, in-class initial tests with immediate feedback, and real clinical problem-solving activities [ 46 ]. In the year-one studies of the Sydney Medical Program, a greater level of engagement in learning, a deeper understanding of concepts, and a sense of responsibility were shown among the medical students working in a TBL setting than among those in a PBL setting [ 47 , 48 ].

Medical educators face another significant challenge with the millennial generation, which has ubiquitous information technology access throughout its education. Thus, it is extremely important to improve students’ motivation to learn through hands-on instruction or teacher–student interaction and then stimulate students’ thinking and learning. In recent years, gamification has been successfully integrated into medical and scientific endeavors, enhancing motivation, participation, and time commitment across a variety of settings [ 49 – 51 ]. Another healthcare curriculum reform to stimulate active learning is flipped classroom (FC), which assigns learners didactic material, creating opportunities of longitudinal and interprofessional learning experiences for students during class participation [ 52 ] to encourage extracurricular learning, such as critical thinking. As part of the FC model, medical educators also develop formative and diagnostic assessments to identify learning gaps. According to these teaching modules, encouraging students to participate, emphasizing their learning, and observing their development trajectory are the core ideas in recent educational designs [ 53 ].

Although most of above-mentioned studies have been performed in the Eastern and Western education systems, however, without mentioning the differences between cultures and learning styles. Most importantly, the cultivation and foundations of critical thinking neglect the fact that Eastern and Western education systems emerged from very different learning and thinking patterns. Moreover, clinical reasoning and decision achievements depend on established critical thinking skills, therefore, it becomes more important to construct critical thinking early and comprehensively [ 54 ]. While Han Chinese students are not familiar with the core of critical thinking, the most effective approach to teaching critical thinking is still a highly debated topic in medical schools. Taken Taiwan medical education as an example, most clinical courses focuses on professional skills, problem solving, and disease treatment rather than construct critical mindset and metacognitive skills. Education strategies often emphasize the outcome while neglecting the process. Nevertheless, medical educators should also emphasize the process of forming students’ critical thinking when instructing and guiding them in this regard. Consequently, using metacognitive monitoring to enhance critical thinking in healthcare education would be appropriate, especially for Han Chinese systems with a Confucianist outlook. Thus, critical thinking via metacognitive monitoring is important in healthcare education, especially in Han Chinese systems with a Confucianist background.

Proficiency in the art of socratic questioning to enhance students’ critical thinking

Socratic questioning is a disciplined method of engaging in content-driven discourse that can be applied for various purposes: analyzing concepts, finding out the truth, examining assumptions, uncovering assumptions, understanding concepts, distinguishing knowledge from ignorance, and following the logical implications of thought. The scholars who established the intellectual standards of critical thinking have consistently indicated that “The key to distinguishing it from other types of questioning is that the Socratic questioning is systemic, disciplined, and deep and usually focus on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems [ 20 – 22 ].” In short, the Socratic method is a questioning method that stimulates personal understanding. More importantly, the core principle of learning from the unknown fits best within healthcare environments.

Numerous studies have consistently urged teachers to develop Socratic dialogue in their classrooms, regardless of their learning stages and situations [ 55 – 57 ]. Using enhancement exercises in an elementary school, a study introduced a Socratic questioning strategy to provide guidance and hints to students so that they could think more deeply about an issue or problem before sharing their thoughts [ 55 ]. The lecturer of a speech course in higher education demonstrated how Socratic questioning could help students learn when confronted with a series of questions [ 56 ]. The process improves students’ ability to ask and answer questions and helps them overcome some obstacles related to their lack of self-confidence. In the book Socratic circles: Fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and high school , Dr. Matt Copeland stated that, in middle and high schools, teachers must facilitate discussions by asking questions [ 58 ]. Furthermore, this method could be applied not only to elementary school, middle school, high school but also to higher education classes [ 59 ]. During the Covid-19 pandemic, synchronous discussions in online learning demonstrated that the Socratic questioning strategy successfully improves students’ critical thinking skills [ 57 ].

The incorporation of Socratic questioning in healthcare education curriculum is under development, including for general medical education [ 60 ], medical [ 61 ], pharmacy [ 54 , 62 ], and nursing students [ 63 ]. A review article of revisiting the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking in healthcare professions revels few advantages of Socratic questioning [ 23 ]. Three type of Socratic questions were mention and could commonly used in different clinical situations [ 23 ], such as procedure question would use in those with correct answers (e.g., Which of the following medications has antithrombotic function? ); preference question can apply in those with no correct answers (e.g., What type of consultation is most suitable for this patient? ); judgment question would be the most challenge critical thinking within a Socratic paradigm by integrating different domain knowledge and skills (e.g., Does this patient require antibiotic treatment? ). It is necessary to apply and analyze information in a logical manner as well as self-regulate and use critical thinking in order to achieve the best outcome for patients. For medical doctors, pharmacists or clinical laboratory technicians to provide high quality health care across all disciplines, critical thinking is inherently required.

In medical school, the emphasis is laid on training learners in meta-capabilities, such as self-driven pattern recognition, ideally as part of an apprenticeship under the supervision of an expert diagnostician [ 61 ]. An in-depth study of the current trends in developing critical thinking amongst medical students demonstrated the use of dialogue for proper questioning and how it directs the learner’s thinking [ 64 ]. Moreover, another study confirmed that critical thinking occurs only when students are motivated and challenged to engage in higher-level thought processes [ 65 ]. In the pharmacy classroom, educators can play a significant role in influencing their students’ mindsets.  Growth mindsets can be cultivated through the creation of an environment that encourages it. [ 62 ]. The Socratic questioning method can facilitate critical thinking in nursing education. One study showed that problem solving using critical thinking skills can be facilitated in both educational and practice settings by using Socratic inquiry [ 63 ].

The Socratic method has been adapted in different ways to different domains, but it has become closely associated with many areas, such as basic scientific thinking training, legal dialectical guidance, and clinical teaching. Some adaptations are helpful, some are not. The adaptations can be looked at through reasoning-focused lenses with varying degrees of magnification —a high-magnification adaptation rigorously and precisely tracks or guides the path of reasoning. Thus, how to use the Socratic method to direct students onto the path of critical thinking with appropriate guidance, but not revealing answers becomes an art that tests instructors’ teaching experience and proficiency in questioning.

Critical thinking and reflection exercises in the laboratory course

Medical schools have increasingly encouraged students to become life-long, self-directed learners because of the continual changes in the evidence-based healthcare environment. Science is often applied in everyday life, including translating knowledge from scholarly fields [ 66 ]. However, there is a vast gap between what is taught in medical schools and what is actually required in practice has increasingly widened in this information era. The majority of healthcare professionals are not considered to be real scientists. [ 2 ]. Nevertheless, they need to know how to apply scientific knowledge to their practice. Therefore, a science curriculum in medical school, such as a biochemistry laboratory course, should provide an opportunity to learn scientific methods and conceptual frameworks. It should also promote critical reasoning, providing healthcare students with problem-solving skills.

Medical educators need to accept that critical thinking is important for healthcare students and know how to teach it effectively [ 67 ]. Medical educators are now faced with a dilemma: should they develop a new course or adapt old course to develop critical thinking skills?  An effective learning model should promote and stimulate students’ development of such skills [ 67 ]. One of the most common compulsory courses for healthcare students is the biochemistry laboratory course [ 68 , 69 ]. These courses are specifically designed to introduce students to prescribed experiments, requiring them to complete stepwise protocols by themselves [ 68 , 70 ]. The students are expected to understand the concepts behind the methods, procedures, and assays. However, this type of curriculum construction often fails to provide students with adequate opportunities to monitor their critical thinking and thus reduces the chances of developing problem-solving skills [ 70 ]. In order to provide students with more opportunities to think critically, previous studies have also adapted laboratory, basic science, and science fusion courses to help students develop critical thinking skills [ 67 , 68 , 71 – 73 ].

Several studies have demonstrated that students need critical thinking skills to interpret data and formulate arguments. Thus, science education, particularly in the laboratory setting, is designed to teach quantitative critical thinking (i.e. interpretation and critical evaluation of statistical reports), but the evidence has suggested that this is seldom, if ever, achieved [ 74 – 79 ]. By providing multiple opportunities for students to participate in critical thinking in the physics laboratory classes at Stanford University, scholars engaged the students to improve the experiment and modify the model repeatedly [ 32 ]. Additionally, a simple learning framework using decision-making cycles and demonstrating experts’ critical thinking significantly improved students’ critical thinking. We thus argue that students should engage in critical thinking exercises with repeated comparisons, decisions, and teacher guidance that are meant to construct their critical thinking in each of their disciplines.

Participants

This research was conducted during the 2017–2018 academic year. The participants were second-year students in the College of Medicine at the National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) of Taiwan. A total of 144 students participated in this study, of whom 32 had medical science and biotechnology majors (hereafter, MSB), 27 had pharmaceutical science majors (hereafter, PS), and 85 were medical undergraduate (hereafter, MU) students. The biochemistry laboratory course was compulsory for these three majors.

For each biochemistry laboratory class, the teacher assembled five to six groups of four to five students each. The course contained five different biochemical experiments: (1) Plasmid DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) extraction and purification; (2) restriction enzyme digestion and electrophoresis of plasmid DNA; (3) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of plasmid DNA; (4) recombinant protein expression in Escherichia coli ; and (5) quantification of recombinant protein. The experimental learning sheets included three or four critical thinking questions (Table S1 ), encouraging students to explore experimental principles and alternative explanations further. To facilitate discussion, students were organized into small groups of four to five students seated around a single table, discussing and answering the questions. At this time, the students would pen down their first answers to the critical thinking questions, and the teacher would grade them based on the universal intellectual standards (learning sheets, first evaluation).

Furthermore, according to the students’ answers, the teacher offered a response by asking more questions according to the Socratic method to encourage students to think deeper rather than provide the correct answers. At the following week’s class, the teacher returned the learning sheet and supervised the ongoing activity, clarifying any questions raised by students and encouraging them to re-discuss and re-answer the critical thinking questions according to the teacher’s suggestions. The objective was to create a highly interactive environment to engage students in learning the relevant principles of each laboratory, including troubleshooting experiments and formulating critical concepts and skills. After the discussion, the teacher reexamined the students’ responses and assessed them based on the universal intellectual standards for subsequent grading (learning sheets, second evaluation).

The biochemistry laboratory courses and the Socratic method in current study are performed and taught by a senior biochemistry teacher (PhD in Institute of Basic Medical Science, NCKU) who has 40 years teaching experience. The teacher has long focused on teaching critical thinking skills to students, and also offers four senior clinical case related courses by practicing the Socratic method, such as clinical concept, critical thinking in medicine, clinical reasoning and special topics in clinical reasoning with more than 20 years of experience. Therefore, in the course, teacher will often ask a series of questions for students to think about the relevance of biochemical science and clinical practice.

Assessment development

The research team designed the learning sheets to guide discussion on the key issues concerning five biochemical experiments. The learning sheets were assessed according to the universal intellectual standards for critical thinking [ 33 ]. However, the assessment was adapted to include nine intellectual dimensions to assess student reasoning [ 19 , 33 ]: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fairness, and significance (Table S2 ). Each dimension was evaluated using a binary score (0 = does not present the skill; 1 = presents the skill) for each question in the learning sheets for both the first and second evaluations. The students received the teacher’s guidance following the first evaluation, providing them with the opportunity to reconsider their reasoning and revise their answers. Our goal was to improve our students’ learning by stimulating the teaching process; at the same time, we were committed to allowing students to speak freely so that we could more effectively facilitate prospective discussions. Thus, the critical thinking scoring system based on nine intellectual dimensions was only for the purpose of the research, without consequences on students’ study progress. In this regard, students were not able to know their intellectual scores. As a result, their course grades were not determined by the learning sheets; rather, they were determined by the general operation, experiment report, and the learning attitude demonstrated during the experiments.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics and variable tests.

We calculated the differences between the performance means for the first and second evaluations using paired t -tests. The mean differences between the students from the three majors were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). For the improvement slope for each universal intellectual dimension, we used the second evaluation scores of each experiment as the point with which to construct a quadratic equation curve in one variable (dimension) and then access the slope to represent the students’ improvement. The higher the slope score, the greater the students’ progress on that dimension.

Multivariate analysis

We used traditional analytical methods to observe and analyze the students’ improvement in the five experiments. Data from the second evaluation scores of each experiment served as the multi-time point measurement data. The Cox regression model for multivariate analysis was used to investigate the effect of several variables upon the time during which a specified outcome happened [ 80 ]. For each dimension, the model’s outcome determined that a student’s improvement slope was defined as minor progress if it was lower than the improvement slopes of their peers in the same major overall. However, if the student’s improvement slope was higher than the overall progress intercept of their peers, then it was defined as greater progress. The Cox regression models’ outcomes for each dimension were divided into two groups: minor and more progress. For this model’s outcome, (1) we calculated all dimensions’ slopes mean from each major (MSB: 0.369; PS: 0.405; MU: 0.401); (2) then compared the mean slope of the individual students with the mean slope of major; (3) if the student’s individual improvement slope was lower than mean slope of major, then defined as minor progress; if the student’s individual improvement slope was higher than mean slope of major, then defined as greater progress. From the analysis at this point, we understood that teacher could help students from different majors develop the different dimensions of critical thinking with the use of Socratic methods and simple repeated thinking framework practice. Additionally, we wanted to represent the improvement of intellectual dimensions between the students of different majors and their heterogeneity in critical thinking.

Dimension identification and comparison

To understand which intellectual dimensions were most representative of student improvement across majors, the analysis was divided into three sections: (1) to identify the progress percentage of all nine intellectual dimensions; (2) to identify the progress percentage of statistically significant intellectual dimensions; (3) to compare the differences among all nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions. This analysis offered a better understanding of what dimensions represented the overall improvement of students’ critical thinking. Our first step was to calculate the percentage of improvement for each experiment by determining the results of the first and second evaluations for each intellectual dimension. Second, we took average percentage of improvements for each dimension. Finally, we used Student’s t -test to compare the differences among the average of all nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions.

Trajectory analysis

In this study, we also hypothesized that each student’s learning and progress trajectories were heterogeneous across different majors. Depending on the major, there may also be differences between students in the same class. To focus our observations on the students’ use of the clarity and logic dimensions, we used a trajectory-tracking analysis [ 81 , 82 ] and categorized the students into two groups based on the participants’ improvement levels within the same major.

Descriptive data

We recruited 144 second-year students from three majors in the College of Medicine, among which 32 were MSB, 27 were PS, and 85 were MU students. All participants’ first and second evaluations were compared in all five biochemistry experiments. The statistically significant between-group differences in the mean initial evaluation results for each dimension are presented in Table  1 .

Description of the participants and their performance in the evaluations of their learning sheets (N = 144)

† Students were divided into groups of 4–5 participants to complete the exercises. However, the learning sheets scores were filed individually. # The difference between groups in their performance in the second evaluation was calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

‡ The subscales in the learning sheets are scored on a scale of 1–4 for each dimension.

* The difference in performance between the first and second evaluations was compared using paired t -tests, p  < 0.05.

a Medical laboratory science and biotechnology vs. pharmaceutical students, p  < 0.05.

b Pharmaceutical vs. undergraduate medical students, p  < 0.05.

c Medical laboratory science and biotechnology vs. undergraduate medical students, p  < 0.05.

Overall improvement from the initial to second evaluations throughout the five experiments (H1, H2, and Aim 1)

Table  1 presents the mean results of the first and second evaluations; the five experiments exhibited statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05) across all study groups and dimensions. More detailed analyses revealed significant differences in performance in the second evaluation between the groups after all five biochemistry experiments in the clarity ( p  = 0.0019), depth ( p  = 0.0097), breadth ( p  < 0.0001), logic ( p  = 0.0371), and significance ( p  = 0.0037) dimensions. However, for some of the dimensions (clarity, accuracy, precision, logic, and fairness), the initial evaluation results differ significantly between the MU and the MSB students, but this was not the case for the secondary evaluation results. The MSB students exhibited the best progress (2nd mean score minus 1st mean score) in the clarity dimension across all experiments. The PS students exhibited the best performance in the logic dimension ( p  < 0.05) in the second evaluation after the five experiments.

The results of the MSB students improved steeply in most dimensions in the five experiments, especially depth (slope: 0.472), logic (0.455), and clarity (0.410) (Table  2 ). Time had a stronger effect on several of the dimensions in the multivariate analysis, specifically clarity ( p  = 0.0012), relevance ( p  = 0.0007), and logic ( p  < 0.0001). By contrast, the PS students showed a significant overall improvement in the clarity (slope: 0.212, p  < 0.0001), accuracy (0.539, p  = 0.0063), precision (0.381, p  = 0.0085), relevance (0.216, p  < 0.0001), breadth (0.426, p  = 0.0045), and logic (0.515, p  = 0.0027) dimensions over the observation period (Table  3 ). Finally, the MU students showed a significant overall improvement in six dimensions: clarity (slope: 0.277, p  < 0.0001), accuracy (0.520, p  = 0.0003), depth (0.459, p  = 0.0092), breadth (0.356, p  = 0.0100), logic (0.544, p  = 0.0190), and significance (0.327, p  = 0.0225) (Table  4 ).

Medical laboratory science and biotechnology students’ overall improvement throughout the five experiments (N = 32)

* p  < 0.05, paired t -tests comparing the evaluations for the first and second learning sheets.

† Slopes are rates of improvement calculated using the fifth learning sheet and the second evaluation scores for the final assessment of improvement. The second evaluation scores for all the other learning sheets were used as linear function factors to plot a quadratic function for each dimension.

Pharmaceutical students’ overall improvement throughout the five experiments (N = 27)

Undergraduate medical students’ overall improvement throughout the five experiments (N = 85)

Trajectory tracking of the overall, significant, and reciprocal dimensions (Aim 2 and Aim 3)

Figure  2 a illustrates the overall improvement of students across the three majors in all nine dimensions, as assessed via trajectory analysis. The trajectory-tracking algorithm revealed that the significant dimensions for each group were as follows: MSB students—clarity, relevance, and logic; PS students—clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, breadth, and logic; and MU students—clarity, accuracy, depth, breadth, logic, and significance (Tables  2 , ​ ,3 3 and ​ and4; 4 ; Fig.  2 b). The comparison of each group’s average percentage of improvement between the nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions (clarity and logic) is summarized in Fig.  2 c. Figure  2 d–i depicts the students’ improvement in clarity and logic within the different majors using group-based trajectory modeling.

Overall improvement comparison between the students of three majors using a trajectory-tracking analysis approach . ( a ) The mean evaluation scores from the second evaluation minus those from the first evaluation for the nine dimensions were considered an improvement. They were converted to percentages to compare them to the performance in the first evaluation. ( b ) The mean evaluation scores from the second evaluation minus those from the first evaluation for the significant dimensions (within the students of each major, Tables  2 – 4 ) were considered to represent improvement and were converted to percentages to compare them to the performance in the first evaluation. ( c ) Comparison of the average percentage improvement among all nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions (i.e., clarity and logic). ( d ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of medical laboratory science and biotechnology students in the clarity dimension. ( e ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of pharmaceutical students in the clarity dimension. ( f ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of undergraduate medical students in the clarity dimension. ( g ) Trajectory analysis to identify the progress of the two subgroups of medical laboratory science and biotechnology students in the logic dimension. ( h ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of pharmaceutical students in the logic dimension. ( i ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of undergraduate medical students in the logic dimension

Empirical contributions

The Han Chinese educational system relies on the passive transmission of knowledge, as evidenced by the years of preparation by students’ through paper-based exams. By adopting this approach during teaching and learning, students do not develop a critical thinking mindset. Our experience has shown that when we encounter first-year students who have just graduated from high school, their previous education failed to develop critical thinking skills. Many foreign and Western teachers have the same experience when they encounter Asian students studying abroad for the first time. Thus, this research aims to provide clinical teachers with guidance on reducing the blind spots that students face when introduced to critical thinking. Moreover, this research aims to provide teachers with a simple teaching model and structure to guide students with less stable foundations in critical thinking. For the teaching structure and process, please refer to the procedure paragraph in the methods section and the teaching flow chart in Fig.  1 . Furthermore, the scoring system shown in the assessment development paragraph in the methods, as well as the scoring rubric is presented in Table S1 .

To our knowledge, this is the first study that uses the Socratic method and the universal intellectual standards to assess and improve critical thinking skills in biochemistry laboratory courses across different healthcare majors. We also used a novel design for teaching critical thinking, with multi-timepoint assessments and trajectory-tracking analysis to observe the students’ process and the improvement intheir critical thinking. This Socratic method, combined with critical thinking-based learning sheets, significantly improved the students’ critical thinking in all nine dimensions of the universal intellectual standards, according to the first and second evaluations conducted in each of the five sessions. Another unique contribution of this study is that it analyzed the progression results at multiple time points in the critical thinking performance of students across different majors. According to the results of comparing the average percentage improvement between all nine dimensions, the significant and reciprocal dimensions (i.e., clarity and logic) do not significantly differ from each other statistically speaking. By reducing the nine intellectual dimensions scoring system, medical educators can focus more on establishing clarity and logic skills in students. In sum, our most important finding was the identification of the clarity and logic dimensions as key elements that facilitate the development of critical thinking skills via the Socratic method in students across three different healthcare majors.

The trajectories of outcomes for students of medical science and biotechnology majors

Understanding what we learn has been identified as the starting point in the professional-development journey [ 2 ]. In principle, if thinking and decision making can be taught, educational intervention is possible. Nevertheless, for a science class like biochemistry, abductive reasoning requires a deep understanding of knowledge, and thinking must be inspired through stimulation.

In this study, the evaluation scores for MSB students did not improve significantly in almost any dimension at the beginning of the course. At first, most students felt uncomfortable with criticizing others, disagreeing with others, or challenging teacher’s knowledge and authority when they spoke their minds. Other MSB students believed that their ability to find answers and make decisions was inadequate and expected the teacher to provide the correct answers. However, preclinical medical technologists must gradually develop their critical thinking skills. Thus, the teacher provided critical thinking cues during the class and monitored the group discussions.

On the other hand, teachers must encourage these types of students, enabling them to accomplish simpler learning goals by providing them with easier-to-attempt clues. The joy of discovering answers on their own rather than the frustration of not achieving high goals should be encouraged. This coaching process improved the MSB students’ willingness to think and explore, leading to greater relevance and breadth of coverage.

The teacher used generation, conceptualization, optimization, and implementation [ 33 ] with the Socratic method to stimulate critical thinking in a four-step cycle in the five experiments. When the spontaneous discussion started in the generation phase, they tried to clarify their knowledge of the theme and identify the problem from the learning sheet. The following step was to conceptualize the problem, and the students drafted all of the possibilities and problems. Teacher frequently asked the students, ‘ What are other possible reasons? ’ Finally, the teacher provided feedback to help the MSB students reach a proper solution and implement it. The teacher would also ask the students leading questions like ‘ What relevant theories can be confirmed more precisely? ’ These guiding processes sharpened their logic and helped them better understand what they had learned. In sum, the benefits of this process included an enhanced ability to think logically, clarification of questions and knowledge gaps, and improvements in the thought process about the theme discussed.

The steady improvement of critical thinking in the students of pharmaceutical science

Currently, pharmacists are seeing their roles and responsibilities shift to becoming patient counselors and educators on the rational use of medicine. Pharmacists are trained to focus on patient-centered care and resolve current and potential drug-related problems [ 83 , 84 ]. Critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and decision-making skills are needed to solve these problems. Nowadays, pharmacists are not just responsible for carrying out doctor’s orders, while there are always alternative treatment options available for them to recommend. Teacher therefore repeatedly emphasized the link between critical thinking and pharmacist practice and encouraged students to ask questions and find out the best alternative through Socratic method in the classroom.

During class, the PS students were required to exert considerable mental effort to conduct an inquiry to solve the learning sheet questions. Instead of providing students with clues or information to help them solve the problems, the teacher guided the PS students on how to seek the information they needed for themselves. The question for the PS students was be ‘ What are the possibly executable strategies? ’ The teacher also joined the students in discussion, using the Socratic method to stimulate critical thinking and draw out ideas and underlying suppositions. In high-quality cooperative argumentative dialogue, teacher should not direct or refer learning, nor should they ask students for the correct answers as in a traditional classroom. The hints that teacher would provide were more like ‘ The narrative explanation can be more precise. ’ Thus, asking high-quality questions and providing feedback also challenges the instructors’ teaching experience.

The PS students were guided not only toward the development of critical thinking skills but also toward solving problems using evidence-based knowledge and decision-making skills. The Socratic method process meets the student where they are on the educational spectrum and encourages and helps them advance. Using this method, the PS students engaged in student-to-student interaction to build knowledge as a group and individually. The course of five experiments conducted via the learning sheets improved many aspects of the students’ critical thinking, including their clarity, relevance, breadth, and logic. In sum, the abilities that they developed in the course should help them focus more on the possible outcomes of pharmacotherapy, medication surveillance, and proper communication and therefore improve the quality of their professional future.

The advanced construction of critical thinking skills in undergraduate medical students

In medical education, “ better thinking and learning skills grounded in understanding ” are recommended for future doctors [ 2 ]. Practicing medicine requires an ability to address current and future diseases using new diagnostic and therapeutic methods [ 10 ]. Therefore, problem solving is not the only core medical skill; the ability to deal with complex, insoluble health issues is also required [ 83 ]. In this domain, critical thinking skills have proven essential in tackling difficult, complex, interdisciplinary health problems [ 10 ].

In our study, the MU students began with high-performance scores in almost all dimensions. As a result, teachers needed to create a more challenging and thought-provoking learning environment to encourage them to think more broadly and deeply. Thus, the teacher would give students advice like ‘ Searching for more relevant information can increase the breadth of knowledge ’ and ‘ If the result is true, what is the relevant theory? ’ Most MU students were faster than other majors at defining and constructing critical thinking. However, another phenomenon often observed in the classroom was that the MU students were more reluctant to express their reasoning than the students of other majors. In other words, MU students were afraid to speak openly about their reasoning and thinking, probably due to the excessive pursuit of the correct answer. In sum, the course of five experiments conducted via the learning sheets enhanced abilities of clarity, accuracy, depth, breadth, logic, and significance in MU students.

Apart from providing structure for their critical thinking, as was done with the other preclinical students, the teacher guided the MU students to use advanced critical thinking skills by regularly analyze their thinking processes, reflecting on the decision-making and thinking process [ 84 ]. Researchers have suggested that reflective practice is key to successful medical professionalism [ 85 ] and humanism [ 86 , 87 ]; but more importantly, it may help medical professionals develop better physician–patient relationships [ 88 ]. Therefore, to advance the critical thinking experience of the MU students, teacher should encourage them to gather ideas, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information. The teacher guided them to reflect on their plan and solve the questions on the learning sheets using their thoughts and words. These reflective practices could involve various biases in the thinking process and outcome, such as the base-rate fallacy, bias blind spot, or choice-supportive bias. The Socratic debate is a common way to model a complex thinking situation and may help teachers inspire students to become critical thinkers. MU students improved their abilities in the clarity, accuracy, depth, breadth, logic, and significance dimensions in the five experiments. This kind of training in thinking should help preclinical students constantly challenge and critically appraise evidence within their context, as well as their patients’ and their own belief and value systems.

Limitations

This study provides a model for developing a specific learning environment like a biochemistry laboratory class into one that will help students develop their critical thinking skills through inquiry. Our results have shown this method to be feasible and effective. However, there were a few limitations to this study. First, although it included students from three different majors, there was no interdisciplinary collaboration that would have simulated collaborations and communication among other healthcare professionals from different fields, as occurs in clinical practice. Introducing such collaboration may have produced more exciting and comprehensive ideas for solving the problems. Training in these professions is specialized to a considerable extent, so inter-professional collaboration should improve therapeutic outcomes and optimize patient care. Second, the original scoring system was time-consuming. However, one of our study objectives was to modify and reduce the nine intellectual dimensions scoring system into the clarity and logic dimensions. Based on the analysis in the current study, the clarity and logic dimensions were sufficient for monitoring the growth of students’ critical thinking.

The present curriculum innovation aimed to teach critical thinking skills to preclinical students in various medical majors using a Socratic questioning learning model instead of a cookbook approach to learning in laboratory courses. The development of problem-solving and critical thinking skills, in addition to process-related skills, in biochemistry laboratory courses supplements traditional curriculum in a helpful way. The curriculum innovation that we described and proposed may represent an incremental step forward for the discipline; it is a novel educational approach for promoting critical thinking skills, fostering an appreciation of the affective domain, and enabling reflective practice by using small-group processing skill instruction and one-on-one Socratic questioning. The current study results are based on training critical thinking skills that should enable students to engage in the “reflection-on-action” process, which might provide an additional bridge between basic medical knowledge and clinical practice. More importantly, reconstructive mental reviews may indirectly shape preclinical students’ future actions in the challenging healthcare industry characterized by uncertainty and novel circumstances.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Chi-Her Lin, MD for their encouragement and support in the writing of this manuscript, and Prof. Woei-Jer Chuang, Hung-Chi Cheng, Chang-Shi Chen, Po-Hsin J. Huang, Chien-hung Yu, and Wen-Tsan Chang for their help with the experimental design. Special thanks to Tanvi Gupta for her help with the improving reading fluency.

Authors’ contributions

Yueh-Ren Ho: substantially contributed to the conception, data curation, interpretation, drafting and critical revision of the paper. She has given final approval to the manuscript and agrees to be accountable for the work. Bao-Yu Chen: substantially contributed to the conception, formal analysis, methodology, visualization, and writing and editing the manuscript. Chien-Ming Li: substantially contributed to the conception, data curation, review and editing the manuscript.

This work was supported by the Teaching Practice Research Program, Ministry of Education, Taiwan (Grant No: PMN1110350, PMN1100853, PMN1090364, PMN108075, PMN107018).

Data Availability

Declarations.

Students participating in this course will be informed before the class begins that their results will be used for educational academic research, and their written informed consent were obtained. The methodology of the study including the content analysis of literature on data curation activities were approved and funded by Teaching Practice Research Program, Ministry of Education, Taiwan. Throughout the study, all methods followed the approved methodology and adhered to the relevant guidelines and regulations. According to Human Subjects Research Act, Chap. 2, article 5: The Ministry of Education review current study nature and announced the principal investigator shall not submit the research protocol for review and approval by the Institutional Review Board. Please refer to the source of law in the website of Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan) ( https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0020176 ).

Not applicable.

The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The Institute for Learning and Teaching

College of business, teaching tips, the socratic method: fostering critical thinking.

"Do not take what I say as if I were merely playing, for you see the subject of our discussion—and on what subject should even a man of slight intelligence be more serious? —namely, what kind of life should one live . . ." Socrates

By Peter Conor

This teaching tip explores how the Socratic Method can be used to promote critical thinking in classroom discussions. It is based on the article, The Socratic Method: What it is and How to Use it in the Classroom, published in the newsletter, Speaking of Teaching, a publication of the Stanford Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL).

The article summarizes a talk given by Political Science professor Rob Reich, on May 22, 2003, as part of the center’s Award Winning Teachers on Teaching lecture series. Reich, the recipient of the 2001 Walter J. Gores Award for Teaching Excellence, describes four essential components of the Socratic method and urges his audience to “creatively reclaim [the method] as a relevant framework” to be used in the classroom.

What is the Socratic Method?

Developed by the Greek philosopher, Socrates, the Socratic Method is a dialogue between teacher and students, instigated by the continual probing questions of the teacher, in a concerted effort to explore the underlying beliefs that shape the students views and opinions. Though often misunderstood, most Western pedagogical tradition, from Plato on, is based on this dialectical method of questioning.

An extreme version of this technique is employed by the infamous professor, Dr. Kingsfield, portrayed by John Houseman in the 1973 movie, “The Paper Chase.” In order to get at the heart of ethical dilemmas and the principles of moral character, Dr. Kingsfield terrorizes and humiliates his law students by painfully grilling them on the details and implications of legal cases.

In his lecture, Reich describes a kinder, gentler Socratic Method, pointing out the following:

• Socratic inquiry is not “teaching” per se. It does not include PowerPoint driven lectures, detailed lesson plans or rote memorization. The teacher is neither “the sage on the stage” nor “the guide on the side.” The students are not passive recipients of knowledge.
• The Socratic Method involves a shared dialogue between teacher and students. The teacher leads by posing thought-provoking questions. Students actively engage by asking questions of their own. The discussion goes back and forth.
• The Socratic Method says Reich, “is better used to demonstrate complexity, difficulty, and uncertainty than to elicit facts about the world.” The aim of the questioning is to probe the underlying beliefs upon which each participant’s statements, arguments and assumptions are built.
• The classroom environment is characterized by “productive discomfort,” not intimidation. The Socratic professor does not have all the answers and is not merely “testing” the students. The questioning proceeds open-ended with no pre-determined goal.
• The focus is not on the participants’ statements but on the value system that underpins their beliefs, actions, and decisions. For this reason, any successful challenge to this system comes with high stakes—one might have to examine and change one’s life, but, Socrates is famous for saying, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
• “The Socratic professor,” Reich states, “is not the opponent in an argument, nor someone who always plays devil’s advocate, saying essentially: ‘If you affirm it, I deny it. If you deny it, I affirm it.’ This happens sometimes, but not as a matter of pedagogical principle.”

Professor Reich also provides ten tips for fostering critical thinking in the classroom. While no longer available on Stanford’s website, the full article can be found on the web archive:  The Socratic Method: What it is and How to Use it in the classroom

• More Teaching Tips
• Tags: communication , critical thinking , learning
• Categories: Instructional Strategies , Teaching Effectiveness , Teaching Tips

Philosophy Break Your home for learning about philosophy

Introductory philosophy courses distilling the subject's greatest wisdom.

Reading Lists

Curated reading lists on philosophy's best and most important works.

Latest Breaks

Bite-size philosophy articles designed to stimulate your brain.

Socratic Method: What Is It and How Can You Use It?

This article defines the Socratic method, a technique for establishing knowledge derived from the approach of ancient Greek philosopher Socrates.

5 -MIN BREAK  

T he Socratic method is a form of cooperative dialogue whereby participants make assertions about a particular topic, investigate those assertions with questions designed to uncover presuppositions and stimulate critical thinking, and finally come to mutual agreement and understanding about the topic under discussion (though such mutual agreement is not guaranteed or required).

In more formal educational settings, the Socratic method is harnessed by teachers to ‘draw out’ knowledge from students. The teacher does not directly impart knowledge, but asks probing, thought-provoking questions to kickstart a dialogue between teacher and student, allowing students to formulate and justify answers for themselves.

As Stanford University comment in an issue of their Speaking of Teaching newsletter:

The Socratic method uses questions to examine the values, principles, and beliefs of students. Through questioning, the participants strive first to identify and then to defend their moral intuitions about the world which undergird their ways of life. Socratic inquiry deals not with producing a recitation of facts... but demands rather that the participants account for themselves, their thoughts, actions, and beliefs... Socratic inquiry aims to reveal the motivations and assumptions upon which students lead their lives.

Proponents of the Socratic method argue that, by coming to answers themselves, students better remember both the answer and the logical reasoning that led them there than they would if someone had simply announced a conclusion up front. Furthermore, people are generally more accepting of views they’ve come to based on their own rational workings.

The Death of Socrates, a painting by Jacques-Louis David depicting ancient Greek philosopher Socrates — from whom the Socratic method derives its name — about to drink hemlock in his jail cell, having been sentenced to death by the Athenian authorities.

The great philosopher Bertrand Russell once commented, “As usual in philosophy, the first difficulty is to see that the problem is difficult.” Being an inquisitive dialogue, the Socratic method is particularly effective here, revealing hidden subtleties and complexities in subjects that may otherwise appear obvious or simple, such as whether the world around us is ‘real’ .

Apply the Socratic method to such a subject, and participants quickly discover how difficult it is to establish a solid answer. This is a good outcome, Russell thinks, for informed skepticism has replaced uninformed conviction — or, as he puts it, “the net result is to substitute articulate hesitation for inarticulate certainty.”

As such, the Socratic method is at its most effective when applied to topics about which people hold deep convictions, such as questions on ethics , value, politics , and how to live.

After just a little probing on the foundations of our convictions on such topics, we learn that what may have appeared simple is in fact a very complicated issue mired in difficulty, uncertainty, and nuance — and that our initial convictions might be less justified than we first thought.

From the Buddha to Nietzsche: join 13,000+ subscribers enjoying my free Sunday Breakdown

In one concise email each Sunday, I break down a famous idea from philosophy. You get the distillation straight to your inbox.

💭 One short philosophical email each Sunday. Unsubscribe any time.

Why is it called the Socratic method?

T he Socratic method derives its name from the conversational technique of ancient Greek philosopher Socrates , as presented in his student Plato’s dialogues written between 399 BCE and 347 BCE . The son of a midwife, Socrates draws parallels between his method and midwifery. In Plato’s dialogue Theaetetus , Socrates states:

The only difference [between my trade and that of midwives] is… my concern is not with the body but with the soul that is experiencing birth pangs. And the highest achievement of my art is the power to try by every test to decide whether the offspring of a young person’s thought is a false phantom or is something imbued with life and truth.

Socrates’s approach of sometimes relentless inquiry differed to the teachers in ancient Athens at the time, known as the Sophists, who went for the more conventional ‘sage on a stage’ educational method, trying to persuade people round to their viewpoints on things through impressive presentation and rhetoric.

This distinction in approach made Socrates somewhat of a celebrity of contrarian thought. While the Sophists tried to demonstrate their knowledge, Socrates did his best to demonstrate his (and everybody else’s) ignorance. His guiding principle was that we know nothing — and so, as W. K. C. Guthrie argues in The Greek Philosophers , the Socratic method was for Socrates as much a device for establishing ignorance as it was establishing knowledge.

In one concise email each Sunday, I break down a famous idea from philosophy. You get the distillation straight to your inbox:

Indeed, Plato presents Socrates approaching various influential thinkers from ancient Athenian society and discussing many different subjects with them, including justice, knowledge , beauty, and what it means to live a good life.

Typically the interlocutor in discussion with Socrates begins by making a confident, seemingly self-evident assertion about a particular topic. Socrates then asks them questions about said topic, wrapping them in a tangled web of contradictions and false presuppositions, before concluding that the assertion that began the discussion is hopelessly misguided.

Given this consistent outcome of most if not all of Plato’s dialogues , some have questioned whether Socrates himself actually provides an effective template for the Socratic method as we know it today, in that while the illusion of cooperative dialogue is present, the conversations are largely dominated by Socrates picking apart the views of others.

Was Socrates’s method successful?

T he purpose of Socrates’s questioning was usually to jolt people out of their presuppositions and assumptions, and most of Plato’s dialogues end with Socrates kindly declaring the ignorance or even stupidity of those he spoke to. The only knowledge available to us, Socrates assures us, is knowing that we know nothing .

Socrates’s apparent victories in the name of reason and logic, while hugely entertaining and intellectually stimulating for the reader today, led to many important people in ancient Athens getting rather annoyed. Alas, Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the minds of the youth — but went on annoying his accusers til the very end with a wondrous exposition on piety and death, as recorded in a collection of Plato’s dialogues, The Trial and Death of Socrates .

Following Socrates’s death, Plato continued to write dialogues featuring Socrates as the protagonist in honor of his great teacher. This has led to lively discussion around how much of the Socrates featured in Plato’s dialogues represents Socrates, and how much he represents Plato. Regardless, Plato’s dialogues — written over 2,000 years ago — are wondrous, and we are lucky to have them.

How can you use the Socratic method today?

T hough things ended rather morbidly for Socrates, his method of questioning has evolved and lived on as a brilliant way to draw people out of ignorance, encourage critical thinking, and cooperate in the pursuit of knowledge. Socrates is a martyr not just for philosophy, but for educational dialogue and productive, stimulating exchanges of different perspectives around interesting subjects of all kinds.

Any time you ask questions to get people to think differently about things, any time you participate in healthy, productive debate or problem solving, any time you examine principles and presuppositions and come to an answer for yourself, you channel the same principles Socrates championed all those years ago.

How to Live a Good Life (According to 7 of the World’s Wisest Philosophies)

Explore and compare the wisdom of Stoicism, Existentialism, Buddhism and beyond to forever enrich your personal philosophy.

★★★★★ (50+ reviews for our courses)

People tend to assent to uncomfortable conclusions more when they’ve done the reasoning and come to the answer themselves. This and a host of other benefits is why the Socratic method is still modelled by many educational institutions today: students are not told ‘what’ to think, but shown ‘how’ to think by being supplied with thoughtful questions rather than straight answers.

So, next time you’re locked in an argument with someone, or looking to inform an audience about a subject you’re experienced in, remember Socrates and the brilliant tradition of respecting different viewpoints, digging out presuppositions, and working together to find an answer.

Further reading

I f you’re interested in learning more about Socrates, we’ve compiled a reading list consisting of the best books on his life and philosophy. Hit the banner below to access it now.

Jack Maden Founder Philosophy Break

Having received great value from studying philosophy for 15+ years (picking up a master’s degree along the way), I founded Philosophy Break in 2018 as an online social enterprise dedicated to making the subject’s wisdom accessible to all. Learn more about me and the project here.

If you enjoy learning about humanity’s greatest thinkers, you might like my free Sunday email. I break down one mind-opening idea from philosophy, and invite you to share your view.

Subscribe for free here , and join 13,000+ philosophers enjoying a nugget of profundity each week (free forever, no spam, unsubscribe any time).

Get one mind-opening philosophical idea distilled to your inbox every Sunday (free)

From the Buddha to Nietzsche: join 13,000+ subscribers enjoying a nugget of profundity from the great philosophers every Sunday:

★★★★★ (50+ reviews for Philosophy Break). Unsubscribe any time.

Take Another Break

Each break takes only a few minutes to read, and is crafted to expand your mind and spark your philosophical curiosity.

Mono No Aware: Beauty and Impermanence in Japanese Philosophy

4 -MIN BREAK

John Rawls: How a ‘Veil of Ignorance’ Can Help Us Build a Just Society

3 -MIN BREAK

Aristotle vs the Stoics: What Does Happiness Require?

5 -MIN BREAK

5 Existential Problems All Humans Share

View All Breaks

PHILOSOPHY 101

• What is Philosophy?
• Why is Philosophy Important?
• Philosophy’s Best Books
• About Philosophy Break
• Support the Project
• Instagram   /   Threads   /   Facebook
• TikTok   /   Twitter

Philosophy Break is an online social enterprise dedicated to making the wisdom of philosophy instantly accessible (and useful!) for people striving to live happy, meaningful, and fulfilling lives. Learn more about us here . To offset a fraction of what it costs to maintain Philosophy Break, we participate in the Amazon Associates Program. This means if you purchase something on Amazon from a link on here, we may earn a small percentage of the sale, at no extra cost to you. This helps support Philosophy Break, and is very much appreciated.

Access our generic Amazon Affiliate link here

Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy

© Philosophy Break Ltd, 2024

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Socratic Methods in the Classroom

DOI link for Socratic Methods in the Classroom

Get Citation

Since the Renaissance, the Socratic Method has been adapted to teach diverse subjects, including medicine, law, and mathematics. Each discipline selects elements and emphases from the Socratic Method that are appropriate for teaching individuals or groups how to reason judiciously within that subject. By looking at some of the great practitioners of Socratic questioning in the past, Socratic Methods in the Classroom explains how teachers may use questioning, reasoning, and dialogue to encourage critical thinking, problem solving, and independent learning in the secondary classroom. Through a variety of problems, cases, and simulations, teachers will guide students through different variations of the Socratic Method, from question prompts to the case method. Students will learn to reason judiciously, gain an understanding of important issues, and develop the necessary skills to discuss these issues in their communities. Grades 8-12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter | 2  pages, introduction, chapter chapter 1 | 14  pages, critical thinking, chapter chapter 2 | 16  pages, from socratic method to socratic methods, chapter chapter 3 | 15  pages, maieutic questioning, chapter chapter 4 | 13  pages, the legal adaptation of the socratic method, chapter chapter 5 | 16  pages, socratic role-playing, chapter chapter 6 | 8  pages, writing philosophical dialogues in the classroom, chapter chapter 7 | 7  pages, socratic methods.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Fostering Critical Thinking Skills using the Socratic Method

Return to: ETAP 623 Spring 2020 (Zhang) | Jonah Schumacher

Overview and Purpose

The Socratic Method is an ancient form of instruction that requires few, if any, external resources and because of this, it has seen wide usage in all levels of education from elementary to law school.

The purpose of this course is to introduce educators (of all levels, backgrounds, and disciplines) to the Socratic Method, ultimately providing the understanding and know-how to be able to add the method to one's teaching toolkit.

The course will consist of 3 units taking the following format:

Unit 1: Provides an introduction to the Socratic Method with examples. Unit 2: Provides a more in-depth breakdown of the Method. Unit 3: Consists of information and exercises on how to make use of the Method no matter the discipline or level of the learners.

Needs Assessment

Critical thinking (CT) skills are integral for success in and out of school. Promoting higher-level thinking and CT is often a focus at all levels of education in every discipline (Karami et al. 2012). In addition to the benefits of academic success, CT skills are necessary to thrive in the current pluralist, information-saturated world. One must be able to work and engage with others, teach themselves new skills, and be able to make rational decisions as well as quickly determine the validity of arguments and information one finds on the internet. (Vieira et al. 2011).

CT is a buzzword in education and business (Nappi. 2017). Despite the significance placed on the term, there still seems to be room to improve in this area of education as identified by the quote,

• “One of the obstacles is the fact that teachers do not have a clear idea about critical thinking because the meaning ascribed to critical thinking in different contexts is rarely explicit.” (Vieira et al. 2011. P. 43).

If educators are uncertain about specific modes or qualities of CT then it would be difficult for them to pass these coveted skills on to students.

The purpose of this course is to introduce educators to one of the oldest, most versatile, and easily implemented ways to foster CT skills: the Socratic method.

What is to be Learned

Throughout the course, one will become familiar with the purpose and process of the Socratic method. Once one has an understanding of this method, suggestions of how one can implement the method in different settings will be discussed (such as f2f and asynchronous).

The Learners

Though this course will be targeting educators of all levels of academia (though K-12 educators may specifically draw more benefit). Anyone looking to gain a new perspective has the potential to gain from this course. The Socratic method can also be adapted and applied to every discipline.

Learner Analysis

Learners will likely mostly consist of K-12 educators who wish to foster CT skills in their classrooms. No prior knowledge of the Socratic method is necessary to benefit from the course, however should one wish to teach the method, prior educational experience would be advantageous.

Context for Instruction

This course will be delivered online making access to the internet necessary. A computer, laptop, or tablet would be best, as some resources may not translate well on mobile devices.

Preformance Objectives

Overall Course Objective: Those who complete the course will be able to make use of the Socratic Method in their own courses.

Objectives completed along the way to achieving the course objective:

1) Explain how the Socratic Method fosters critical thinking.

2) Evaluate whether a situation may be suited for implementing the Socratic Method.

3) Be able to distinguish the different elements of the Socratic Method.

Course Units

Unit 1: An Introduction to the Socratic Method

Unit 2: The Socratic Method: Step-by-Step

Unit 3: How can I use the Socratic Method in my classroom?

Curriculum Map

Map of the course units and objectives of each

• Dialogic teaching
• Thinking training
• Early learning
• Elementary grades
• Middle school
• High school
• Toggle limited content width

Critical Thinking and the Socratic Method

This chapter starts by answering the question, “What is critical thinking?” As it turns out, not everyone agrees on what critical thinking is. Nevertheless, researchers agree that critical thinking allows many people to reason together for solutions to complex problems. Also, in this chapter, the authors look at how computing capabilities enhance Socratic problem solving. A computer-based Socratic problem-solving system can keep problem solvers on track, document the outcome of a problem-solving session, and share those results with participants and a larger audience. In addition, Socrates DigitalTM can also help problem solvers combine evidence about their quality of reasoning for individual problem-solving steps and the overall confidence level for the solution.

• Related Documents

Visualizing complexity

In this paper, we look at experienced problem solvers who are experts in their own domains and who visually model the processes people use when they solve complex problems. Our hope is that improved problem models can inform software development teams and lead to better problem solving software. We discuss what to model – the interdependent data ordeals, wayfinding, and sense-making activities that make up patterns of inquiry. We propose a model, which describes how experts explore problem landscapes, putting information and their own conclusions together in different ways in order to satisfy contending goals and agendas.

The Development Higher Order Thinking Skill (Hots) As Questions In Chemistry Study (Solubility And Solubility Product Constant)

The significance of critical thinking as one of the 21st  century skills makes the Indonesian Ministry of  Education  and  Culture  integrate  Higher  Order Thinking  Skill  (HOTS)  in the  latest national curriculum. Students critical thinking skills to working on HOTS assessment are fundamental, especially in learning chemistry lessons. The research purpose is to analyze the quality of HOTS chemistry questions/ assessment and to observe the teachers and students responses to computer-based test instruments developed using Wondershare Quiz Maker Software (WQM). The research method used Research And Development (R & D) Borg & Gall model. The sample was determined by Random Sampling Technique in total 104 students from several high school in Banda Aceh, it is SMAN 4, SMAN 5, SMAN 8 and SMAN 11. The data analysis technique was through calculating the percentage score of the assessment quality and analyzing the question items quantitatively such as validity, reliability, difficulty level of the questions, differential question power tests and distracting question power using proanaltes. The results showed that the quality of HOTS in chemical questions tested (for the solubility subject and the solubility product constant in terms of qualitative analysis of the items) in the validation test gained average score, it is 98.1%, means the items are qualified categories. In terms of quantitative analysis question items, it reached 95% valid and 5% invalid and the reliability test score was 0.740, are in high category. The questions difficulty covers 95% medium and 5% are in difficult level. The questions differential power for each category is 65% good, 30% medium and 5% less. The teachers and students response to the development of the computer-based HOTS test instrument using WQM software was positive and show good result. The teacher response positively on score strongly agreed was 83.3% and agreed 16.7%, while the students response on score strongly agreed was 27.2% and 63.3% agreed. The research conclusion there is significant  students critical thinking skills improved  (in learning the solubility and the solubility product constant chapter) by using HOTS assessment using Wondershare Quiz Maker software.

CO-OPERATIVE LEARNING : AN EFFICIENT TECHNIQUE TO CONVERT STUDENTS INTO ACTIVE LEARNERS IN CLASSROOMS

This paper discusses the need of co-operative learning in Indian classrooms in order to promote active participation of all students in the classroom. In order to prepare the students for life and higher education, the gaining and improvement of important mental skills such as the effective usage of the mind, critical thinking, and problem solving are necessary so that they can face the challenges of life actively. In recent years, teaching has been confronted by demands for higher standards and better pupil achievement in several parts of the world. Researchers have suggested a shift from teacher-centred instruction towards more active participatory learning methods as one way to improve the quality of the learning process. The search on co-operative learning is overwhelmingly positive, and the co-operative approaches are appropriate for all curriculum areas. The present paper reflects that co-operative learning makes teaching–learning more satisfying, momentous, enjoyable and effective.

The Road Ahead

This chapter notes that most discussions around critical thinking and Socratic problem solving before this book was published described interactions between humans. However, as shown in this chapter, computers can not only automate the Socratic problem-solving process but can enhance its advantages for individuals, teams, and organizations in ways that only a computer can do. This chapter looks at eight ways that Socrates DigitalTM can be enhanced to create better solutions for problem solvers in less time.

Problem-Solving With Data and Information

This chapter begins by looking at how humans learn and solve problems with data and information. However, the authors note that the actual steps for problem-solving remain a mystery to most problem solvers. They also look at learning and problem solving with technology in this chapter. This chapter also presents digital advisors as a breakthrough technology for assisting humans in problem solving. While promising, this approach relies on humans to ask the right questions. At the end of this chapter, the authors saw that computer-based Socratic problem solving addresses this shortcoming by guiding the user through all the “right” questions needing answers to solve the problem at hand.

Online Learning with the Use of WebVT Vista

The primary goal of this chapter is to offer reflections on various aspects of the use of WebCT Vista in onlinebusiness education at Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia, U.S.A.. The chapter argues that with theproper systems in place, including adequate technology and support and the cooperation of educational administrators, WebCT Vista can augment current educational systems in remarkable ways. The chapter also argues that the use of WebCT strongly contributes to theeffectiveness of distance learning by improving the quality of students’ learning in the areas: of critical thinking; problem solving, decision-making, attention to detail, written communications, and organizational and analytical skills. The assessment tool presented in this chapter wasused to obtain students’ feedback concerning their learningoutcomes with and without the use of WebCT Vista. In general, most students positively evaluated the effect of WebCT Vista on their learning within areas such as critical thinking, problem solving, decision-making ability, oral communication, written communication, knowledge of information, and the ability to organize and analyze. As theresults of the above analysis indicate, almost all students benefited from using WebCT.

Deep Flow: Scientific Schema for Complex Problem Solving

Complex problem solvers are occasionally able to solve the problem by framing the problem properly and by engaging deeply to solve them. But there are times when the solvers experience an impasse and the problem just can’t be solved. We propose this as a pivoting point in complex problem solving, which requires the solver to, counter-intuitively, detach from the problem (instead of spending more effort in framing the problem and/or focusing on solving it). This disengagement prepares the ground for willful synthesis of both processed and unprocessed information streams – either automatically or through an interactive process. The outcome of synthesis is an aggregated solution which transcends the impasse and enables the solver to find an innovative and complete solution. This is often accompanied with a feeling of attunement, an intuitive sense of completeness. While it is possible to solve complex problems in an ad-hoc way, we outline a scientifically underpinned schema that governs this process. This process, which we refer to as Deep Flow, has four steps: (1) Frame, (2) Engage, (3) Disengage and (4) Synthesize. Deep Flow culminates in a feeling of attunement and creates positive affect. As solvers intentionally engage with Deep Flow, they can invoke the necessary steps at will. It empowers solvers to solve complex complex problems efficiently; also, the sense of attunement inspires them to tackle more complex problems in a comprehensive manner.

KEMAMPUAN MAHASISWA PENDIDIKAN MATEMATIKA DALAM MEMECAHKAN MASALAH DI AWAL DAN AKHIR SEMESTER PERTAMA

Problem solving ability is main goal of students in learning mathematics. Lectures should be able to improve the ability. This reasearch aimed to describe ability ofstudents at the beginning and end of first semester academic year 2016/2017 in solving mathematical problems. The research subjects were 71 students of mathematicseducation program class of 2016 from one of the universities in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. At the beginning and the end of first semester, each subject was given sixmathematical problems. The problems at the beginning and the end of semester were similar only differently in numbers. The result showed that average score of the students at the beginning and the end of first semester were 7.97 and 9.18 (scale 0 - 24), respectively. The scores increased significantly with a 95% confidence level. Theincreasng caused 8.4% of the students who were classified as naive problem solvers increased their ability becomed routine problem solvers. No students have improved their ability becomed good problem solvers.

Latin American Philosophers: Some Recent Challenges to Their Intellectual Character

For Latin American philosophers, the quality of their own philosophy is a recurrent issue. Why hasn’t it produced any internationally recognized figure, tradition, or movement? Why is it mostly unknown inside and outside Latin America? Although skeptical answers to these questions are not new, they have recently shifted to some critical-thinking competences and dispositions deemed necessary for successful philosophical theorizing. Latin American philosophers are said to lack, for example, originality in problem-solving, problem-making, argumentation, and to some extent, interpretation. Or does the problem arise from their vices of “arrogant reasoning?” On my view, all of these answers are incomplete, and some even self-defeating. Yet they cast some light on complex, critical-thinking virtues and vices that play a significant role in philosophical thinking.

Developing the student worksheet with problem-solving approach to improve critical thinking skills and the concept understanding of physics

The study aimed to investigate the quality of the developed student worksheet with a problem-solving approach in line to the determined criteria and the improvement of students’ critical thinking skills and the conceptual understanding of physics by implementing the student’s worksheet. This study was a research and development study by applying the development model by Borg & Gall. The try out subjects of validation product were students of grades X and XI of MAN (Islamic High School) Yogyakarta III. The data collection techniques used validation sheets, observation sheets, evaluation sheets of student’s worksheet, and tests. The product of this research was student’s worksheet with a problem-solving approach on the topic of optical instruments for grade X of senior high school. The evaluation of student’s worksheet by experts, teachers, peer reviewers, and students are at the best categories for learning, construct, and technical aspects. The gained standard score of students’ conceptual understanding and students’ critical thinking skills for grade X who learned through student’s worksheet with a problem-solving approach, called treatment class, were higher than students who learned without student’s worksheet with a problem-solving approach, called control class.

Export Citation Format

Share document.

The Socratic Method: Engaging Students in Critical Thinking and Dialogue

Most educators would agree that effectively engaging students in critical thinking and dialogue is a fundamental yet challenging aspect of quality teaching.

The Socratic method provides a structured approach to questioning that fosters critical thinking skills, analytical abilities, and confident participation among students of all ages.

In this article, we will explore the origin, core components, and practical classroom applications of the Socratic method to equip teachers with strategies to meaningfully engage students in rich dialogue and self-directed inquiry.

Introduction to the Socratic Method

The Socratic method is a form of philosophical inquiry and debate developed by the Greek philosopher Socrates in the 5th century BCE. At its core, the method uses probing questions to expose contradictions, test hypotheses, and stimulate critical thinking .

Origin and Definition

The Socratic method is named after its creator, Socrates, who lived in ancient Athens. He would engage fellow philosophers and citizens in thoughtful dialogue to encourage them to reflect critically on commonly held beliefs.

The Socratic method can be defined as a cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals with opposing viewpoints. The purpose is to stimulate critical thinking and draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

Core Components of the Socratic Method

The key elements of the Socratic method include:

• Asking open-ended questions that do not suggest an answer
• Identifying contradictions in thinking
• Considering alternate perspectives
• Testing hypotheses and challenging assumptions

The method aims to clarify concepts, distinguish ideas, and eliminate egocentric tendencies through reasoned discourse.

Understanding the Socratic Method Definition

The Socratic method is more than just asking questions. Its definition focuses on cooperative critical inquiry that analyzes knowledge and questions beliefs, assumptions, and viewpoints held by participants. This process of intellectual exchange illuminates ideas and enables discovery of new insights.

In essence, the Socratic method uses inquiry, debate, and open discussion to stimulate analytical thinking and bring ideas to the forefront of conscious awareness.

What is the Socratic Method of critical thinking?

The Socratic method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions.

It is named after the Greek philosopher Socrates and is introduced by him in Plato's Theaetetus as midwifery (maieutics) because it brings ideas to light.

Key aspects of the Socratic method

• It centers on asking open-ended questions and answering them – each answer giving rise to further questions.
• It is intended to challenge ideas, reveal underlying assumptions, and lead to new conclusions.
• It focuses on seeking clarity, evidence, and critical assessment.
• It aims to stimulate analytical thinking skills.
• It establishes context and tests viewpoints for consistency.
• It can foster dialectic learning through discourse.

The Socratic method encourages critical thinking, invokes thoughtful reflection, and aims to reveal irrational or illogical thinking in order to make way for more reasoned and robust ideas. Through this process of continual inquiry, participants can identify inconsistencies in their own beliefs or knowledge.

Ultimately, the Socratic method employs systematic questioning to develop critical awareness, analyze problems, uncover potential solutions, and empower individuals to reason their way to knowledge.

How does the Socratic style of dialogue promote learning?

The Socratic method of teaching is based on Socrates' style of questioning his students to draw out their existing knowledge and challenge their assumptions. This method promotes active learning and critical thinking in several key ways:

Fosters Student Participation

• The Socratic method relies on a back-and-forth dialogue between teacher and students.
• By posing thoughtful questions, the teacher prompts students to articulate their ideas, analyze concepts, and make connections.
• This participatory style boosts student engagement and motivation to learn.

Develops Critical Thinking Skills

• Students learn to carefully evaluate their beliefs and form reasoned arguments to build or defend a viewpoint.
• As students analyze others' logic and provide counterexamples, this strengthens their higher-order thinking abilities.
• The exploratory questioning teaches students to identify gaps in their knowledge.

Promotes Deeper Understanding

• Challenging students' assumptions pushes them to think more deeply about what they know and how they know it.
• Articulating their mental models out loud enables students to refine their knowledge.
• The dialogue format helps students gain nuanced perspectives on complex topics.

In summary, the Socratic questioning approach promotes an inquisitive, collaborative environment ideal for developing critical thought and gaining multilayered understanding. By tackling ideas together through dialogue, students and teachers embark on a shared journey of insight.

What is the primary purpose of the Socratic Method?

The primary purpose of the Socratic method is to engage students in critical thinking and dialogue. By asking a series of probing questions, the Socratic method aims to get students to think more deeply about the topic at hand, question their own assumptions, evaluate the strength of arguments, and arrive at reasoned conclusions.

Some key objectives and benefits of using the Socratic method include:

Teaching students to think critically rather than passively accept arguments. The questioning process requires them to examine claims more closely.

Identifying inconsistencies in thinking. By going through the questioning process, flaws in logic or reasoning often become exposed.

Drawing out ideas and perspectives. Asking the right questions prompts students to articulate their thoughts and brings differing viewpoints to light.

Instilling intellectual humility. Students learn that the purpose is not to "win" arguments but to cooperatively seek truth through examination of ideas.

Developing communication skills. Responding to questions requires students to improve how they articulate thoughts.

Encouraging active learning. The dialogue format requires all students to participate rather than sitting passively.

The Socratic method develops critical thinking skills that serve students well both inside and outside the classroom. It teaches them to carefully evaluate arguments and claims as responsible citizens and thinkers.

What is the point of Socratic dialogue?

The goal of Socratic dialogue in the classroom is to engage students in critical thinking and ethical reasoning on complex topics. The teacher takes on the role of facilitator, using a series of probing questions to guide students towards examining issues from multiple perspectives and evaluating their own beliefs.

Some key benefits of Socratic dialogue include:

Promotes critical thinking skills: By responding to thought-provoking questions, students learn how to think logically, question assumptions, and construct reasoned arguments.

Encourages moral reasoning: Wrestling with ethical dilemmas in a collaborative setting helps students develop stronger capacities for moral judgment.

Fosters deeper understanding: Challenging students' initial opinions leads to self-reflection and a more nuanced grasp of complex subjects.

Teaches listening and communication abilities: Dialogic participation calls for patience, empathy and tolerance of different viewpoints from peers.

Creates an engaging classroom dynamic: The teacher takes on a guiding role, while students drive the discovery process through discussion.

The goal is not to arrive at definitive answers, but to achieve broader understanding on issues through collaborative inquiry. Students sharpen their thinking and communication abilities while gaining appreciation of multiple perspectives on meaningful topics.

The Three Steps of the Socratic Method

The Socratic method is a technique for stimulating critical thinking and analysis through a series of systematic questions. It involves three key steps:

Elenchus: The Art of Questioning

The first step in the Socratic method is elenchus, which refers to the back-and-forth questioning between teacher and students. The teacher poses thoughtful, probing questions to clarify beliefs, challenge assumptions, and reveal logical contradictions. Sample elenchus questions include:

• What evidence supports this claim?
• How does this relate to our earlier conclusion?
• What ambiguities need to be addressed?

Elenchus enables students to carefully reflect on the strength of an argument, rather than accepting it at face value.

Inductive Reasoning

The second step involves inductive reasoning to move from specific examples to broader generalizations. Through elenchus questioning, students analyze individual cases and phenomena. The teacher then guides them to make connections and identify patterns leading to tentative hypotheses.

For instance, by examining multiple legal cases, students induce core principles of justice. Or by analyzing poetic devices across poems, they generalize structures of metaphor and syntax.

Hypothesis Formation

In the final step, students form new hypotheses and conclusions based on the questioning and analysis. These hypotheses explain the examples covered in the dialogue and can be tested further through additional questioning.

The end goal is for students to construct knowledge by critically examining evidence, distilling insights from examples, and forming defensible conclusions. The Socratic method develops transferable skills in analysis, evaluation, and creative problem solving.

sbb-itb-bb2be89

Importance of the socratic method in education.

The Socratic method is a discussion-based teaching approach that promotes critical thinking, analytical reasoning, and thoughtful dialogue. By systematically questioning ideas, principles, and assumptions, students learn to carefully scrutinize beliefs, uncover assumptions, and build rational arguments. This develops essential skills for higher education and beyond.

Engaging Students in Critical Thinking

The Socratic method actively engages students in the learning process through inquiry, debate, and group discussion. Instead of passively receiving information, students are prompted to think critically about what they know and challenge their own assumptions. This promotes active learning and higher-order thinking skills like analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. Through dialogue and questioning, students also improve communication abilities.

Fostering Analytical Skills in 6-8 Middle School

Middle school is an ideal time to develop analytical habits of mind through the Socratic method. Open-ended Socratic questioning teaches students to carefully evaluate concepts from multiple perspectives, identify logical fallacies, and construct well-reasoned arguments. This builds essential skills for detecting bias, assessing credibility, and making sound judgments.

Preparing 9-12 High School Students for Higher Education

In high school, the Socratic method helps students develop the advanced reasoning skills needed for college-level critical analysis. By formulating logical arguments, justifying claims, and considering counterarguments, students build proficiency in skills like inference, deduction, inductive reasoning, and logical problem solving. This level of analytical sophistication prepares them to excel in higher education across disciplines.

The Role of the Socratic Method in Philosophy Education

As a foundational pedagogy in philosophy, the Socratic method builds skills in conceptual analysis, ethical reasoning, and epistemology. By examining the logical soundness of belief systems, students learn to construct philosophically rigorous arguments and critically analyze schools of thought. This develops conceptual clarity, intellectual humility, rational skepticism, and an understanding of complex philosophical ideas that is essential to the discipline.

Practical Application of the Socratic Method in Classrooms

Socratic method steps for teachers.

Here are the key steps for teachers to implement the Socratic method:

• Pose an open-ended question or present a scenario that requires critical thinking
• Call on students and ask them to share their initial thoughts and analysis
• Ask probing follow-up questions to get students to evaluate their assumptions and logic
• Let students debate each other, playing devil's advocate when needed
• Draw out any contradictions in thinking; challenge students to resolve inconsistencies
• Synthesize key learning and insights that emerged from the dialogue

Following this process engages students in critical dialogue while uncovering deeper meaning.

Questioning Techniques to Engage Critical Thinking

Types of questions to spark rich discussion:

• Clarification questions to better understand students' positions
• Probing questions that push students to examine their underlying premises
• Hypotheticals scenarios to check the consistency of arguments
• Devil's advocate questions to encourage debate between positions
• Linking questions to find connections between ideas

Managing the Dialogue for Effective Learning

Strategies to facilitate respectful exchanges:

• Set ground rules for dialogue and reiterate the goals of mutual understanding
• Ensure balanced participation so all voices are heard
• Guide discussion and pose follow-up questions to move the analysis forward
• Correct misunderstandings and summarize key insights
• Wrap up each session by synthesizing critical takeaways

Encouraging Participation from Every Student

Getting all students engaged:

• Think-pair-share activities to promote idea exchange
• Assign roles like "devil's advocate" or "discussion leader"
• Solicit alternative perspectives, including dissenting ones
• Scaffold questions from basic clarifications to deeper analysis
• Praise thoughtful contributions regardless of "right" answers
• Follow up privately with shy students to include them

Following these practical tips will lead to vibrant intellectual dialogue that unlocks students' critical thinking potential.

Applying the Socratic Method Beyond Philosophy

The Socratic method, developed by the Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals that aims to stimulate critical thinking and draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. Initially devised as a philosophical teaching technique, the method has since been adapted for use in various other fields beyond philosophy.

Socratic Method in Law School

The Socratic method is widely used in American law schools to train students to think like lawyers. By engaging students in a series of questions that reveal the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, professors encourage the development of critical analysis skills crucial for legal practice. Students learn to swiftly evaluate scenarios, weigh multiple perspectives, and articulate reasoned defenses of their positions. This aims to prepare them to argue cases in courtrooms after graduation.

Law professors modify the technique by focusing the dialogue on legal principles and precedents rather than abstract ideas. Questions probe the rationales behind existing laws and judicial rulings, pressing students to justify established doctrine. This forces them to think within the structures of the legal system while still questioning assumptions. The method equips students with the capacity for the critical yet grounded analysis required of legal professionals.

Interdisciplinary Teaching Strategies

While devised as a philosophical approach, the questioning nature of the Socratic method aligns with constructivist learning theories that emphasize active student participation over passive absorption of information. Educators across disciplines have adapted the technique to engage students, facilitate comprehension through teaching dialogues, and promote the higher-order thinking skills required for success in the 21st century.

In subjects like English literature, Socratic questioning guides students in interpreting themes and literary devices in texts. Scientific fields use the method to lead students toward conceptual understanding by scaffolding principled questioning. Mathematics and programming instructors employ technique to foster logical reasoning skills. Across disciplines, the approach centers critical analysis, evaluation of ideas, and thoughtful dialogue.

When applied broadly, the Socratic method equips students with transferable critical and creative thinking abilities. Questioning techniques teach structured evaluation of claims, evidence, differing viewpoints, and underlying assumptions. This builds the intellectual values that form the foundation of lifelong learning across academic and professional careers. The method can elevate classroom discourse beyond rote fact delivery toward the development of analytical thought and communication excellence.

Benefits for Students' Development

Promotes critical thinking and problem-solving.

The Socratic method requires students to evaluate arguments, identify logical fallacies, and reconsider beliefs. By repeatedly probing the reasoning behind ideas, it pushes students to think critically rather than accept claims at face value. This builds essential problem-solving skills that students can apply to academic work and real-world issues.

Develops Communication Abilities and Confidence

Through dialogue and debate, the Socratic method offers opportunities for students to improve public speaking, listening, and reasoning abilities. Having to clearly articulate and defend ideas builds confidence and communication skills. Students learn to craft persuasive arguments, integrate different viewpoints, and identify weaknesses in thinking.

Deepens Understanding and Facilitates Lifelong Learning

Questioning and explaining concepts cements students' comprehension of material, versus just passively receiving information. By articulating their knowledge, identifying gaps, and resolving misconceptions through discussion, students gain clearer and deeper mastery of content. This self-reflection promotes metacognition and skills for self-directed learning beyond school.

Challenges and Responses in Socratic Teaching

Classroom management during socratic dialogues.

The free-flowing nature of Socratic dialogues can present classroom management challenges. Here are some tips:

Set clear expectations and ground rules for respectful discussion from the start. Reinforce these regularly.

Use methods like talking sticks or balls to designate speakers. This prevents multiple students from speaking at once.

Have students sit in a circle or horseshoe shape. This encourages active listening and participation.

Give specific positive feedback when students demonstrate good dialogue habits. This reinforces productive behaviors.

If chaos ensues, pause the dialogue. Regain student attention, then reflect on what went wrong before restarting.

Assessment Techniques for Critical Thinking Skills

Assessing critical thinking development requires going beyond traditional tests. Recommended methods include:

Student self-assessments - Have students rate their understanding before and after Socratic lessons using short surveys. Compare results over time.

Dialogue observations - Take notes on student reasoning exhibited during dialogues. Are they asking probing questions? Justifying positions logically? Identify growth areas.

Reflective writing - Assign regular journaling on lesson topics. Analyze skills like reasoning, questioning assumptions, considering multiple perspectives.

Debate analyses - Have students debate controversial issues in small groups. Evaluate their argumentation techniques against a rubric.

Concept maps - Ask students to create visual maps of lesson concepts, linking ideas. Assess organization, connections made, insights demonstrated.

No single approach can fully capture critical thinking progress. Using a combination of complementary techniques helps provide a comprehensive picture of each student's development in this complex skill domain.

Conclusion: Embracing the Socratic Method for Educational Excellence

The Socratic method is a powerful teaching technique that focuses on asking questions to stimulate critical thinking and dialogue. By embracing this method, teachers can reap immense benefits in developing students' higher-order abilities.

Here are some key advantages of using the Socratic method:

Promotes critical thinking: The method's reliance on probing questions forces students to thoroughly analyze concepts, evaluate perspectives, and articulate reasoned judgments. This builds critical analysis skills.

Develops communication abilities: By having to explain their rationale through dialogue, students learn how to present thoughts logically, make persuasive arguments, and articulate ideas effectively.

Encourages intellectual humility: The non-confrontational question-based format requires open-mindedness in considering different viewpoints. This creates an intellectually humble learning culture.

Energizes classroom engagement: The stimulating back-and-forth conversation makes learning interactive and engaging, keeping students intellectually invested.

Allows customized learning: Teachers can tailor questions to each student's level, helping scaffold understanding and achieve personalized breakthroughs.

Adopting the Socratic method takes practice - both for teachers learning how to artfully form questions and guide discussion, as well as for students adjusting to this intellectually demanding format. But the long-term dividends make it profoundly worthwhile, as seen in students developing into discerning thinkers and skilled communicators. By embracing this method, schools can nurture the foundational higher-order abilities that are vital for future success.

Related posts

• Teaching Resources for Teachers: Cultivate Critical Thinking
• How to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Students
• Teacher Worksheets: Enhancing Student Engagement
• STEM Activities for Kids: Classroom Integration

The Power of Habit: Book Review for Teachers

Teaching Quotes and Classroom Strategies

AI Lesson Planner: A Gateway to Personalized Education

Become a buddy..

Join 500+ teachers getting free goodies every week. 📚

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• What was education like in ancient Athens?
• How does social class affect education attainment?
• When did education become compulsory?
• What are alternative forms of education?
• Do school vouchers offer students access to better education?

Socratic method

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - The fact of ignorance, Revisiting the Socratic Method as a tool for teaching critical thinking
• Classical Liberal Arts Academy - What is the Socratic Method?
• CORE - The Socratic Method Reloaded: How to make work in Large Classes?

Socratic method , a form of logical argumentation originated by the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (c. 470–399 bce ). Although the term is now generally used as a name for any educational strategy that involves the cross-examination of students by their teacher, the method used by Socrates in the conversations re-created by his student Plato (428/427–348/347 bce ) follows a more specific pattern: Socrates describes himself not as a teacher but as an ignorant inquirer, and the series of questions he asks are designed to show that the principal question he raises (for example, “What is piety?”) is one to which his interlocutor has no adequate answer. Typically, the interlocutor is led, by a series of supplementary questions, to see that he must withdraw the answer he at first gave to Socrates’ principal question, because that answer falls afoul of the other answers he has given. The method employed by Socrates, in other words, is a strategy for showing that the interlocutor’s several answers do not fit together as a group, thus revealing to the interlocutor his own poor grasp of the concepts under discussion.

In Plato’s Socratic dialogue Euthyphro , for example, the character after whom the dialogue is named, having been asked what piety is, replies that it is whatever is “dear to the gods.” Socrates continues to probe, and the ensuing give-and-take can be summarized as follows:

• Socrates : Are piety and impiety opposites?
• Euthyphro : Yes.
• Socrates : Are the gods in disagreement with each other about what is good, what is just, and so on?
• Socrates : So the very same actions are loved by some gods and hated by others?
• Socrates : So those same actions are both pious and impious?

The interlocutor, having been refuted by means of premises he himself has agreed to, is free to propose a new answer to Socrates’ principal question, or another conversational partner, who has been listening to the preceding dialogue, is allowed to take his place. But although the new answers proposed to Socrates’ principal question avoid the errors revealed in the preceding cross-examination, fresh difficulties are uncovered, and, in the end, the “ignorance” of Socrates is revealed as a kind of wisdom, whereas the interlocutors are implicitly criticized for failing to realize their own ignorance.

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that, because Socrates professes ignorance about certain questions, he suspends judgment about all matters whatsoever. On the contrary, he has some ethical convictions about which he is completely confident. As he tells his judges in his defense speech during his trial for impiety and corrupting the young (as rendered in Plato’s dialogue Apology ): human wisdom begins with the recognition of one’s own ignorance; the unexamined life is not worth living; ethical virtue is the only thing that matters; and truly good human beings cannot be harmed (because no matter what misfortune they may suffer—including poverty, physical injury, and even death—their virtue will remain intact). But Socrates is painfully aware that his insights into these matters leave many of the most important ethical questions unanswered. It is left to his student Plato, using the Socratic method as a starting point and ranging over subjects that Socrates neglected, to offer positive answers to these questions.

What Is Socratic Questioning and How to Use It for Self-Analysis and Problem-Solving

• Post author: Francesca Forsythe, LL.M., M.Phil.
• Post published: April 16, 2018
• Reading time: 7 mins read
• Post category: Self-Improvement / Self-Knowledge & Personality Tests

Socratic questioning can help you reach a different conclusion to the questions you were asking. This can be useful when dealing with problems and insecurities.

Aside from Plato , Socrates is one of the most famous Greek philosophers and is regarded as one of the wisest people ever to have lived. Socrates used an educational process which sought to discover the answers to questions by allowing his students to examine ideas more closely and evaluate the validity or truth of the subject matter.  His method, also known as Socratic questioning , follows the form of disciplined questioning so that we are able to pursue a thought in many directions to determine its validity.

Socrates may not have meant his methods to have profound input into psychology or self-care. Still, his method has been put to use time and time again in all areas of critical thinking , and it can help us to better understand ourselves.

What is Socratic questioning?

Socratic method is a form of critical thinking which uses six distinct types of question to help you question your question . It’s a lot less confusing than it sounds when you take a look at some examples of such questions:

Questions for clarification:

• Why do you say that?
• How is this related?
• Could you explain this in more detail?

Questions which produce assumptions:

• What can we assume from this?
• What does that mean?
• Can you verify your assumption?

Questions which necessitate reason or evidence:

• Do you have an example of this in real life?
• What has caused you to believe this?
• Why do you think this happened?

Questions regarding perspectives:

• Is there another way to look at this?
• Have you thought of the other person’s point of view?
• Who benefits and who loses from this consequence?

Questions which calculate consequences:

• What is the implication of this?
• Does this relate to previous knowledge?
• How does X affect Y?

Questions on the question:

• What does this mean?
• How can you apply this in your everyday life?
• What was the point of this enquiry?

Why is Socratic questioning relevant to us?

Socratic questioning can help you reach a different conclusion to the questions you were asking . It will also lead you to a better understanding of the question itself and its purpose in your everyday life. Although it is typically an analytical method, it can be used in a personal sphere with a little tailoring.

There are a number of ways we can use Socratic questioning. Its most notable use in psychology is for self-analysis and problem-solving .

Socratic questioning can indisputably help us in self-analysis . By applying pointed questions to our issues or insecurities , we can begin to change our minds and our thinking about certain issues.

Take an example of feeling insecure at work ; you’re not doing as good a job as you think you are able.

The first thing to ask yourself might be why you are feeling this way .

Perhaps it’s because your boss criticised you or you didn’t complete an important project by the deadline. From this, you might assume that you are bad at your job.

Next, we look at whether or not we have any genuine evidence of this in the real world . My bets are, there isn’t.

Once we realise that there is no real evidence of your lack of skill at work, we can move onto other reasons or perspectives that may cause you to feel this way .

If your boss criticised you, it may be because they, themselves, are having a bad day. If you didn’t complete a project on time or to the standard you hold yourself to, it may have been a project you weren’t used to, or you didn’t have sufficient time or help.

The implication of this is that we may not always perform at our best, for a number of reasons. It may also be that we must accept that our bosses are human too, and we may not have deserved the critiques we received.

If the implication is that you were not prepared for the project or didn’t have the correct skill set, we could then take this as a learning experience , rather than a negative one.

By taking a negative feeling and using this pointed analysis, we can begin to see that our own insecurities can take over, not allowing us to see a situation as it truly is. And this is also true in solving difficult problems.

Let’s take the example of Jack and Jill.

Jack has created an information flier for his business and has sent it to Jill for reviewing and distribution. However, the flier uses small text and a lot of content, which Jill fears people may not read.

So, Jill deploys Socratic reasoning to solve the issue. By using questions which calculate the consequences of telling Jack his flier is too long, and questions which appreciate Jack’s point of view, Jill knows that Jack worked hard on this flier and doesn’t want to offend him by telling him it’s too long or hard to read.

Instead, Jill asks Jack if he believes the length is right to keep people’s interest. Jack doesn’t get offended by Jill’s comment, but she has also helped him to understand what the correct length of a flier might be in the future. By helping Jack, Jill has also improved her own methods of communication and conflict resolution .

Although these examples are simple, they say a lot about how to analyse and evaluate the outcomes of a question or issue. They also show us how we can approach situations differently to achieve a better outcome.

Socratic questioning is an easy tool to use . With practice, it can hone a number of skills to make you much more successful in work ventures as well as in your personal life.

References :

• https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1052768.pdf

Like what you are reading? Subscribe to our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss new thought-provoking articles!

Share this story share this content.

• Opens in a new window Facebook
• Opens in a new window X
• Opens in a new window LinkedIn
• Opens in a new window Reddit
• Opens in a new window Tumblr

This Post Has 4 Comments

Excellent. I shared the article with many of my friends. Thank you so much for sharing.

Good to review this after all my years in school. I think the Socratic method is very useful in the sciences and certainly we all use portions of this method to address and analyze personal issues, solve problems, learn new things like a new job and deal with the various people in our lives. Thanks for this article!

You consistently post very good articles. This one well done as usual. It is good to have you here.

Wow.. That job example you said, it made me recollect my past experience. Super !! Kudos to You

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Open access
• Published: 20 March 2023

Thinking more wisely: using the Socratic method to develop critical thinking skills amongst healthcare students

• Yueh-Ren Ho 1 , 2 ,
• Bao-Yu Chen 3 &
• Chien-Ming Li 2 , 4  

BMC Medical Education volume  23 , Article number:  173 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

9 Citations

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

In medicine, critical thinking is required for managing and tolerating medical uncertainty, as well as solving professional problems and treating diseases. However, the core of Confucianism, teacher-centered and exam-oriented settings in middle and high school education may pose challenges to developing critical thinking in Han Chinese or Taiwanese students. Students may be adversely affected by these pedagogies since student-centered settings were more effective in stimulating their critical and reflective thinking, as well as a sense of responsibility, in the ever-changing world. Therefore, guiding students with less stable foundations of critical thinking might require a different approach. A review article highlighted the potential utility of the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking in the healthcare field. The method involves posing a series of questions to students. More importantly, medical students and residents in clinical teaching are familiar with the method. Almost all healthcare students must complete a biochemistry laboratory course as part of their basic science training. Thus, we aimed to train students to develop critical thinking in the biochemistry laboratory course by using learning sheets and teacher guidance based on the Socratic method and questioning.

We recruited second-year students from a medical school, of whom 32 had medical science and biotechnology majors (MSB), 27 had pharmaceutical science majors (PS), and 85 were medical undergraduate (MU) students. An exercise in critical thinking was conducted during a biochemistry laboratory course, which consisted of five different biochemical experiments, along with learning sheets that contained three or four critical thinking questions. Then, the teacher evaluated the students’ ability to think critically based on nine intellectual dimensions (clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fairness, and significance) based on the universal intellectual standards developed by Prof. Linda Elder and Richard Paul. In the following analysis, regression models and multivariate analysis were used to determine how students improved over time, and trajectory analysis were carried out in order to observe the trends in students’ critical thinking skills construction.

Clarity and logic dimensions were identified as the key elements to facilitate the development of critical thinking skills through learning sheets and teacher guidance in students across all three different healthcare majors. The results showed that metacognitive monitoring via Socratic questioning learning sheets have demonstrated potential encourage students to develop critical thinking skills in all dimensions. Another unique contribution of current study was present the heterogeneous learning patterns and progress trajectories of clarity and logic dimensions within classes.

Using the Socratic learning model could effectively develop students’ critical thinking skills so they can more effectively care for their patients.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Emerging trends in information technology requires that the new generation of medical students become critical thinkers [ 1 ]. The General Medical Council (GMC) of the United Kingdom encourages teachers to facilitate the acquisition of critical thinking skills by students in the medical and health professions [ 2 ]. Decades of research have proven that critical thinkers can present dispositions like flexibility, persistence, and willingness when faced with a range of tasks; they display meta-cognitive monitoring and a willingness to self-correct to seek long-term consensus[ 3 ]. Although, critical thinking is constructed from childhood in most Western countries and are valued by higher education as a necessary skill for coping with society [ 4 ]. However, critical thinking constructing and teaching has attracted little attention in Eastern education systems until recently [ 5 , 6 ].

Aside from the development of critical thinking skills is a key component of educational systems, recent educational philosophy also emphasizes both thinking processes as well as metacognitive integration skills [ 7 ]. Metacognitive monitoring includes making ease-of-learning judgments (i.e., processing fluency and beliefs), judgments of learning, feeling-of-knowing judgments (i.e., assessing the familiarity of the cue and the question itself or the domain of the question), and having confidence in the retrieved answers [ 8 , 9 ]. It is an adaptive skill of personal insight that health-profession students need to succeed in the rapidly changing and challenging healthcare industry [ 2 , 10 ]. Despite this, higher education curriculum does not emphasize on teaching these skills [ 7 ]. Additionally, any attempts to change the standards in higher education are generally met with resistance and challenges since they are require to encourage teachers to create new curriculum and change the current teaching content by researchers in current study who have more than 40 years’ teaching experience observaions. Healthcare curriculum, in general, remains conservative; Taiwan is not an exception.

Critical thinking is a fundamental component of innovative thinking and has thus become the fundamental skill for cultivating innovative talents in Western education [ 11 ]. Western scholars have asserted that teaching critical thinking should start at an early age and that its foundations should be laid in elementary and secondary schools. There are many ways to define critical thinking. A leading educational expert, Prof. Dewey, defined critical thinking as inclusive of reflective thinking and argued that the thinking process should also be taken as one of the objectives of education [ 12 ]. There are a few general dispositions that an ideal critical thinker would present according to Prof. Ennis’ observation of the constitutive abilities, such as (1) provide a clear statement of the conclusion or question; (2) provide clear reasons and be specific about their relationships with each other; (3) try to be well informed; (4) always seek and use credible sources, observations and mention them frequently; (5) consider the entire situation; (6) be mindful of the context’s primary concern; (7) be aware of alternative options; (8) be open-minded toward other points of view and refrain from making a judgment when there are insufficient evidence and reasons; (9) be willing to change your position when sufficient evidence and reasons support it; (10) seek as much precision as the nature of the subject admits; (11) whenever possible, seek the truth, and more broadly, strive to “get it right”; and (12) utilize their critical thinking abilities and dispositions [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. In the eyes of Profs. Dewey and Ennis, critical thinking is a process of careful thought and reflection before a decision is made [ 17 ].

Nevertheless, the measurement or evaluation of critical thinking skills and abilities does not seem easy. Based on another perspective on critical thinking, intellectual standards are evolving [ 18 ]. According to Profs. Elder and Paul, critical thinking is the ability to use the most appropriate reasoning in any situation [ 18 ]. To evaluate these abilities, they established nine dimensions of critical thinking to represent different aspects of critical thinking: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, significance, and fairness [ 18 ]. As Profs. Elder and Paul concluded, those who possess discipline and critical thinking skills would make use of intellectual standards every day; thus, people should target these standards when they ask questions during the thinking process [ 18 , 19 ]. As a result of teachers’ regular introduction of the tools of critical thinking in their classrooms, the Socratic questioning and discussions become more productive and disciplined, thereby enabling students to realize the significance of questioning during the learning process [ 20 , 21 , 22 ].

According to a review article, teaching critical thinking to healthcare students (primarily medical and pharmacy students) through Socratic methods is more effective in developing critical thinking for a number of reasons [ 23 ]. In particular, Socratic questioning provides students with the opportunity to justify their own preconceived beliefs and thoughts after a series of specific, targeted inquiries [ 24 ]. Using Socratic questioning can also assist healthcare students, interns, or residents in thinking critically by understanding the “deep structure” of the question, i.e., deconstructing the question and understanding its true meaning [ 23 ]. The effectiveness of Socratic questioning lies in ascertaining the current knowledge of the students [ 25 ] and establishing a foundation for teaching at their level [ 26 ]. The teacher can accomplish this probing by asking progressively more challenging questions until the limits of the students’ knowledge are discovered [ 25 , 27 , 28 ], as well as by allowing students to express their existing knowledge, which in turn will allow them to synthesize new knowledge [ 26 ], and the dialogue represents the Socratic method [ 29 ]. Alternatively, a critical thinker is more likely to engage in certain established metacognitive strategies under the Socratic paradigm and/or channel the intellectual dimensions of critical thinking [ 17 ].

Unfortunately, Han Chinese students have struggled with learning critical thinking, which is thought to be part of their characterological profile [ 30 ]. This struggle has been faced by students studying abroad [ 11 ] and in students enrolled in the Han Chinese education system, which mainly cultivates Confucianism [ 31 ]. There are at least two types of problems with developing critical thinking in Han Chinese or Taiwanese education. The first involves the core of Confucianism, where foreign teachers have tried to promote critical thinking in elementary and high schools but sensed ethical concerns from the students who refused to participate. This is likely because if they chose to participate, they would have felt obligated to express disagreement and negative feelings to the instructor. The Han Chinese culture values harmony and “not losing face,” emphasizing a holistic perspective and collective good. Thus, students would feel uncomfortable because disagreeing with someone’s opinion in public is consciously or often avoided [ 30 ]. Therefore, encouraging the student to participate in healthy discussions and respectfully challenge their teachers is the starting point for promoting critical thinking in students enrolled in the Han Chinese educational system.

Second, in the Western education approach, learners take an active role in and are responsible for their learning process. On the contrary, the Han Chinese and Taiwan education systems are teacher-centered and exam-oriented; students are expected to follow their teachers’ instructions and perform well in class. More importantly, the textbook or teacher-centered framework lacks half of Ennis’s twelve constitutive abilities for critical thinking [ 13 , 14 , 15 ], such as judging the credibility of a source, observing and judging observation reports, drawing explanatory conclusions (including hypotheses), making and judging value judgments, and attributing unstated assumptions. As a result, Han Chinese students may find it difficult to develop critical thinking skills and present key traits and dispositions that are indicative of an ideal critical thinker. Hence, guiding and evaluating critical thinking in students might not be implemented through the same approach in Eastern educational circumstances as in the West. By understanding the difficulties that Han Chinese students face in developing critical thinking, the current study aims to design a set of critical thinking models that are suitable for Han Chinese students as a starting point for reform teaching.

Research questions, hypotheses and objectives

Research has shown that the laboratory class is not just limited to a step-wise approach to experimentation. It also allows students to develop their critical thinking skills by repeatedly engaging a simple learning framework [ 32 ]. To explore this further, the current study’s primary purpose is to use Socratic questioning in a biochemistry laboratory course with specifically designed learning sheets and feedback from teacher to guide students to improve their critical thinking skills. The learning sheets were evaluated following the universal intellectual standards for critical thinking developed by Prof. Elder and Paul [ 19 , 33 ]. For this study, we hypothesized that students with different healthcare majors might present different improvement trajectories in their intellectual dimensions according to the years of teaching observations in the three healthcare majors. Based on the research and rationale described above, the intervention effect of Socratic questioning in a biochemistry laboratory course was hypothesized as follows (see Fig.  1 ):

Pre-intervention critical thinking abilities are different amongst students of different healthcare majors, especially in each intellectual dimension (H1a). Post-intervention critical thinking abilities would develop in students from each healthcare major after using the Socratic method (H1b).

Critical thinking abilities differs significantly between pre- and post-assessments of the intellectual dimensions of students with the three different healthcare majors (H2).

After clarifying the relation of Socratic method interventions in the class, we aim to scrutinize the trajectories of students between majors further to understand the learning style in class (Aim 1). Furthermore, we also aim to identify the key intellectual dimensions that could lead to an overall improvement in the critical thinking of students in each major (Aim 2). Additionally, we observed improvement trajectories of specific intellectual dimensions within major (Aim 3).

Socratic method framework and structure of the research hypotheses behind the biochemistry laboratory course

Literature review

Critical thinking engagement in the eastern and western medical education.

Over the last decade, medical education has been undergoing a variety of approaches for effectiveness teaching and transformation [ 34 ]. Many paradigms of active teaching/learning methodologies have been adopted in both Eastern and Western medical education systems, some of which are used partially (actual or conceptual similar) Socratic questioning to challenge students’ critical thinking. In this regard, the primary philosophy of case-based learning (CBL) established in the 1920s by Harvard Medical School is to guide students to apply their acquired knowledge base via critical thinking to make clinical decisions to solve the problems that they may encounter in the healthcare environment [ 35 ]. A meta-analysis study of China’s dental education reported that the CBL was a practical pedagogical method across the Chinese dental education system [ 36 ]. The results showed that the CBL method significantly increased knowledge scores, skill scores, comprehensive ability scores, and teaching satisfaction compared with the traditional lecture-based learning (LBL) mode in 2,356 dental students. Hence, there is an urgent need to change the traditional didactic lecture or teacher-centered classroom setting in which students are passive listeners instead of active participants.

Healthcare professionals are also required to solve complex problems and efficiently integrate didactic preclinical knowledge into actual clinical application in patient care [ 35 ]. On the other hand, the design thinking process may enhance both creativity and innovation so that healthcare professionals can respond to clinical problems effectively [ 37 , 38 ]. Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach widely accepted in medical education. It promotes active learning and results in better outcomes [ 39 , 40 , 41 ]. PBL focuses on active lifelong learning by triggering problems, directing student focus, and facilitating tutor involvement [ 39 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]. However, it is noteworthy that some hybrid PBL models have become less effective over time, as well as less aligned with the intended philosophy of student-centered learning [ 45 ]. Another alternative blended learning approach of PBL is team-based learning (TBL), which allows medical educators to provide students with pre-class work, in-class initial tests with immediate feedback, and real clinical problem-solving activities [ 46 ]. In the year-one studies of the Sydney Medical Program, a greater level of engagement in learning, a deeper understanding of concepts, and a sense of responsibility were shown among the medical students working in a TBL setting than among those in a PBL setting [ 47 , 48 ].

Medical educators face another significant challenge with the millennial generation, which has ubiquitous information technology access throughout its education. Thus, it is extremely important to improve students’ motivation to learn through hands-on instruction or teacher–student interaction and then stimulate students’ thinking and learning. In recent years, gamification has been successfully integrated into medical and scientific endeavors, enhancing motivation, participation, and time commitment across a variety of settings [ 49 , 50 , 51 ]. Another healthcare curriculum reform to stimulate active learning is flipped classroom (FC), which assigns learners didactic material, creating opportunities of longitudinal and interprofessional learning experiences for students during class participation [ 52 ] to encourage extracurricular learning, such as critical thinking. As part of the FC model, medical educators also develop formative and diagnostic assessments to identify learning gaps. According to these teaching modules, encouraging students to participate, emphasizing their learning, and observing their development trajectory are the core ideas in recent educational designs [ 53 ].

Although most of above-mentioned studies have been performed in the Eastern and Western education systems, however, without mentioning the differences between cultures and learning styles. Most importantly, the cultivation and foundations of critical thinking neglect the fact that Eastern and Western education systems emerged from very different learning and thinking patterns. Moreover, clinical reasoning and decision achievements depend on established critical thinking skills, therefore, it becomes more important to construct critical thinking early and comprehensively [ 54 ]. While Han Chinese students are not familiar with the core of critical thinking, the most effective approach to teaching critical thinking is still a highly debated topic in medical schools. Taken Taiwan medical education as an example, most clinical courses focuses on professional skills, problem solving, and disease treatment rather than construct critical mindset and metacognitive skills. Education strategies often emphasize the outcome while neglecting the process. Nevertheless, medical educators should also emphasize the process of forming students’ critical thinking when instructing and guiding them in this regard. Consequently, using metacognitive monitoring to enhance critical thinking in healthcare education would be appropriate, especially for Han Chinese systems with a Confucianist outlook. Thus, critical thinking via metacognitive monitoring is important in healthcare education, especially in Han Chinese systems with a Confucianist background.

Proficiency in the art of socratic questioning to enhance students’ critical thinking

Socratic questioning is a disciplined method of engaging in content-driven discourse that can be applied for various purposes: analyzing concepts, finding out the truth, examining assumptions, uncovering assumptions, understanding concepts, distinguishing knowledge from ignorance, and following the logical implications of thought. The scholars who established the intellectual standards of critical thinking have consistently indicated that “The key to distinguishing it from other types of questioning is that the Socratic questioning is systemic, disciplined, and deep and usually focus on foundational concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems [ 20 , 21 , 22 ].” In short, the Socratic method is a questioning method that stimulates personal understanding. More importantly, the core principle of learning from the unknown fits best within healthcare environments.

Numerous studies have consistently urged teachers to develop Socratic dialogue in their classrooms, regardless of their learning stages and situations [ 55 , 56 , 57 ]. Using enhancement exercises in an elementary school, a study introduced a Socratic questioning strategy to provide guidance and hints to students so that they could think more deeply about an issue or problem before sharing their thoughts [ 55 ]. The lecturer of a speech course in higher education demonstrated how Socratic questioning could help students learn when confronted with a series of questions [ 56 ]. The process improves students’ ability to ask and answer questions and helps them overcome some obstacles related to their lack of self-confidence. In the book Socratic circles: Fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and high school , Dr. Matt Copeland stated that, in middle and high schools, teachers must facilitate discussions by asking questions [ 58 ]. Furthermore, this method could be applied not only to elementary school, middle school, high school but also to higher education classes [ 59 ]. During the Covid-19 pandemic, synchronous discussions in online learning demonstrated that the Socratic questioning strategy successfully improves students’ critical thinking skills [ 57 ].

The incorporation of Socratic questioning in healthcare education curriculum is under development, including for general medical education [ 60 ], medical [ 61 ], pharmacy [ 54 , 62 ], and nursing students [ 63 ]. A review article of revisiting the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking in healthcare professions revels few advantages of Socratic questioning [ 23 ]. Three type of Socratic questions were mention and could commonly used in different clinical situations [ 23 ], such as procedure question would use in those with correct answers (e.g., Which of the following medications has antithrombotic function? ); preference question can apply in those with no correct answers (e.g., What type of consultation is most suitable for this patient? ); judgment question would be the most challenge critical thinking within a Socratic paradigm by integrating different domain knowledge and skills (e.g., Does this patient require antibiotic treatment? ). It is necessary to apply and analyze information in a logical manner as well as self-regulate and use critical thinking in order to achieve the best outcome for patients. For medical doctors, pharmacists or clinical laboratory technicians to provide high quality health care across all disciplines, critical thinking is inherently required.

In medical school, the emphasis is laid on training learners in meta-capabilities, such as self-driven pattern recognition, ideally as part of an apprenticeship under the supervision of an expert diagnostician [ 61 ]. An in-depth study of the current trends in developing critical thinking amongst medical students demonstrated the use of dialogue for proper questioning and how it directs the learner’s thinking [ 64 ]. Moreover, another study confirmed that critical thinking occurs only when students are motivated and challenged to engage in higher-level thought processes [ 65 ]. In the pharmacy classroom, educators can play a significant role in influencing their students’ mindsets.  Growth mindsets can be cultivated through the creation of an environment that encourages it. [ 62 ]. The Socratic questioning method can facilitate critical thinking in nursing education. One study showed that problem solving using critical thinking skills can be facilitated in both educational and practice settings by using Socratic inquiry [ 63 ].

The Socratic method has been adapted in different ways to different domains, but it has become closely associated with many areas, such as basic scientific thinking training, legal dialectical guidance, and clinical teaching. Some adaptations are helpful, some are not. The adaptations can be looked at through reasoning-focused lenses with varying degrees of magnification —a high-magnification adaptation rigorously and precisely tracks or guides the path of reasoning. Thus, how to use the Socratic method to direct students onto the path of critical thinking with appropriate guidance, but not revealing answers becomes an art that tests instructors’ teaching experience and proficiency in questioning.

Critical thinking and reflection exercises in the laboratory course

Medical schools have increasingly encouraged students to become life-long, self-directed learners because of the continual changes in the evidence-based healthcare environment. Science is often applied in everyday life, including translating knowledge from scholarly fields [ 66 ]. However, there is a vast gap between what is taught in medical schools and what is actually required in practice has increasingly widened in this information era. The majority of healthcare professionals are not considered to be real scientists. [ 2 ]. Nevertheless, they need to know how to apply scientific knowledge to their practice. Therefore, a science curriculum in medical school, such as a biochemistry laboratory course, should provide an opportunity to learn scientific methods and conceptual frameworks. It should also promote critical reasoning, providing healthcare students with problem-solving skills.

Medical educators need to accept that critical thinking is important for healthcare students and know how to teach it effectively [ 67 ]. Medical educators are now faced with a dilemma: should they develop a new course or adapt old course to develop critical thinking skills?  An effective learning model should promote and stimulate students’ development of such skills [ 67 ]. One of the most common compulsory courses for healthcare students is the biochemistry laboratory course [ 68 , 69 ]. These courses are specifically designed to introduce students to prescribed experiments, requiring them to complete stepwise protocols by themselves [ 68 , 70 ]. The students are expected to understand the concepts behind the methods, procedures, and assays. However, this type of curriculum construction often fails to provide students with adequate opportunities to monitor their critical thinking and thus reduces the chances of developing problem-solving skills [ 70 ]. In order to provide students with more opportunities to think critically, previous studies have also adapted laboratory, basic science, and science fusion courses to help students develop critical thinking skills [ 67 , 68 , 71 , 72 , 73 ].

Several studies have demonstrated that students need critical thinking skills to interpret data and formulate arguments. Thus, science education, particularly in the laboratory setting, is designed to teach quantitative critical thinking (i.e. interpretation and critical evaluation of statistical reports), but the evidence has suggested that this is seldom, if ever, achieved [ 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 ]. By providing multiple opportunities for students to participate in critical thinking in the physics laboratory classes at Stanford University, scholars engaged the students to improve the experiment and modify the model repeatedly [ 32 ]. Additionally, a simple learning framework using decision-making cycles and demonstrating experts’ critical thinking significantly improved students’ critical thinking. We thus argue that students should engage in critical thinking exercises with repeated comparisons, decisions, and teacher guidance that are meant to construct their critical thinking in each of their disciplines.

Participants

This research was conducted during the 2017–2018 academic year. The participants were second-year students in the College of Medicine at the National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) of Taiwan. A total of 144 students participated in this study, of whom 32 had medical science and biotechnology majors (hereafter, MSB), 27 had pharmaceutical science majors (hereafter, PS), and 85 were medical undergraduate (hereafter, MU) students. The biochemistry laboratory course was compulsory for these three majors.

For each biochemistry laboratory class, the teacher assembled five to six groups of four to five students each. The course contained five different biochemical experiments: (1) Plasmid DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) extraction and purification; (2) restriction enzyme digestion and electrophoresis of plasmid DNA; (3) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of plasmid DNA; (4) recombinant protein expression in Escherichia coli ; and (5) quantification of recombinant protein. The experimental learning sheets included three or four critical thinking questions (Table S1 ), encouraging students to explore experimental principles and alternative explanations further. To facilitate discussion, students were organized into small groups of four to five students seated around a single table, discussing and answering the questions. At this time, the students would pen down their first answers to the critical thinking questions, and the teacher would grade them based on the universal intellectual standards (learning sheets, first evaluation).

Furthermore, according to the students’ answers, the teacher offered a response by asking more questions according to the Socratic method to encourage students to think deeper rather than provide the correct answers. At the following week’s class, the teacher returned the learning sheet and supervised the ongoing activity, clarifying any questions raised by students and encouraging them to re-discuss and re-answer the critical thinking questions according to the teacher’s suggestions. The objective was to create a highly interactive environment to engage students in learning the relevant principles of each laboratory, including troubleshooting experiments and formulating critical concepts and skills. After the discussion, the teacher reexamined the students’ responses and assessed them based on the universal intellectual standards for subsequent grading (learning sheets, second evaluation).

The biochemistry laboratory courses and the Socratic method in current study are performed and taught by a senior biochemistry teacher (PhD in Institute of Basic Medical Science, NCKU) who has 40 years teaching experience. The teacher has long focused on teaching critical thinking skills to students, and also offers four senior clinical case related courses by practicing the Socratic method, such as clinical concept, critical thinking in medicine, clinical reasoning and special topics in clinical reasoning with more than 20 years of experience. Therefore, in the course, teacher will often ask a series of questions for students to think about the relevance of biochemical science and clinical practice.

Assessment development

The research team designed the learning sheets to guide discussion on the key issues concerning five biochemical experiments. The learning sheets were assessed according to the universal intellectual standards for critical thinking [ 33 ]. However, the assessment was adapted to include nine intellectual dimensions to assess student reasoning [ 19 , 33 ]: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fairness, and significance (Table S2 ). Each dimension was evaluated using a binary score (0 = does not present the skill; 1 = presents the skill) for each question in the learning sheets for both the first and second evaluations. The students received the teacher’s guidance following the first evaluation, providing them with the opportunity to reconsider their reasoning and revise their answers. Our goal was to improve our students’ learning by stimulating the teaching process; at the same time, we were committed to allowing students to speak freely so that we could more effectively facilitate prospective discussions. Thus, the critical thinking scoring system based on nine intellectual dimensions was only for the purpose of the research, without consequences on students’ study progress. In this regard, students were not able to know their intellectual scores. As a result, their course grades were not determined by the learning sheets; rather, they were determined by the general operation, experiment report, and the learning attitude demonstrated during the experiments.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics and variable tests.

We calculated the differences between the performance means for the first and second evaluations using paired t -tests. The mean differences between the students from the three majors were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). For the improvement slope for each universal intellectual dimension, we used the second evaluation scores of each experiment as the point with which to construct a quadratic equation curve in one variable (dimension) and then access the slope to represent the students’ improvement. The higher the slope score, the greater the students’ progress on that dimension.

Multivariate analysis

We used traditional analytical methods to observe and analyze the students’ improvement in the five experiments. Data from the second evaluation scores of each experiment served as the multi-time point measurement data. The Cox regression model for multivariate analysis was used to investigate the effect of several variables upon the time during which a specified outcome happened [ 80 ]. For each dimension, the model’s outcome determined that a student’s improvement slope was defined as minor progress if it was lower than the improvement slopes of their peers in the same major overall. However, if the student’s improvement slope was higher than the overall progress intercept of their peers, then it was defined as greater progress. The Cox regression models’ outcomes for each dimension were divided into two groups: minor and more progress. For this model’s outcome, (1) we calculated all dimensions’ slopes mean from each major (MSB: 0.369; PS: 0.405; MU: 0.401); (2) then compared the mean slope of the individual students with the mean slope of major; (3) if the student’s individual improvement slope was lower than mean slope of major, then defined as minor progress; if the student’s individual improvement slope was higher than mean slope of major, then defined as greater progress. From the analysis at this point, we understood that teacher could help students from different majors develop the different dimensions of critical thinking with the use of Socratic methods and simple repeated thinking framework practice. Additionally, we wanted to represent the improvement of intellectual dimensions between the students of different majors and their heterogeneity in critical thinking.

Dimension identification and comparison

To understand which intellectual dimensions were most representative of student improvement across majors, the analysis was divided into three sections: (1) to identify the progress percentage of all nine intellectual dimensions; (2) to identify the progress percentage of statistically significant intellectual dimensions; (3) to compare the differences among all nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions. This analysis offered a better understanding of what dimensions represented the overall improvement of students’ critical thinking. Our first step was to calculate the percentage of improvement for each experiment by determining the results of the first and second evaluations for each intellectual dimension. Second, we took average percentage of improvements for each dimension. Finally, we used Student’s t -test to compare the differences among the average of all nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions.

Trajectory analysis

In this study, we also hypothesized that each student’s learning and progress trajectories were heterogeneous across different majors. Depending on the major, there may also be differences between students in the same class. To focus our observations on the students’ use of the clarity and logic dimensions, we used a trajectory-tracking analysis [ 81 , 82 ] and categorized the students into two groups based on the participants’ improvement levels within the same major.

Descriptive data

We recruited 144 second-year students from three majors in the College of Medicine, among which 32 were MSB, 27 were PS, and 85 were MU students. All participants’ first and second evaluations were compared in all five biochemistry experiments. The statistically significant between-group differences in the mean initial evaluation results for each dimension are presented in Table  1 .

Overall improvement from the initial to second evaluations throughout the five experiments (H1, H2, and Aim 1)

Table  1 presents the mean results of the first and second evaluations; the five experiments exhibited statistically significant differences ( p  < 0.05) across all study groups and dimensions. More detailed analyses revealed significant differences in performance in the second evaluation between the groups after all five biochemistry experiments in the clarity ( p  = 0.0019), depth ( p  = 0.0097), breadth ( p  < 0.0001), logic ( p  = 0.0371), and significance ( p  = 0.0037) dimensions. However, for some of the dimensions (clarity, accuracy, precision, logic, and fairness), the initial evaluation results differ significantly between the MU and the MSB students, but this was not the case for the secondary evaluation results. The MSB students exhibited the best progress (2nd mean score minus 1st mean score) in the clarity dimension across all experiments. The PS students exhibited the best performance in the logic dimension ( p  < 0.05) in the second evaluation after the five experiments.

The results of the MSB students improved steeply in most dimensions in the five experiments, especially depth (slope: 0.472), logic (0.455), and clarity (0.410) (Table  2 ). Time had a stronger effect on several of the dimensions in the multivariate analysis, specifically clarity ( p  = 0.0012), relevance ( p  = 0.0007), and logic ( p  < 0.0001). By contrast, the PS students showed a significant overall improvement in the clarity (slope: 0.212, p  < 0.0001), accuracy (0.539, p  = 0.0063), precision (0.381, p  = 0.0085), relevance (0.216, p  < 0.0001), breadth (0.426, p  = 0.0045), and logic (0.515, p  = 0.0027) dimensions over the observation period (Table  3 ). Finally, the MU students showed a significant overall improvement in six dimensions: clarity (slope: 0.277, p  < 0.0001), accuracy (0.520, p  = 0.0003), depth (0.459, p  = 0.0092), breadth (0.356, p  = 0.0100), logic (0.544, p  = 0.0190), and significance (0.327, p  = 0.0225) (Table  4 ).

Trajectory tracking of the overall, significant, and reciprocal dimensions (Aim 2 and Aim 3)

Figure  2 a illustrates the overall improvement of students across the three majors in all nine dimensions, as assessed via trajectory analysis. The trajectory-tracking algorithm revealed that the significant dimensions for each group were as follows: MSB students—clarity, relevance, and logic; PS students—clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, breadth, and logic; and MU students—clarity, accuracy, depth, breadth, logic, and significance (Tables  2 , 3 and 4 ; Fig.  2 b). The comparison of each group’s average percentage of improvement between the nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions (clarity and logic) is summarized in Fig.  2 c. Figure  2 d–i depicts the students’ improvement in clarity and logic within the different majors using group-based trajectory modeling.

Overall improvement comparison between the students of three majors using a trajectory-tracking analysis approach . ( a ) The mean evaluation scores from the second evaluation minus those from the first evaluation for the nine dimensions were considered an improvement. They were converted to percentages to compare them to the performance in the first evaluation. ( b ) The mean evaluation scores from the second evaluation minus those from the first evaluation for the significant dimensions (within the students of each major, Tables  2 – 4 ) were considered to represent improvement and were converted to percentages to compare them to the performance in the first evaluation. ( c ) Comparison of the average percentage improvement among all nine dimensions, the significant dimensions, and the reciprocal dimensions (i.e., clarity and logic). ( d ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of medical laboratory science and biotechnology students in the clarity dimension. ( e ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of pharmaceutical students in the clarity dimension. ( f ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of undergraduate medical students in the clarity dimension. ( g ) Trajectory analysis to identify the progress of the two subgroups of medical laboratory science and biotechnology students in the logic dimension. ( h ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of pharmaceutical students in the logic dimension. ( i ) Trajectory analysis to assess the progress of the two subgroups of undergraduate medical students in the logic dimension

Empirical contributions

The Han Chinese educational system relies on the passive transmission of knowledge, as evidenced by the years of preparation by students’ through paper-based exams. By adopting this approach during teaching and learning, students do not develop a critical thinking mindset. Our experience has shown that when we encounter first-year students who have just graduated from high school, their previous education failed to develop critical thinking skills. Many foreign and Western teachers have the same experience when they encounter Asian students studying abroad for the first time. Thus, this research aims to provide clinical teachers with guidance on reducing the blind spots that students face when introduced to critical thinking. Moreover, this research aims to provide teachers with a simple teaching model and structure to guide students with less stable foundations in critical thinking. For the teaching structure and process, please refer to the procedure paragraph in the methods section and the teaching flow chart in Fig.  1 . Furthermore, the scoring system shown in the assessment development paragraph in the methods, as well as the scoring rubric is presented in Table S1 .

To our knowledge, this is the first study that uses the Socratic method and the universal intellectual standards to assess and improve critical thinking skills in biochemistry laboratory courses across different healthcare majors. We also used a novel design for teaching critical thinking, with multi-timepoint assessments and trajectory-tracking analysis to observe the students’ process and the improvement intheir critical thinking. This Socratic method, combined with critical thinking-based learning sheets, significantly improved the students’ critical thinking in all nine dimensions of the universal intellectual standards, according to the first and second evaluations conducted in each of the five sessions. Another unique contribution of this study is that it analyzed the progression results at multiple time points in the critical thinking performance of students across different majors. According to the results of comparing the average percentage improvement between all nine dimensions, the significant and reciprocal dimensions (i.e., clarity and logic) do not significantly differ from each other statistically speaking. By reducing the nine intellectual dimensions scoring system, medical educators can focus more on establishing clarity and logic skills in students. In sum, our most important finding was the identification of the clarity and logic dimensions as key elements that facilitate the development of critical thinking skills via the Socratic method in students across three different healthcare majors.

The trajectories of outcomes for students of medical science and biotechnology majors

Understanding what we learn has been identified as the starting point in the professional-development journey [ 2 ]. In principle, if thinking and decision making can be taught, educational intervention is possible. Nevertheless, for a science class like biochemistry, abductive reasoning requires a deep understanding of knowledge, and thinking must be inspired through stimulation.

In this study, the evaluation scores for MSB students did not improve significantly in almost any dimension at the beginning of the course. At first, most students felt uncomfortable with criticizing others, disagreeing with others, or challenging teacher’s knowledge and authority when they spoke their minds. Other MSB students believed that their ability to find answers and make decisions was inadequate and expected the teacher to provide the correct answers. However, preclinical medical technologists must gradually develop their critical thinking skills. Thus, the teacher provided critical thinking cues during the class and monitored the group discussions.

On the other hand, teachers must encourage these types of students, enabling them to accomplish simpler learning goals by providing them with easier-to-attempt clues. The joy of discovering answers on their own rather than the frustration of not achieving high goals should be encouraged. This coaching process improved the MSB students’ willingness to think and explore, leading to greater relevance and breadth of coverage.

The teacher used generation, conceptualization, optimization, and implementation [ 33 ] with the Socratic method to stimulate critical thinking in a four-step cycle in the five experiments. When the spontaneous discussion started in the generation phase, they tried to clarify their knowledge of the theme and identify the problem from the learning sheet. The following step was to conceptualize the problem, and the students drafted all of the possibilities and problems. Teacher frequently asked the students, ‘ What are other possible reasons? ’ Finally, the teacher provided feedback to help the MSB students reach a proper solution and implement it. The teacher would also ask the students leading questions like ‘ What relevant theories can be confirmed more precisely? ’ These guiding processes sharpened their logic and helped them better understand what they had learned. In sum, the benefits of this process included an enhanced ability to think logically, clarification of questions and knowledge gaps, and improvements in the thought process about the theme discussed.

The steady improvement of critical thinking in the students of pharmaceutical science

Currently, pharmacists are seeing their roles and responsibilities shift to becoming patient counselors and educators on the rational use of medicine. Pharmacists are trained to focus on patient-centered care and resolve current and potential drug-related problems [ 83 , 84 ]. Critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and decision-making skills are needed to solve these problems. Nowadays, pharmacists are not just responsible for carrying out doctor’s orders, while there are always alternative treatment options available for them to recommend. Teacher therefore repeatedly emphasized the link between critical thinking and pharmacist practice and encouraged students to ask questions and find out the best alternative through Socratic method in the classroom.

During class, the PS students were required to exert considerable mental effort to conduct an inquiry to solve the learning sheet questions. Instead of providing students with clues or information to help them solve the problems, the teacher guided the PS students on how to seek the information they needed for themselves. The question for the PS students was be ‘ What are the possibly executable strategies? ’ The teacher also joined the students in discussion, using the Socratic method to stimulate critical thinking and draw out ideas and underlying suppositions. In high-quality cooperative argumentative dialogue, teacher should not direct or refer learning, nor should they ask students for the correct answers as in a traditional classroom. The hints that teacher would provide were more like ‘ The narrative explanation can be more precise. ’ Thus, asking high-quality questions and providing feedback also challenges the instructors’ teaching experience.

The PS students were guided not only toward the development of critical thinking skills but also toward solving problems using evidence-based knowledge and decision-making skills. The Socratic method process meets the student where they are on the educational spectrum and encourages and helps them advance. Using this method, the PS students engaged in student-to-student interaction to build knowledge as a group and individually. The course of five experiments conducted via the learning sheets improved many aspects of the students’ critical thinking, including their clarity, relevance, breadth, and logic. In sum, the abilities that they developed in the course should help them focus more on the possible outcomes of pharmacotherapy, medication surveillance, and proper communication and therefore improve the quality of their professional future.

The advanced construction of critical thinking skills in undergraduate medical students

In medical education, “ better thinking and learning skills grounded in understanding ” are recommended for future doctors [ 2 ]. Practicing medicine requires an ability to address current and future diseases using new diagnostic and therapeutic methods [ 10 ]. Therefore, problem solving is not the only core medical skill; the ability to deal with complex, insoluble health issues is also required [ 83 ]. In this domain, critical thinking skills have proven essential in tackling difficult, complex, interdisciplinary health problems [ 10 ].

In our study, the MU students began with high-performance scores in almost all dimensions. As a result, teachers needed to create a more challenging and thought-provoking learning environment to encourage them to think more broadly and deeply. Thus, the teacher would give students advice like ‘ Searching for more relevant information can increase the breadth of knowledge ’ and ‘ If the result is true, what is the relevant theory? ’ Most MU students were faster than other majors at defining and constructing critical thinking. However, another phenomenon often observed in the classroom was that the MU students were more reluctant to express their reasoning than the students of other majors. In other words, MU students were afraid to speak openly about their reasoning and thinking, probably due to the excessive pursuit of the correct answer. In sum, the course of five experiments conducted via the learning sheets enhanced abilities of clarity, accuracy, depth, breadth, logic, and significance in MU students.

Apart from providing structure for their critical thinking, as was done with the other preclinical students, the teacher guided the MU students to use advanced critical thinking skills by regularly analyze their thinking processes, reflecting on the decision-making and thinking process [ 84 ]. Researchers have suggested that reflective practice is key to successful medical professionalism [ 85 ] and humanism [ 86 , 87 ]; but more importantly, it may help medical professionals develop better physician–patient relationships [ 88 ]. Therefore, to advance the critical thinking experience of the MU students, teacher should encourage them to gather ideas, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information. The teacher guided them to reflect on their plan and solve the questions on the learning sheets using their thoughts and words. These reflective practices could involve various biases in the thinking process and outcome, such as the base-rate fallacy, bias blind spot, or choice-supportive bias. The Socratic debate is a common way to model a complex thinking situation and may help teachers inspire students to become critical thinkers. MU students improved their abilities in the clarity, accuracy, depth, breadth, logic, and significance dimensions in the five experiments. This kind of training in thinking should help preclinical students constantly challenge and critically appraise evidence within their context, as well as their patients’ and their own belief and value systems.

Limitations

This study provides a model for developing a specific learning environment like a biochemistry laboratory class into one that will help students develop their critical thinking skills through inquiry. Our results have shown this method to be feasible and effective. However, there were a few limitations to this study. First, although it included students from three different majors, there was no interdisciplinary collaboration that would have simulated collaborations and communication among other healthcare professionals from different fields, as occurs in clinical practice. Introducing such collaboration may have produced more exciting and comprehensive ideas for solving the problems. Training in these professions is specialized to a considerable extent, so inter-professional collaboration should improve therapeutic outcomes and optimize patient care. Second, the original scoring system was time-consuming. However, one of our study objectives was to modify and reduce the nine intellectual dimensions scoring system into the clarity and logic dimensions. Based on the analysis in the current study, the clarity and logic dimensions were sufficient for monitoring the growth of students’ critical thinking.

The present curriculum innovation aimed to teach critical thinking skills to preclinical students in various medical majors using a Socratic questioning learning model instead of a cookbook approach to learning in laboratory courses. The development of problem-solving and critical thinking skills, in addition to process-related skills, in biochemistry laboratory courses supplements traditional curriculum in a helpful way. The curriculum innovation that we described and proposed may represent an incremental step forward for the discipline; it is a novel educational approach for promoting critical thinking skills, fostering an appreciation of the affective domain, and enabling reflective practice by using small-group processing skill instruction and one-on-one Socratic questioning. The current study results are based on training critical thinking skills that should enable students to engage in the “reflection-on-action” process, which might provide an additional bridge between basic medical knowledge and clinical practice. More importantly, reconstructive mental reviews may indirectly shape preclinical students’ future actions in the challenging healthcare industry characterized by uncertainty and novel circumstances.

Data Availability

Due to conditions on participant consent and other ethical restrictions, the datasets used and analysed in the current study are not publicly available. If you have any database data requirements, please contact the corresponding author of this study.

Art-in S. Current situation and need in learning management for developing the analytical thinking of teachers in basic education of Thailand. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;197:1494–500.

Article   Google Scholar  

Maudsley G, Strivens J. Science’,‘critical thinking’and ‘competence’for tomorrow’s doctors. A review of terms and concepts. Med Educ. 2000;34:53–60.

Halpern DF. Thought and knowledge: an introduction to critical thinking. Psychology Press;2013.

Davies M, Barnett R. The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education. Springer;2015.

Sit HHW. Characteristics of Chinese students’ learning styles. Int Proc Econ Dev Res. 2013;62:36.

He Y. The roles of thinking styles in learning and achievement among Chinese university students.The University of Hong Kong Libraries.

Nordin S, Yunus K. Exploring Metacognitive Awareness among Teachers. Int J Acad Res Progress Educ Dev. 2020;9:462–72

Nelson TO, Narens L. Why investigate metacognition. Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. 1994;13:1–25.

Google Scholar  

Dinsmore DL. Examining the ontological and epistemic assumptions of research on metacognition, self-regulation and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychol. 2017;37:1125–53.

Maudsley G, Strivens J. Promoting professional knowledge, experiential learning and critical thinking for medical students. Med Educ. 2000;34:535–44.

Zhong W, Cheng M. Developing critical thinking: experiences of Chinese International Students in a Post-1992 University in England. Chin Educ Soc. 2021;54:95–106.

Dewey J. How we think. In.: D C Heath; 1910.

Book   Google Scholar  

Ennis R. Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teach Philos. 1991;14:5–24.

Ennis RH. Is critical thinking culturally biased? Teach Philos. 1998;21:15–33.

Ennis R. Critical thinking: reflection and perspective part II. Inquiry: Crit Think Disciplines. 2011;26:5–19.

Ennis RH. A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. 1987. https://education.illinois.edu/docs/default-source/faculty-documents/robert-ennis/thenatureofcriticalthinking_51711_000.pdf

Zare P, Mukundan J. The use of socratic method as a teaching/learning tool to develop students’ critical thinking: a review of literature. Lang India. 2015;15:256–65.

Elder L, Paul R. Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. The Foundation for Critical Thinking;2005.

Paul R, Elder L. Critical thinking: intellectual Standards essential to reasoning well within every domain of human thought, part two. J Dev Educ. 2013;37:32.

Elder L, Paul R. Critical thinking: the art of socratic questioning, part II. J Dev Educ. 2007;31:32.

Paul R, Elder L. Critical thinking: the art of socratic questioning. J Dev Educ. 2007;31:36.

Paul R, Elder L. Critical thinking: the art of socratic questioning, part III. J Dev Educ. 2008;31:34–5.

Oyler DR, Romanelli F. The Fact of Ignorance Revisiting the Socratic Method as a Tool for Teaching Critical Thinking. Am J Pharm Educ. 2014;78.

Paul R, Elder L, Bartell T. A Brief History of the Idea of Critical Thinking, The Critical Thinking Community. In.; 1997.

Tofade T, Elsner J, Haines ST. Best practice strategies for effective use of questions as a teaching tool. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77:1–7.

Vygotsky L. Zone of proximal development. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes 1987;5291:157.

Rud AG Jr. The Use and Abuse of Socrates in Present Day Teaching;1990.

Oh RC. The socratic method in medicine-the labor of delivering medical truths. For the Office-based Teacher of Family Medicine. 2005;37:537–9.

Stoddard HA, O’Dell DV. Would Socrates have actually used the “Socratic Method” for clinical teaching? J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31:1092–6.

Ku KY, Ho IT. Dispositional factors predicting chinese students’ critical thinking performance. Pers Indiv Differ. 2010;48:54–8.

Liu OL, Shaw A, Gu L, Li G, Hu S, Yu N, Ma L, Xu C, Guo F, Su Q. Assessing college critical thinking: preliminary results from the chinese HEIghten ® critical thinking assessment. High Educ Res Dev. 2018;37:999–1014.

Holmes NG, Wieman CE, Bonn D. Teaching critical thinking. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015, 112(36):11199–11204.

Elder L, Paul R. The aspiring thinker’s guide to critical thinking. Rowman & Littlefield; 2019.

Cooke M, Irby DM, Sullivan W, Ludmerer KM. American Medical Education 100 years after the Flexner Report. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1339–44.

Behar-Horenstein LS, Catalanotto FA, Nascimento MM. Anticipated and actual implementation of case-based learning by Dental Faculty Members during and after training. J Dent Educ. 2015;79:1049–60.

Dong H, Guo C, Zhou L, Zhao J, Wu X, Zhang X, Zhang X. Effectiveness of case-based learning in chinese dental education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e048497–7.

Sandars J, Goh P-S. Design thinking in Medical Education: the key features and practical application. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520926518–8.

Khan S, Vandermorris A, Shepherd J, Begun JW, Lanham HJ, Uhl-Bien M, Berta W. Embracing uncertainty, managing complexity: applying complexity thinking principles to transformation efforts in healthcare systems. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:192–2.

Preeti B, Ashish A, Shriram G. Problem based learning (PBL)-an effective approach to improve learning outcomes in medical teaching. J Clin Diagn research: JCDR. 2013;7:2896–7.

Ibrahim ME, Al-Shahrani AM, Abdalla ME, Abubaker IM, Mohamed ME. The effectiveness of problem-based learning in Acquisition of Knowledge, soft skills during basic and preclinical sciences: medical students’ points of view. Acta Informatica Medica. 2018;26:119–24.

Servant-Miklos VF. Problem solving skills versus knowledge acquisition: the historical dispute that split problem-based learning into two camps. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2019;24:619–35.

Bjork RA, Dunlosky J, Kornell N. Self-regulated learning: beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Ann Rev Psychol. 2013;64:417–44.

Colliver JA. Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: research and theory. Acad Med. 2000;75:259–66.

Bate E, Hommes J, Duvivier R, Taylor DC. Problem-based learning (PBL): Getting the most out of your students–Their roles and responsibilities: AMEE Guide No. 84. Medical teacher 2013.

Lim WK. Dysfunctional problem-based learning curricula: resolving the problem. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:89–9.

Burgess AW, McGregor DM. Use of established guidelines when reporting on Interprofessional Team-Based learning in Health Professions Student Education: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2021;97:143–51.

Burgess A, Bleasel J, Haq I, Roberts C, Garsia R, Robertson T, Mellis C. Team-based learning (TBL) in the medical curriculum: better than PBL? BMC Med Educ. 2017;17:243.

Burgess A, Ayton T, Mellis C. Implementation of team-based learning in year 1 of a PBL based medical program: a pilot study. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:49–9.

Schrope M. Solving tough problems with games. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110:7104–6.

Nessler M. Three Ways virtual Technologies are making a difference in HR. Employ Relations Today. 2014;40:47–52.

Nevin CR, Westfall AO, Rodriguez JM, Dempsey DM, Cherrington A, Roy B, Patel M, Willig JH. Gamification as a tool for enhancing graduate medical education. Postgrad Med J. 2014;90:685–93.

Technologies in Medical Education. In. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. edn.: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2015.

Hurtubise L, Hall E, Sheridan L, Han H. The Flipped Classroom in Medical Education: Engaging Students to Build Competency. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2015;2:JMECD.S23895.

Persky AM, Medina MS, Castleberry AN. Developing critical thinking skills in pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ. 2019;83.

Chew SW, Lin I-H, Chen N-S. Using Socratic questioning strategy to enhance critical thinking skill of elementary school students. In: 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT): 2019 : IEEE; 2019;290–294.

Manurung YH, Siregar FS. Developing students’ critical thinking on speaking through socratic questioning method. Adv Social Sci Educ Humanit Res. 2018;263:212–6.

Wediyantoro PL, Lailiyah M, Yustisia KK. Synchronous discussion in online learning: investigating students’ critical thinking. En Jour Me. (English Journal of Merdeka): Culture Language and Teaching of English. 2020;5:196–203.

Copeland M. Socratic circles: fostering critical and creative thinking in middle and high school. Stenhouse Publishers; 2005.

Tweed RG, Lehman DR. Learning considered within a cultural context: confucian and socratic approaches. Am Psychol. 2002;57:89–99.

Wilberding E. Socratic methods in the classroom: encouraging critical thinking and problem solving through dialogue. Routledge; 2021.

Sanchez-Lara PA, Grand K, Haanpää MK, Curry CJ, Wang R, Ezgü F, Rose CM, D’Cunha Burkardt D, Conway RL, Relan A. Thinking outside “The Box”: Case‐based didactics for medical education and the instructional legacy of Dr John M. Graham, Jr. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2021;185:2636–45.

Cooley JH, Larson S. Promoting a growth mindset in pharmacy educators and students. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018;10:675–9.

Makhene A. The use of the Socratic inquiry to facilitate critical thinking in nursing education. Health SA Gesondheid. 2019;24.

Harasym PH, Tsai T-C, Hemmati P. Current trends in developing medical students’ critical thinking abilities. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2008;24:341–55.

Roberts TG, Dyer JE. The relationship of self-efficacy, motivation, and critical thinking disposition to achievement and attitudes when an illustrated web lecture is used in an online learning environment. J agricultural Educ. 2005;46:12–23.

Chalmers AF. What is this thing called science? Hackett Publishing; 2013.

Zain AR. Effectiveness of guided inquiry based on blended learning in physics instruction to improve critical thinking skills of the senior high school student. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series : 2018: IOP Publishing; 2018: 012015.

Goodey NM, Talgar CP. Guided inquiry in a biochemistry laboratory course improves experimental design ability. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2016;17:1127–44.

Talgar CP, Goodey NM. Views from academia and industry on skills needed for the modern research environment. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2015;43:324–32.

Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R, Bruns P, Chang A, DeHaan R, Gentile J, Lauffer S, Stewart J, Tilghman SM. Education. Scientific teaching. Science. 2004;304:521-2.

Thaiposri P, Wannapiroon P. Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills through teaching and learning by inquiry-based learning activities using social network and cloud computing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;174:2137–44.

Hirschberg CB. A course in critical thinking for PhD students in biomolecular sciences and biotechnology: classical experiments in biochemistry;2016.

Van Winkle LJ, Cornell S, Fjortoft N, Bjork BC, Chandar N, Green JM, La Salle S, Viselli SM, Burdick P, Lynch SM. Critical thinking and reflection exercises in a biochemistry course to improve prospective health professions students’ attitudes toward physician-pharmacist collaboration. Am J Pharm Educ. 2013;77.

Kanari Z, Millar R. Reasoning from data: how students collect and interpret data in science investigations. J Res Sci Teach. 2004;41:748–69.

Kumassah E, Ampiah J, Adjei E. An investigation into senior high school (shs3) physics students understanding of data processing of length and time of scientific measurement in the Volta region of Ghana. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2014;37–61.

Kung RL, Linder C. University students’ ideas about data processing and data comparison in a physics laboratory course. Nordic Stud Sci Educ. 2006;2:40–53.

Ryder J, Leach J. Interpreting experimental data: the views of upper secondary school and university science students. Int J Sci Educ. 2000;22:1069–84.

Ryder J. Data interpretation activities and students’ views of the epistemology of science during a university earth sciences field study course. Teaching and Learning in the Science Laboratory.edn. Springer;2002. p.151–162.

Séré MG, Journeaux R, Larcher C. Learning the statistical analysis of measurement errors. Int J Sci Educ. 1993;15:427–38.

Lunn M, McNeil D. Applying Cox regression to competing risks. Biometrics. 1995;524–532.

Haviland A, Nagin DS, Rosenbaum PR. Combining propensity score matching and group-based trajectory analysis in an observational study. Psychol Methods. 2007;12:247–67.

Helland-Hansen W, Hampson G. Trajectory analysis: concepts and applications. Basin Res. 2009;21:454–83.

Barrows HS, Tamblyn RM. Problem-based learning: an approach to medical education. Volume 1. Springer;1980.

Jensen G, Denton B. Teaching physical therapy students to reflect: a suggestion for clinical education. J Phys Therapy Educ. 1991;5:33–8.

Stern DT, Papadakis M. The developing physician—becoming a professional. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1794–9.

Gracey CF, Haidet P, Branch WT, Weissmann P, Kern DE, Mitchell G, Frankel R, Inui T. Precepting humanism: strategies for fostering the human dimensions of care in ambulatory settings. Acad Med. 2005;80:21–8.

Branch WT Jr, Kern D, Haidet P, Weissmann P, Gracey CF, Mitchell G, Inui T. Teaching the human dimensions of care in clinical settings. JAMA. 2001;286:1067–74.

Wald HS, Davis SW, Reis SP, Monroe AD, Borkan JM. Reflecting on reflections: enhancement of medical education curriculum with structured field notes and guided feedback. Acad Med. 2009;84:830–7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Chi-Her Lin, MD for their encouragement and support in the writing of this manuscript, and Prof. Woei-Jer Chuang, Hung-Chi Cheng, Chang-Shi Chen, Po-Hsin J. Huang, Chien-hung Yu, and Wen-Tsan Chang for their help with the experimental design. Special thanks to Tanvi Gupta for her help with the improving reading fluency.

This work was supported by the Teaching Practice Research Program, Ministry of Education, Taiwan (Grant No: PMN1110350, PMN1100853, PMN1090364, PMN108075, PMN107018).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Yueh-Ren Ho

School of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Yueh-Ren Ho & Chien-Ming Li

Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, University Road No.1, East District 701, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Bao-Yu Chen

Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Chi Mei Medical Center, Zhonghua Raod No.901, Yongkang District 710, Tainan City, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Chien-Ming Li

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Yueh-Ren Ho: substantially contributed to the conception, data curation, interpretation, drafting and critical revision of the paper. She has given final approval to the manuscript and agrees to be accountable for the work. Bao-Yu Chen: substantially contributed to the conception, formal analysis, methodology, visualization, and writing and editing the manuscript. Chien-Ming Li: substantially contributed to the conception, data curation, review and editing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yueh-Ren Ho .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Students participating in this course will be informed before the class begins that their results will be used for educational academic research, and their written informed consent were obtained. The methodology of the study including the content analysis of literature on data curation activities were approved and funded by Teaching Practice Research Program, Ministry of Education, Taiwan. Throughout the study, all methods followed the approved methodology and adhered to the relevant guidelines and regulations. According to Human Subjects Research Act, Chap. 2, article 5: The Ministry of Education review current study nature and announced the principal investigator shall not submit the research protocol for review and approval by the Institutional Review Board. Please refer to the source of law in the website of Laws & Regulations Database of The Republic of China (Taiwan) ( https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=L0020176 ).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ho, YR., Chen, BY. & Li, CM. Thinking more wisely: using the Socratic method to develop critical thinking skills amongst healthcare students. BMC Med Educ 23 , 173 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04134-2

Download citation

Received : 20 September 2022

Accepted : 02 March 2023

Published : 20 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04134-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Biochemistry experiment
• Critical thinking
• Socratic method
• Medical education
• Metacognition

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Critical thinking: A Socratic model

• Published: September 1993
• Volume 7 , pages 291–311, ( 1993 )

Cite this article

• John Hoaglund 1  

592 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

A concept of critical thinking is developed based on the Socratic method and called accordingly a Socratic model. First the features of critical thinking stressed in this model are stated and illustrated. The Socratic method is presented and interpreted, then taken to yield a model of critical thinking. The process of internalization by which the Socratic model helps us to become critical thinkers is described. Argument analysis is considered as a widely used instructional strategy adaptable for teaching critical thinking on the Socratic model. This Socratic model is advanced as one helpful way of organizing our ideas about critical thinking, helpful in unifying disparate factors and anchoring them in the humanist tradition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A Disciplined Approach to Critical Thinking

Critical thinking: a streamlined conception, debate’s relationship to critical thinking.

Barry, Vincent: 1984, Invitation to Critical Thinking , Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York.

Google Scholar  

Beyer, Barry: 1985, ‘Critical Thinking: What Is It?’ Social Education 49 (4), 270–276.

Copi, Irving: 1986, Introduction to Logic , 7th ed., Macmillan, New York.

Dewey, John, and J.H. Tufts: 1932, Ethics , rev. ed., Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.

Eemeren, Frans van, Rob Grootendorst, and Tjark Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory , Foris, Dordrecht.

Eemeren, Frans van: (1987a), ‘For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse’, Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline , ed. by van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, Foris, Dordrecht.

Ennis, Robert H.: 1986, ‘A Conception of Critical Thinking - With Some Curriculum Suggestions’, Conference 85 on Critical Thinking , ed. by J. Hoaglund, Christopher Newport College, Newport News, pp. 13–40.

Ennis, Robert H. & Eric Weir: 1985, The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test , Midwest, Pacific Grove.

Facione, Peter A.: 1990, Critical Thinking . A Statement of Expert Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction, California State University, Fullerton.

Govier, Trudy: 1989, ‘Critical Thinking as Argument Analysis’, Argumentation 3 , 115–126.

Guthrie, W.K.C.: 1971, Socrates , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hatcher, Donald L.: 1991, ‘Critical Thinking, Creativity, and Socratic Questioning’, CT News 10 (1), 4–6.

Johnson, Ralph H. & J. Anthony Blair, Logical Self-Defense , 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.

Kahane, Howard: 1992, Logic & Contemporary Rhetoric , 6th ed., Wadsworth, Belmont.

Kirk, G.S., J.E. Raven, and M. Schofield: 1983, The Presocratic Philosophers , 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Mead, G.H.: 1962, Mind, Self, and Society , ed. by Charles Morris, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 164–173.

Meiland, Jack: 1981, College Thinking , New American Library, New York.

Mill, John Stuart: 1962, On Liberty , in Utilitarianism , ed. by Mary Warnock, Collins: Fontana Library, London.

Nietzsche, Friedrich: 1968, Twilight of the Idols , excerpts translated and edited by Walter Kaufman in The Portable Nietzsche , Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp. 463–563.

Norris, Stephen P. & Robert H. Ennis: 1989, Evaluating Critical Thinking , Midwest, Pacific Grove.

Paul, Richard: 1985, ‘The Critical Thinking Movement: A Historical Perspective’, National Forum 65 , 2f., 32.

Paul, Richard: 1990, ‘Socratic Questioning’, Critical Thinking . What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, pp. 1–6.

Perelman, C. & L. Olbrecht-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric , translated by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Notre Dame University Press, Notre Dame.

Plato: 1961, Collected Dialogues , ed. by Edith Hamilton & Huntington Cairns, Princeton University Press: Bollingen Series LXXI, Princeton.

Plato: 1951, Symposium , translated by Walter Hamilton, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Rescher, Nicholas: 1977, Dialectics , State University of New York Press, Albany.

Robinson, Richard: 1971, ‘Elenchus’, in Vlastos (1971), pp. 78–93.

Rogers, Carl: 1964, ‘Toward a Modern Approach to Values’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 68 , 160–167.

Stone, I.F.: 1988, The Trial of Socrates , Little, Brown, Boston.

Toulmin, Stephen: 1958, The Uses of Argument , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vlastos, Gregory: 1971, ed., Philosophy of Socrates , Anchor, Garden City.

Vlastos, Gregory: 1971a, ‘The Paradox of Socrates’, in Vlastos (1971), pp. 1–21.

Vlastos, Gregory: 1991, Socrates. Ironist and Moral Philosopher , Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Walton, Douglas N.: 1984, Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies , University Press of America, Lanham.

Zeller, E.: 1962, Socrates and the Socratic Schools , 3rd ed., translated by O.J. Reichel, Russell & Russell, New York.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Critical Thinking, Christopher Newport University, 23606, Newport News, Virginia, USA

John Hoaglund

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

An earlier version of this article was presented as a paper at the October 1988 Conference on Critical Thinking at Montclair State College. Matthew Lipman, William Murnion, and several others made valuable comments. John Anton also provided helpful comments on a subsequent draft. Generous grants from the Funds for Excellence of the State Council of Higher Education in Virginia and Christopher Newport College enabled me to complete this research clarifying the concept of critical thinking for the project Faculty and Curriculum Development in Critical Thinking. The typescript benefited from searching critiques by George Teschner and the journal's anonymous referee. I am very grateful for this help.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hoaglund, J. Critical thinking: A Socratic model. Argumentation 7 , 291–311 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00710814

Download citation

Issue Date : September 1993

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00710814

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• argument analysis
• critical thinking
• Socratic method
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Learn Critical Thinking Skills with the Socratic Method Online Course

Online course description:.

Unlock the power of critical thinking, ethical inquiry, and effective problem-solving with our comprehensive course on the Socratic Method. Developed for individuals seeking to enhance their intellectual and decision-making skills, this course offers a deep dive into the timeless teachings of Socrates and their practical applications in modern life.

Online Course Highlights:

1. Explore Socratic Philosophy: Delve into the foundational principles of Socratic philosophy, including the art of questioning assumptions, probing beliefs, and fostering open dialogue.

2. Practical Applications: Learn how to apply the Socratic Method to personal and professional contexts, enabling you to make more informed decisions and engage in thoughtful discourse.

3. Ethical Inquiry: Discover the ethical dimension of Socratic inquiry and gain insights into moral responsibility and responsible dialogue.

4. Real-Life Case Studies: Engage with real-life examples and case studies that illustrate how the Socratic Method is used in various fields, from education and business to healthcare and beyond.

5. Hands-On Assignments: Put your knowledge into practice with hands-on assignments that challenge you to apply Socratic questioning to real-world scenarios and decision-making.

6. Collaborative Learning: Participate in collaborative Socratic inquiries and discussions with fellow learners, fostering a community of critical thinkers.

7. Personal Action Plan: Develop a personal action plan to incorporate Socratic questioning into your daily life, enabling continuous growth in critical thinking.

8. Expert Guidance: Benefit from expert guidance and insights from experienced instructors well-versed in Socratic philosophy and its contemporary relevance.

Who Should Enroll:

• Students seeking to improve their critical thinking and analytical skills.
• Professionals aiming to enhance decision-making and problem-solving abilities.
• Educators interested in incorporating Socratic inquiry into their teaching methods.
• Individuals passionate about ethical dialogue and responsible communication.
• Anyone eager to embark on a journey of self-discovery and intellectual growth.

Online Course Benefits:

• Acquire a comprehensive understanding of the Socratic Method and its applications.
• Enhance your ability to question assumptions and think critically.
• Cultivate ethical inquiry and responsible dialogue in various aspects of your life.
• Develop practical skills for making informed decisions in personal and professional contexts.
• Join a community of learners dedicated to exploring the art of critical thinking and ethical reasoning.

Unlock the transformative potential of the Socratic Method and embark on a journey towards becoming a more thoughtful, ethical, and skilled thinker. Enroll in our course today and embrace the Socratic approach to intellectual and moral growth.

Course Content

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts
• Invite this member to groups

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Email Address

Remember Me