My thanks to Dr. Kelly Smith of the Clemson University Department of Philosophy. Kelly taught an all-too-brief seminar on the Socratic Method. Like most things we do when we borrow from other disciplines, I only had it partly right.
Hopefully, you know who Socrates was and his role in the development of Western thought. Even if you come from another tradition I hope you have at least some idea of who he was.
There are two models of learning: rote and Platonic.
In the rote model, there is a right answer and your are expected to regurgitate that answer when questioned. This style learning is common in K-12. My first introduction to rote memorization in its worst guise was catechism classes. Know it exactly verbatim, or the nun would beat it out of you.
The second model is the Platonic model. In the Platonic model, there could be many "right answers" but the issue is to be able to reason why a particular answer is correct. The Socratic method is a method for determining the truth by dialogue and reasoning.
The Dialogues of Plato have ample examples of this method in action. The question is, "How do I use it?"
In practice, the Method works like this:
A question will be posed. That question might be from me or it might be the result of a class discussion.
Somehow, we will determine who will have to lead the discussion. There could be two groups of students or the students might be one side and me the other.
The dialogue commences with the question being answered by one discussant.
We will then discuss this answer looking for shortcomings.
There will probably be several iterations. Eventually, we will have to admit we really don't know what the answer is.
We will then start looking for the answer together.
Let me give you an example of how all this works. Now, I had written this web page and sent it to Dr. Smith. He, with good Socratic methodology, pointed out that may be the above was a bit overstated (A habit of mine). What we see here is the first couple of iterations in the Socratic method:
Here is his analysis.
I don't disagree with what you say, but I worry that students will get confused. They might say "But, if the point is showing my answer is correct, how can there also be multiple correct answers?" I normally present these as two separate points: 1) The Platonic model of knowledge is about showing why an answer is correct, not merely regurgitating the correct answer. and then 2) In Philosophy, there are many situations where there are multiple answers to a given question and no clear consensus as to which one is right. However, there are three different claims you need to be careful not to confuse:
there is no single, generally agreed upon, answer
there is no answer
all answers are equally correct
In most cases, even in situations (like science) where you don't normally think so, A is true. B is almost never true - there are usually answers of some description, even if they are terrible. Whether or not C is true depends on how much of a post-modernist or relativist you are.
However, it should at least be clear that simply because there is no single, generally agreed upon answer does not necessarily put all answers in the same boat. For example, there are two main competing theories about the nature of an acid. We don't know which is right - in fact, they may BOTH turn out to be wrong. But that doesn't mean we can't give very good reasons for preferring one of these two main theories to a third which, logically possible, does not propose a good solution.
If you prefer a programming metaphor (my wife is a programmer): Bob and Sally may both have programs that fulfill some design specification. Whether Bob's is better than Sally's may depend on what criteria one applies - maybe Bob's is more efficient with computer resources, but Sally's is more accurate, etc. We may have a hard time saying definitely which is "better" without being very specific, but that does not mean we can't say anything about the relative quality - Bob's is superior to Sally's in terms of efficiency, etc. Moreover, both Bob's and Sally's might be superior to Ed's, which does the job but is far less efficient and less accurate than either of the other two. They are all superior to Jane's, which causes smoke to pour from the computer, activates the halon system, and forces everyone to leave the building!
Now that we have that out of our system, we can continue. The Socratic Method is all about your participation in class. My grading scale does not admit to passing students who cannot write programs that are convincingly correct or who cannot develop solutions to the problems of the discipline. There are no correct answers in the rote learning sense.
You must be prepared to take a position. This has been called the "strategy of forcible engagement." I expect you have read the assignment for the day. You have, in most cases, one or more years of experience. You should have at least an opinion. The Socratic Method questioning will help you to understand if the opinions are facts or not.
You must be able to synthesize new knowledge from the information you currently have plus experiences you gain in this class. My job as an instructor is not to teach (no one can "teach" you anything, you must learn on your own) but to give you a set of experiences that will make learning possible.
Among the most dreaded questions are those that start "Give me an example of ...." My experience with computer science students is that you read superficially. Of all the examples, a working program using the concept is about the only "evidence" I "believe".
I am not beneath giving false answers. You just never know.
As the discussions proceed, be prepared at any point to vote on what you believe the answer is.
As computer scientists, you should constantly ask the question, "How can I design a program to test or demonstrate this point?"
I will often end class with the question(s) that will be taken up in the next class.
You can always count on the first thing out of my mouth to be "Are there any questions?" I mean it. We will discuss student questions all period if that's what it takes. My goal is to never lecture on anything.
There are seminal examples and seminal problems in every discipline. I will emphasize these in class discussions. You can expect to have to deal with this problems on every examination.
Just like I might give you a "wrong" answer, I might also take a silly position. You will leave class saying, "I can't believe he said that." You might ask yourself why I said such and such or how are you going to convince me that the statement is silly.
I hate quiet classrooms! Make sure your class isn't!