A Typology for an Online Socrates Café

Abstract

Background/Context

Increased polarization of viewpoints in the United States may have detrimental consequences for democratic pedagogy. The goals of civil society require a reliance on democratic values, and active participation is necessary for a strong civil society that demands the common good be deliberated in democratic ways. Discussion as pedagogy has been advanced for furthering democratic learning spaces in higher education with adults and in teacher education programs. Opportunities to participate in democratic discussions may also be created in online courses to prepare students who are literate in multiculturalism and an inclusive society. Engaging students in discussion that facilitates diverse perspectives and that challenges taken-for-granted assumptions is necessary.

Purpose

This article explores the theoretical frameworks of a pedagogy of process called a Socrates Café, resulting in a typology for an online Socrates Café. This framework may assist instructors to create and sustain purposeful online discussion forums that engage students in deliberative discussion to develop democratic learning spaces and civil discourse. If democratic pedagogies are enhanced when people deliberate in online discussions by sharing their reasoning with each other, listening to competing points of view, considering new evidence, and treating one another as political equals, then the Socrates Café has much to offer as a pedagogical process.

Research Design

Drawing on scholarship from key pedagogical and dispositional components, this analytical essay offers a typology that finds its theoretical roots in several areas, including: philosophical forum, discussion and dialogue, critical inquiry, habits of mind, intellectual traits, critical reflection, and civil discourse.

Findings/Results

From both the pedagogical and dispositional components of the Socrates Café, we develop an integrative framework for guiding the creation and ongoing development of an online discussion. Our purpose in creating the framework was to determine those pedagogical and attitudinal dispositions that were foundational elements of the online Socrates Café: clarity of thinking and other habits of mind; attitudes of empathy, confidence, open mindedness and scholarliness; and questioning and dialogue.

Conclusions/Recommendations

This essay concludes that the online Socrates Café is fraught with unavoidable contradictions resulting in a pedagogy of process that is negotiated and dynamic, but also purposeful and intentional. The integrative framework proposed in this work assists students to examine who they are as scholars, practitioners, and members of a democratic society. The inherent tensions between the competing values that situate the Socrates Café make it a complex pedagogy that invites students to encounter issues that surpass the self and connect them with larger societal problems, enhancing the potential for discussions that are purposeful and result in an expansion of perspectives. Supporting students as they negotiate these and other contradictions and paradoxes in a functional Socrates Café has immense potential for facilitating democratic spaces in pedagogy for civil discourse.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrami

P. C.

, Bernard

, Borokhovski

, Wade

, Surkes

, Tamim

, & Zhang

Dai

(2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.

Ackerman

(1989). Why dialogue? Journal of Philosophy, 86(1) 5–22.

Adler

(1982). The Paideia proposal: Rediscovering the essence of education. American School Board Journal, 169(7), 17–20.

Anderson

& Piro

(2015). A partnership in a pedagogy of process: Conversations about co-teaching critical analysis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Education. 14(1) 72–94.

Andersson

L. M.

, & Pearson

C. M.

(1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of management review, 24(3), 452–471.

Baker

(2012). Civil discourse and a grand bargain. Woodrow Wilson Center video. Retrieved from http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/civil-discourse-and-grand-bargain-lee-hamilton-lecture-series.

Banks

J. A.

(Ed.). (1996). Multicultural education, transformative knowledge, and action. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bailin

, Case

, Coombs

, & Daniels

(1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285–302.

Barbour

(1998). A passion for democracy: American essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10.

Barr

(1968). Notes on dialogue. Annapolis: St. John's College.

11.

Bellamy

and Raab

(1999). Wiring up the deck-chairs? In Coleman

, Taylor

and van de Donk

(ed). Parliament in the Age of the Internet, Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 156–72.

12.

Bridges

(1979). Education, democracy and discussion. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

13.

Brookfield

S. D.

, & Preskill

(2012). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

14.

Brown

(2005). The world café. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

15.

Calhoun

(2000). The virtue of civility. Philosophy & public affairs, 29(3), 251–275.

16.

Churchill

(1979). Parliament Bill. Speech on the House of Commons, November 11, 1947. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1947)

17.

Copleston

(1985). A history of philosophy. New York, NY: Image Books.

18.

Dahlberg

(2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615–633.

19.

Darling-Hammond

(1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research, policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher (25) 6, 5–17.

20.

Davetian

(2009). Civility: a cultural history. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

21.

Davis

, & Owen

(1998). New media and American politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22.

Dewey

(1927). The public and its problems. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson.

23.

Dewey

(1933). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1910).

24.

Dewey

(1938). The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

25.

Dewey

(1944). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1910)

26.

Dewey

(1985). How we think and selected essays, 1910-1911. Boydston

J. A.

& Graubner

B. W.

(Eds.). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

27.

Dewey

(2004). Democracy and education. Mineola, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1916)

28.

Doll

W. E.

(1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum (vol. 167). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

29.

Dryek

(1996). Democracy in capitalist times: Ideals, limits, and struggles. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

30.

Dworkin

(2006). Is democracy possible here? Principles for a new political debate. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

31.

Edwards

(2009). Civil society. Cambridge, MA: Polity.

32.

Elder

, & Paul

(2007). The thinker's guide to analytic thinking: How to take thinking apart and what to look for when you do: the elements of thinking and the standards they must meet (vol. 16). Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation Critical Thinking.

33.

Elder

& Paul

(2008). Intellectual standards: The words that name them and the criteria that define them. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

34.

Ennis

, Millman

, & Tomoko

T. N.

(2004). Cornell critical thinking tests level X & level Z manual. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.

35.

Facione

P. A.

(1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.

36.

Facione

P. A.

(2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1).

37.

Facione

, Sánchez

, Facione

& Gainen

(1995). The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 41(1) 1–25.

38.

Farrell

J. T.

(1959). Dialogue on John Dewey. Lamont

(Ed.). New York, NY: Horizon Press.

39.

Flores

I. B.

(2014). The Problem of democracy in the context of polarization. In Philosophical Perspectives on Democracy in the 21st Century (pp. 103–117). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.

40.

Forni

P. M.

(2002). Choosing civility: The twenty-five rules of considerate conduct. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.

41.

Golding

(2011). Educating for critical thinking: Thought-encouraging questions in a community of inquiry. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 357–370.

42.

Gurteen

(2009). Knowledge Café. Inside Knowledge, 13(3), 8–13.

43.

Gutmann

, & Thompson

(2012). The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands it and campaigning undermines it. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.

44.

Halpern

(1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455.

45.

Hemming

(2000). Encouraging critical thinking: But…what does that mean? Journal of Education, 35(2), 173.

46.

Herbst

(2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

47.

Hess

(2009). Controversy in the classroom: The democratic power of discussion. New York, NY: Routledge.

48.

Hew

, & Cheung

(2003). Evaluating the participation and quality of thinking of pre-service teachers in an asynchronous online discussion environment: Part II. International Journal of Instructional Media, 30(4).

49.

Hibbing

J. R.

, & Theiss-Morse

(2002). Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

50.

Honderich

(Ed.). (2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy (pp. 793–794). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

51.

James

(1974). Winston S. Churchill: his complete speeches, 1897-1963. New York, NY: Chelsea House Publishers.

52.

Knezic

, Wubbels

, Elbers

, & Hajer

(2010). The Socratic dialogue and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1104–1111.

53.

Landsman

, & Gorski

(2007). Countering standardization. Educational Leadership, 64(8), 40–41.

54.

Leskes

(2013). A plea for civil discourse: Needed, the academy's leadership. LiberalEducation, 99(4). Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-fa13/leskes.cfm

55.

Lipman

(1993). Thinking children and education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

56.

Lipman

(2004). Philosophy for children's debt to Dewey. Critical and Creative Thinking, 12(1), 1–8.

57.

Lipman

(2010). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

58.

Lipman

, Sharp

A. M.

, & Oscanyan

F. S.

(2010). Philosophy in the Classroom. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

59.

MacKnight

C. B.

(2000). Teaching critical thinking through online discussions. Educause Quarterly, 4, 38–41.

60.

Mann

T. E.

, & Ornstein

N. J.

(2013). It's even worse than it looks: How the American constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism. New York, NY: Basic Books.

61.

Mansbridge

(1998). The many faces of representation. Working Paper. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Boston, MA: Harvard University.

62.

Manthey

(2010). A new model of healing for the profession of nursing. Creative Nursing, 16(1), 18–20.

63.

Marri

(2005). Building a framework for classroom-based multicultural democratic education: Learning from three skilled teachers. The Teachers College Record, 107(5), 1036–1059.

64.

McAvoy

, & Hess

(2013). Classroom deliberation in an era of political polarization. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 14–47.

65.

McIntosh

(1988). White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack. Retrieved from: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html

66.

Meier

(2002). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

67.

Millett

, & Tapper

(2012). Benefits of collaborative philosophical inquiry in schools. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 546–567.

68.

Morison

, & Newman

(2001). Online citizenship: Consultation and participation in New Labour's Britain and beyond. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 15(2), 171–94.

69.

Norris

, & Ennis

(1989). Evaluating Critical Thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.

70.

Papacharissi

(2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259–283.

71.

Parker

W. C.

, & Hess

(2001). Teaching with and for discussion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(3), 273–289.

72.

Parker

W. C.

(2006). Public discourses in schools: Purposes, problems, possibilities. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 11–18.

73.

Paul

(1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how? New Directions for Community Colleges, 1992(77), 3–24.

74.

Paul

, & Elder

(1996). Universal intellectual standards. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

75.

Paul

, & Elder

(2001). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts & tools (vol. 2). Foundation for Critical Thinking.

76.

Paul

, & Elder

(2007). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), 34–37.

77.

Perkins

, & Murphy

(2006). Identifying and measuring individual engagement in critical thinking in online discussions: An exploratory case study. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 298–307.

78.

Phillips

(2001). Socrates café: a fresh taste of philosophy New York, NY: Norton.

79.

Piro

, & Anderson

(2015). Discussions in Socrates café: Implications for critical thinking in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 37(3), 265–283.

80.

Rodgers

(2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. The Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842–866.

81.

Schlosberg

, Zavestoski

, & Shulman

S. W.

(2008). Democracy and e-rulemaking: Web-based technologies, participation, and the potential for deliberation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(1), 37–55.

82.

Simon

R. I.

(1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for a pedagogy of possibility. New York; NY: Bergin & Garvey.

83.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

84.

UNESCO. (2007). Philosophy. A school of freedom. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/philosophy/.

85.

Weeks

(2011). In search of civility: Confronting incivility on the college campus. New York: NY: Morgan James Publishing.

86.

Witschge

(2004). Online deliberation: Possibilities of the internet for deliberative democracy. In Shane

(Ed.), Democracy online: The Prospects for political renewal through the internet (pp. 109–122). New York; NY: Routledge.

87.

Wright

, & Street

(2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849–869.

88.

Yang

, Newby

, & Bill

(2008). Facilitating interactions through structured web-based bulletin boards: A quasi-experimental study on promoting learners' critical thinking skills. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1572–1585.