Elements of Socratic Seminars
Socrates believed that enabling students to think for themselves was more important than filling their heads with
“right answers.” In a Socratic Seminar, participants seek deeper understanding of complex ideas through
rigorously thoughtful dialogue, rather than by memorizing bits of information or meeting arbitrary demands for
“coverage.” A Socratic Seminar fosters active learning as participants explore and evaluate the ideas, issues, and
values in a particular text. A good seminar consists of four interdependent elements: (1) the text being
considered, (2) the questions raised, (3) the seminar leader, and (4) the participants. A closer look at each of these
elements helps explain the unique character of a Socratic Seminar.
The Text Socratic Seminar texts are chosen for their richness in ideas, issues, and values, and their ability to
stimulate extended, thoughtful dialogue. A seminar text can be drawn from readings in literature, history, science,
math, health, and philosophy or from works of art or music. A good text raises important questions in the
participants’ minds, questions for which there are no right or wrong answers. At the end of a successful Socratic
Seminar, participants often leave with more questions than they brought with them.
The Question
A Socratic Seminar opens with a question either posed by the leader or solicited from
participants as they acquire more experience in seminars. An opening question has no right answer; instead, it
reflects a genuine curiosity on the part of the questioner. A good opening question leads participants back to the
text as they speculate, evaluate, define, and clarify the issues involved. Responses to the opening question
generate new questions from the leader and participants, leading to new responses. In this way, the line of inquiry
in a Socratic Seminar evolves on the spot rather than being pre-determined by the leader.
The Leader In a Socratic Seminar, the leader plays a dual role as leader and participant. The seminar leader
consciously demonstrates habits of mind that lead to a thoughtful exploration of the ideas in the text by keeping
the discussion focused on the text, asking follow-up questions, helping participants clarify their positions when
arguments become confused, and involving reluctant participants while restraining their more vocal peers. As a
seminar participant, the leader actively engages in the group’s exploration of the text. To do this effectively, the
leader must know the text well enough to anticipate varied interpretations and recognize important possibilities in
each.
The Participants In Socratic Seminar, participants share with the leader the responsibility for the quality of the
seminar. Good seminars occur when participants study the text closely in advance, listen actively, share their
ideas and questions in response to the ideas and questions of others, and search for evidence in the text to support
their ideas. Participants acquire good seminar behaviors through participating in seminars and reflecting on them
afterward. After each seminar, the leader and participants discuss the experience and identify ways of improving
the next seminar. Before each new seminar, the leader also offers coaching and practice in specific habits of mind
that improve reading, thinking, and discussing.
Seminar Guidelines and Grading
Seminar participants MUST:
 Be prepared.
 Listen carefully, actively and respectfully. 1
 Speak clearly and concisely, taking time to think before you speak. (Make sure to review the “seminar
comment types” on the back side of this sheet)
 Discuss the text, not each other’s opinions.
Seminar participants SHOULD:
 Dialogue with fellow participants, not with the leader.
 Invite quiet participants to speak, but don’t pressure them. 2
To ensure this happens, you should either address the previous speaker or offer a reason for changing the subject.
If you are called upon and have nothing to say, the appropriate response is some variation of “I’m not sure what I think about that, but please
come back to me.”
1
2




Ask good questions and for clarification when confused.
Help fellow participants clarify questions and responses.
Give evidence and examples to support your responses.
Direct the discussion back to the original topic if/when the conversation wanders 3
Silence is part of a seminar, too. People are thinking (or appear to be thinking).
“Penalty” Cards
Yellow card: If you receive two yellow cards, you will receive an “F” for the seminar and you not be allowed to
participate in the remainder.
 Talking while others are talking (different from two people starting to talk at the same time)
 Interrupting (even unintentionally)
 Calling attention to yourself/immaturity (visible or audible disappointment when you don’t get
something you want; general goofiness, such as dancing in your seat, making faces/noises, etc.)
 Not listening/staring off into space/”playing” with your stuff/appearing uninvolved
Red card: If you receive one red card, you will receive a “0” for the seminar and you will not be allowed to
participate in the remainder.
 Rudeness/aggression
 Doing anything with your phone
Blue card: If you receive this card, you will spend the next five minutes listening instead of talking. You may
resume talking at the time written on the card.
 Time for you to listen.
A
B
C
D
F
0
3

















Adheres to seminar “musts.”
Exhibits an understanding of the text.
Provides insight on a variety of issues.
Makes specific references to text quotations or pages in support of point.
Adheres to seminar “musts.”
Exhibits an understanding of the text.
Provides insight on a variety of issues.
Makes general references to text.
Adheres to seminar “musts.”
Exhibits an understanding of the text.
Shares one or two meaningful comments.
Adheres to seminar “musts.”
Exhibits an understanding of the text.
Comments are relevant but lacking in insight or understanding.
Adheres to seminar “musts.”
Fails to contribute in a meaningful way (fails to speak, only restates others’ ideas, etc.).
Fails to adhere to seminar “musts.”
Stick to the point currently under discussion; makes notes about ideas you may want to return to
Socratic Seminar Comment Types – The Good and
Bad
Sample Prompt: “Not rounding off, but opening out.”
Comment upon the way the authors deal with the ending
in relation to the whole.
 In-Depth/Analytical Comment: where you give an
in-depth response to the question. This may be
followed by a text reference to support the comment.
“Erich Maria Remarque ‘rounded off’ his novel
by presenting Paul as being at peace with death
in the closing paragraph, thus closing off his
internal conflict.”
 Piggyback: where you agree with and expand on
what a peer says.
“I can agree with that because apart from being
peaceful, Paul seems relieved about dying
because he knows he can’t go back and be the
same person he was before the war.”
 Text Reference: where you read a quote from the
text either in support of your own comment or that of
another participant. This might be followed up by an
in-depth comment of your own. (Specific references
are better than general references.)
Specific: “On page 172, when Paul is standing in
his room during leave, he thinks, ‘A terrible
feeling of foreignness suddenly arises up in me. I
cannot find my way back, I am shut out though I
entreat earnestly and put forth all my strength.’”
or bring the conversation back on course when it
goes off topic too far. “Do you think that…? Is it
possible that….? Does anyone feel that…? I was
wondering if…”
“Is it possible that the book is opened out due to
the commentary on the soldier’s role? The
conflict is resolved only because Paul dies –
suggesting that is the only decent fate of a
soldier who has seen and done such terrible
things? Isn’t Remarque making us open out to
analyzing wars in general?”
 Connection: where you relate the book to another
book/story/movie/song, etc.
“This is like Don Quixote in that the only way
the main characters were able to preserve
themselves was death because society wanted
them to operate in a different way from the way
they saw it.”
 Clarification Statement: where you politely correct
someone who is misinformed. These are important in
seminars because they help us to stay on track (and
keep everyone “on the same page.”)
 Restatement: where you rephrase another’s idea
without contributing anything new.
(see in-depth or piggyback above) “Yes, he is calm
when he dies like he is at peace with being able to
die.”
General: “When Paul goes home, he feels like a
stranger in his home.”
 Unsubstantiated Response: where you make a
generalized comment that has no supporting
evidence.
 Request for Clarification: where you follow up a
comment by a peer with a question asking for more
information or a better understanding of their
comment. “Do you mean…? Are you saying…” What
do you mean by…”
Paul died because he was poisoned. (Though
interesting, there is no textual support for this theory.)
 Off-Topic Response: where you are off topic.
“Do you mean that the novel is rounded off
instead of opened out because of Paul’s internal
conflict being seemingly resolved?”
I think Paul liked cheese. (Perhaps he did, but that
has no relevance to the topic.)
 Question: where you ask a related question or ask a
peer a question designed to stimulate the
conversation, develop a new avenue not yet explored,
 Grandstanding/Verbose Response: where you
monopolize class discussion, speaking protractedly
and bombastically with no regard to other
participants or to relevancy to the discussion
Follow-up questions genuinely refer to something that
has been said or referenced. They can arise at any point
during the dialogue; they are designed to further clarify
or investigate an idea or perspective.

Why do you say that?

What do you mean by ___?

Where do you find support for that in the text?

___, tell me more about (your last comment).

Is this what the author intended?

How would you explain in your own words what
(another student) said?

What would change your mind?

Who is in the position to know if that is so?

Why did you say “they?”

What view would be in opposition to what you
are saying?
Techniques for Clarifying and Expanding

Why do you say that?

What do you mean by that word?

What is a different way of saying that?

What led you to that conclusion?

Point to a word. What does that word mean?

What would be an example?


How does that relate with what you said about
___?
Refer to a specific word in the text. How does
that fit?

Have them defend their position.

Are you saying that ___?

Could you rephrase that?

What part don’t you get?

Could you put that in your own words?

How is your idea related to ___?

Could you also be saying that___?

Do you mean ___?

I find it curious that___?

What in the text supports your idea?

What connections can you make with ___?

Can you add something to___?

How do you resolve ___?

Who can tell me about ___?

Think about ___. What are your thoughts?

What do you understand up to the part you don’t
understand?

By what reasoning did you come to that
conclusion?

What would you say to someone who said ___?

Are the reasons adequate? Why?

What led you to that belief?

How does that apply to this case?
o
o





slave or servant -How are they different?
How do you support that from the text?
If you think they are wrong in their use of a
word:
o
Why did you use that particular word?
o
Is that the author's intent?
o
Use a similar word (i.e.
servant/employee); does it fit?
If they are rattling on, slow them down with:
o
I don't quite follow you.
o
Why?
o
Do you say ___ (use a specific word)?
If they are puzzled, ask what puzzles them.
o
Use an example to illustrate the polar
positions.
o
Use yes/no questions.
Involve other students in a response:
o
What do you think about ?
o
Do you agree with that?
When an answer is muddled:
o
Look for the reason, ask about it.
o
Repeat the point to the student.
o
Use the basic concept again in a
question.