lOMoARcPSD|49830739
HANOI PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2
FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES PHẠM TRUNG KI˚N
STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE USE OF SOCRATIC
SEMINAR IN A SPEAKING CLASS AT HANOI
PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF
THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ENGLISH HANOI, 2019 lOMoARcPSD|49830739 lOMoARcPSD|49830739
HANOI PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2 FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES PHẠM TRUNG KI˚N
STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE USE OF SOCRATIC
SEMINAR IN A SPEAKING CLASS AT HANOI
PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF
THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS IN ENGLISH Supervisor
Le Thi Phuong Thao M.A HANOI, 2019 i lOMoARcPSD|49830739
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
Title: STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE USE OF SOCRATIC
SEMINAR IN A SPEAKING CLASS AT HANOI PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2
I hereby declare that I am the primary author of this bachelor thesis and I
have not used any sources other than those identified as references. I further
declare that I have not submitted this thesis at any other institution in order to obtain a degree. Date submitted: 9 May, 2019 Student Pham Trung Kien
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, my heartfelt appreciation goes to my admirable
supervisor, Ms. LŒ Thị Phương Thảo, for her continuous support and ii lOMoARcPSD|49830739
encouragement when I met obstacles during the journey. Thanks to her valuable
comments and kind words, I have found the motivation to complete the thesis
which I had had intention to give up on. The completion of this work would not
have been possible without her expert advice, close attention and unswerving guidance.
Secondly, my thanks go to my family for encouraging me to continue with
the thesis. I owe my special thanks to my parents: Đỗ Thị Nga and Phạm Văn
Miên, for their emotional and material sacrifices as well as their understanding and unconditional support.
Finally, I owe thanks to many people who helped me and encouraged me
during my study. My special thanks to Mr. Phan Thœc Định for his suggestions
for data analysis. I am specially thankful to all the students of class K43- English
Language Teaching for their support and enthusiasm; to my special friends: Ho
ng Thị Thu Nga, Trần Đình Xuân; to all my best friends at university: Trà Giang,
Phương Linh, Vĩnh Thuỵ, Minh Phương, Thu Hiến for endless encouragement. ABSTRACT
This study is an action research which investigates the effectiveness of the
use of Socratic Seminar in a speaking class by exploring how it is perceived by
students. The target group was twenty-five second-year students at a university
in Vietnam. The study was conducted in two cycles. Data were collected by
questionnaires, group interviews, video-based observation. The results showed
that the technique was positively perceived by students. The technique, as
welcomed by the students, created a more lively new learning environment when
compared to the traditional one. Moreover, the use of Socratic Seminar was
believed to have improved their vocabulary, pronunciation, and fluency while
students were uncertain about the use of Socratic Seminar could help them
improve their accuracy. Students also showed their agreement with the researcher
that they were confident to speak and offered more opportunities to talk. iii lOMoARcPSD|49830739
Furthermore, students’ autonomy in learning was promoted when they were put
in charge of their learning. It became evident that the use of Socratic Seminar
could somewhat improve students’ speaking skills. The use of Socratic Seminar
in language teaching is expected to be a promising area for researchers to figure out the new discoveries.
Key words: Socratic Seminar, speaking skills, effectiveness, positive attitude, promising area. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of Authorship………………………………………………… i
Acknowledgments.…………………………………………………….... . ii
Abstract.……………………………………………………..................... iii
Table of contents.……………………………………………………........ iv
List of tables, figures and abbreviations.……………………………….. v PART A. INTRODUCTION
1. Statement and Rationale for the study.…………………………………. 1
2. Aim of the study and research question……………………………….... 3
3. Methods of the study………………………………...…………………. 3
4. Scope of the study………………………………...…………………….. 4
5. Significance of the study……………………………………………….. 4
6. Organization of the study………………………………………………. 4 iv lOMoARcPSD|49830739 PART B. DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Socratic Seminar………………………………………………………... 6
1.1 Definition …………………………………………………………... 6
1.2 The procedure of Socratic Seminar ………………………………... 7
1.3 Types of questions used in Socratic Seminar………………………. 7
1.4 Roles of Socratic Seminar in education …………………………… 7
1.5 Some problems might occur during the progress of a Socratic 9
Seminar…………………………………………………………………
2. Speaking teaching…………………………………………………....... 10
2.1 Definition of speaking skill………………………………………… 10
2.2 The importance of speaking skill………………………………….. 10
2.3 Teaching and learning speaking skill……………………………… 11
2.4 Characteristics of a successful speaking activity………………….. 12
2.5 Speaking problems………………………………………………… 12
3. Socratic Seminar in teaching and learning speaking skills…………...... 13 v lOMoARcPSD|49830739
4. Teacher and students’ interaction in Socratic Seminar………………… 14
5. Related research worldwide……………………………………………. 14
6. Action research…………………………………………………………. 16
6.1 Definition…………………………………………………………… 16
6.2 Characteristics of action research…………………………………... 16
6.3 Steps in action research……………………………………………... 17
6.4 Rationale for choosing action research……………………………... 19
CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY
1. Objectives of the study…………………………………………………. 21
2. Participants……………………………………………………………... 21
3. Data collection………………………………………………….............. 21
4. Action Research Design………………………………………………... 22
5. Summary………………………………………………........................... 26
CHAPTER III. ACTION AND OUTCOMES OF RESEARCH CYCLE ONE 1. Planning 27
stage…………………………………………………............... 30 2. Action and Observation 32
stage…………………………………………... 35 3.
Students’ responses from the first interview…………………………… 35
4. Reflection on research…………………………………………………..
5. Summary………………………………………………….......................
CHAPTER IV. ACTION AND OUTCOMES OF RESEARCH 36 CYCLE TWO 36
1. Planning stage…………………………………………………............... 2. 37
Action and Observation stage…………………………………………... 37
3. Reflection on changes…………………………………………………... 39
4. Students’ responses from the second interview………………………… 44
5. Results from survey…………………………………………………...... vi lOMoARcPSD|49830739
6. Summary …………………………………………………...................... vii lOMoARcPSD|49830739 PART C. CONCLUSION
1. Summary of major findings…………………………………………….. 45
2. Recommendations…………………………………………………........ 46
3. Limitations………………………………………………….................. 46
4. Suggestions for further study………………………………………….. 47
References………………………………………………….......………… 48 Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Guidelines……………………………………… 53
Appendix B: Interview Sample………………………………………….. 54
Appendix C: Students’ questionnaire 1…………………………………. 57
Appendix D: Students’ questionnaire 2…………………………………. 59
Appendix E: Sample of a text used in the seminar (Cycle 1)…………… 61
Appendix F: Sample of a text used in the seminar (Cycle 2)…………… 65
Appendix G: Socratic Seminar Plan (Cycle 1)………………………….. 67
Appendix H: Socratic Seminar Plan (Cycle 2).………………………….. 69
Appendix I: Sample of Class Observation.………………………………. 71
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND ABBREVIATIONS List of tables:
Table 1.1 Students’ scores in the preceding term. viii lOMoARcPSD|49830739
Table 1.2 The content in the textbook “Speak Out, Upper- Intermediate” is difficult for me.
Table 1.3 The speaking activities in the textbook “Speak Out, Upper- Intermediate” are boring.
Table 1.4 I was afraid of speaking in front of the class.
Table 1.5 My vocabulary is not good.
Table 1.6 My pronunciation is not good.
Table 1.7 I do not have enough opportunities to speak in the class.
Table 2.1 After participating in the Socratic Seminars, my pronunciation is improved.
Table 2.2 After participating in the Socratic Seminars, my vocabulary is expanded.
Table 2.3 After participating in the Socratic Seminars, I can frequently produce error-free sentences.
Table 2.4 The Socratic Seminar generally improves my ability to speak English
Table 2.5 After participating in the Socratic Seminars, I can speak more fluently.
Table 2.6 After participating in the Socratic Seminars, I feel more confident to speak in front of the class.
Table 2.7 After participating in the Socratic Seminars, I can express my opinions in a respectful manner.
Table 2.8 After participating in the Socratic Seminars, I exchange more ideas with my classmates.
Table 2.9 I can learn from other students when participating in the Socratic Seminars.
Table 2.10 I have more chance to speak English in the class.
Table 2.11 I would like my teacher to use Socratic Seminars instead of traditional
methods in the speaking class. List of figures:
Figure 1. Cyclical AR model based on Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) ix lOMoARcPSD|49830739
List of abbreviations: AR Action Research ELT English Language Teaching EFL English Foreign Language T Teacher S Student x lOMoARcPSD|49830739 PART A INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces the study by outlining the statement of the problem,
the rationale for the study, the significance and contribution of the study, the
research questions and purposes, the methodology adopted, and the structure of the thesis.
1. Statement of the problem and Rationale for the study
Speaking is considered to be the fundamental skill to acquire. Nunan (1991)
states that for most people, mastering speaking skill is the single most important
aspect of learning a second or foreign language, and success is measured in terms
of the ability to carry out a conversation in language.
Lawtie (2004) explains why speaking skill should be taught in classroom.
The first reason is that many students equate being able to speak a language as
knowing the language and, therefore, view learning the language as learning how
to speak the language. Therefore, if students do not learn how to speak or do not
get any opportunity to speak in the language classroom they may soon get
demotivated and lose interest in learning. Second, speaking is fundamental to
human communication. If the goal of teaching language is to enable students to
communicate in English, then speaking skills should be taught and practiced in
the language classroom. Therefore, EFL learners’ speaking needs to be the focus
of attention in the EFL teaching contexts (Albino, 2017).
Speaking skill, however, is a difficult one to acquire because it requires
more than the knowledge of grammatical and semantic rules (Kang Shumin,
2002). It requires students to be able to communicate properly in social
interactions. Moreover, the process of teaching speaking exists some problems.
Lawtie (2004) states that there are three problems identified in speaking class: (1)
Students do not want to talk or say anything because they are afraid of making
mistakes or because they are not interested in the topic, (2) When students work
in pairs or groups, they just end up chatting in their own language and (3) When
all the students speak together, it will be too noisy and out of hand, sometimes the 1 lOMoARcPSD|49830739
teacher loses control of the classroom. This may affect teacher-student interaction
in a negative way and make the lesson less interesting.
Moreover, training students how to communicate effectively is not
primarily emphasized. According to Gorkaltseva, Gozhinand Nagel (2015),
English in Russia, though being a compulsory subject at universities, was not
actually taught for the sake of verbal discourse and speaking English was not the
primary focus at universities. Similarly, in the Republic of Angola, Albino (2017)
claimed that English language was taught mainly for the purpose of examinations.
Although the students passed their exam, their oral communication was still a big
problem to concern because they could not express their ideas fluently. Noomura
(2013) asserts that the students were passive learners; they were shy to speak
English with their classmates. They lacked opportunities to use English in their
daily life. They lack motivation and responsibilities for their own learning in the
unchallenging English classrooms.
In Vietnamese context, it is widely acknowledged that “oral communicative
competence of Vietnamese learners is far from expectation at the completion of
university education” (Hao, 2017). Hong (2006) also shows that “the poor quality
of teaching speaking at a university in Vietnam results in a large number of
graduates who have difficulty with communicating English”. Although the
government has prioritized the goal that the majority of students will be able to
use English competently by 2020 and many teachers of English have adopted a
variety of methods to encourage students to learn English, it is important to have
appropriate techniques that can help students to participate in the class more
actively and develop their independent learning style. At Hanoi Pedagogical
University 2, it is necessary to have such techniques to help students to improve
their speaking skill when the goal of teaching speaking for second-year students
is that students will be able to communicate at upperintermediate level. Among
innovative approaches, the Socratic seminar emerges as a promising alternative
to encourage partnership between teaching, learning and research in the field of
the arts, humanities and social sciences (Blessinger and Carfora, 2014, p.3). 2 lOMoARcPSD|49830739
2. Aims of the study and research questions
The study is expected to investigate the students’ perspectives on the use
of Socratic Seminar in speaking class. There is only one research question that the
research is seeking to answer:
What are the students’ perspectives on the use of Socratic Seminar in speaking class?
3. Methods of the study
The methodological approach was action research using various methods
for data collection. There were two cycles in the study. In the first cycle, the
researcher implemented the Socratic Seminar into the speaking class. All
participants including teacher and students carried out their duties through four
stages: planning, action, observation, reflection. After the observation and
reflection, the teaching approach was revised to improve the lessons for the next
cycle. The tools for data gathering were questionnaires, group interviews, and
video-based observation. Two questionnaires were delivered to students. The
former was used to find out the cause of the low level in students’ speaking
performance while the latter was employed to find out their perspectives towards
the technique after trying-out strategies. A group interview was also made after
the completion of each cycle. All the lessons were video-taped to describe what
had happened in the classroom.
4. Scope of the study
In this study, the researcher focused on how Socratic Seminar works in only
speaking skills. Regarding the participants, the researcher only chose one class as a single case of the study. 3 lOMoARcPSD|49830739
5. Significance of the study
The study, once finished, would be a useful material for many readers. First,
the study offers readers an insight into the alternative pedagogical technique
which could be adapted into language teaching. Second, the study could provide
some recommendations thanks to students’ perceptions towards the method. Last
but not least, the study could serve as a reference material for further research,
anyone who shares the same interest can find the useful information in the study.
6. Organization of the study
The paper consists of three parts as follows: Part A Introduction
The Introduction section describes the
statement of the problem and the rationale for the
study. Then, it discusses the purpose of the study
and the research question. After that, the
introduction chapter introduces methodology and
scope of the study. Last but not least, the outline of the study is presented. Part B: Development
The Literature Review chapter lays the Chapter I
theoretical foundation of the study. Also, a concise
review of related studies worldwide is also Literature Review presented.
The Methodology chapter details the
methodological approach in the study. Chapter II
Specifically, the participants, the instruments as Methodology
well as the procedures of data collection and
analysis will be discussed in details. 4 lOMoARcPSD|49830739 Chapter III
This chapter details what the stages in the
Action and outcomes of first cycle, what had happened in the classroom, research cycle one
what students thought about the new change in the classroom.
The Action and Outcomes of Research Chapter IV Action
Cycle Two goes into detail how revised plan was and outcomes of
made after reflection on the cycle one, what
research cycle two happened in the classroom after making changes,
what students thought about the new speaking class. Part C
The Conclusion chapter ends the study by Conclusion
summarizing the main points, discussing the
implications, showing the limitations, and giving
some suggestions for further studies.
PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the various definitions of Socratic Seminar. The
chapter also discusses the existent literature on Socratic Seminar in terms of its
roles on education and drawbacks. The chapter shows the relations between the
use of Socratic Seminar and speaking teaching. This discussion reveals the gaps
in research on the use of the technique, some of which this study has tried to fill.
To be more specific, the discussion shows that there has been a scarcity of research
on the use of Socratic Seminar in foreign language teaching in Vietnam. 1. Socratic Seminar 5 lOMoARcPSD|49830739 1.1 Definition
There are various definitions of Socratic Seminar (also known as Socratic
Circles). Lesley Lambright (1995) defines a Socratic Seminar as an “exploratory
intellectual conversation centered on a text”. According to Elfie Israel (2002,
p.89), “Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on a text, in which the
leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students
listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and
articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They
learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly”.
Matt Copeland (2005)’s definition is that Socratic Seminar is “a
constructivist strategy in which participants engage in a conversation to
collectively seek a deeper understanding of complex idea”. Victor Moeller (2015)
identifies Socratic Seminar as an exercise in “reflective thinking”.
From all the definitions mentioned, it appears that the researchers agree
students play an active role in learning in Socratic Seminar. This seems to be in
line with the student-centered approach, which Vietnamese educators are
dedicated to implement in teaching context.
1.2 The procedure of Socratic Seminar
Matt Copeland (2005) describes the procedure of Socratic Seminar as follows : 1.
On the day before a Socratic circle, the teacher hands out a short passage of text. 2.
That night at home, students spend time reading, analyzing, and taking notes on the text. 3.
During class on the next day, students are randomly divided into two
concentric circles: an inner circle and an outer circle. 4.
The students in the inner circle read the passage aloud and then
engage in a discussion of the text for approximately ten minutes, while students 6 lOMoARcPSD|49830739
in the outer circle silently observe the behavior and performance of the inner circle. 5.
After this discussion of the text, the outer circle assesses the inner
circle’s performance and gives ten minutes of feedback for the inner circle. 6.
Students in the inner and outer circles now exchange roles and positions. 7.
The new inner circle holds a ten-minute discussion and then receives
ten minutes of feedback from the new outer circle.
The procedure may vary in each aspect, but the essence of the seminar lies
on the discussion-feedback-discussion-feedback pattern. Once students have
familiarized themselves with the structure of the Socratic seminar, teacher can
modify the discussion according to content, focus, and purpose.
1.3 Types of questions used in Socratic Seminars
Mortimer Adler (1948) classified three kinds of questions. He asked: “(1)
What does the author say? (2) What does he mean? (3) Is it true? Does it have any
relevance to you here today?” In 1956, Bloom categorized eight educational
objectives that used examples of questions for each kind of thinking: knowledge,
comprehension, translation, interpretation, application, analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation. The researcher agreed with Moeller (2015)’s opinion that it is not
necessary to adopt Bloom’s classification into the classroom discussion because
it becomes obvious that translation, application, analysis, synthesis can represent
interpretation while knowledge and comprehension can be put under the umbrella
of knowledge. The questions thus can be categorized into three types:
Factual question: A factual question has only one correct answer which can be found from the text.
Interpretive question: An interpretive question has more than one correct
answer because there might be a wide range of opinions about the interpretation in the meaning. 7 lOMoARcPSD|49830739
Evaluative question: An evaluative question used to ask ones to think about
their experience or values. Such questions sometimes would ask them how they
would act if they had a similar situation to the characters in the text.
1.4 Roles of Socratic Seminar in education
Thomas (2009) argued the importance of the Socratic Seminar as a teaching
technique that breaks the pattern of conformity and goes beyond the traditional
lecture and assessment curriculum. According to Matt Copeland (2005), he shows
that the use of Socratic Seminar could have positive effects on students in terms
of academic skills and social skills.
1.4.1 Developing students’ academic skills
According to Matt Copeland (2005), one benefit of Socratic Seminar is that
it “brings all the areas of curriculum and instruction together into a cohesive
whole”. He also states that the use of Socratic Seminar could foster students’
critical thinking, creativity, and critical reading. Moreover, students can develop
“a lifelong love of reading” (Matt, 2005) by repeatedly reading the texts and
analyzing the materials. Students could improve their speaking and listening skills
when engaging in the discussion. Because of the way Socratic Seminar is
structured, students “learn quickly to improve their learning so that they hear with
their ears allows them to listen with their minds”. Also, students are quick to point
out when they are not listening to one another, which helps them to understand
the importance of listening skill to the success of discussion, then they could find a way to solve it.
Instead of remaining silent during the class, they become “more active and
vocal learning participants” (Matt, 2005). Reflective thinking is also the benefit
students can gain when they are in a Socratic class. They can be able to “mull over
past experiences, assessing one’s own performance, and establishing goals for
future performance”. Adler (1982) shows that Socratic Seminar could teach
students “how to analyze as well as the thoughts of the other, which is to say it
engages students in disciplined conversation about ideas and values”. 8