Encouraging Critical Thinking and Student Agency Through Socratic Seminars
Jessica Cordero, Lehman College
Bio
Jessica Cordero is a College and Career Counselor at the High School of Computers and Technology in the Bronx with over 20 years of experience. She supports students in navigating college access, career exploration, and postsecondary planning. As a College Now instructor with Lehman College, she teaches LEH 102, where students engage in a rigorous, college-level experience that builds their academic skills, critical thinking, and confidence for success beyond high school.
Course Setting
My course is LEH 102 through the College Now program at Lehman College, which is designed to provide students with their first college-level learning experience. The class meets once a week on the high school campus in the Bronx. Currently, 18 sophomores from the High School of Computers and Technology are enrolled in the course.
Problem of Practice
In my LEH 102 College Now course at Lehman College, many students struggle with independent thinking during discussions and academic tasks. When faced with open-ended questions or higher-order thinking activities, students often rely on teacher validation, wait for peers to respond first, or turn to AI tools for answers instead of developing their own ideas. This dependence limits their ability to think critically, take intellectual risks, and confidently defend original perspectives. Because the course is designed to introduce students to college-level expectations, it is important that students build autonomy and value the process of reasoning rather than simply finding quick answers. My problem of practice is determining how to intentionally structure classroom discussions and learning tasks that promote active participation, critical thinking, student confidence, and authentic independent reasoning.
Strategy
My strategy for implementing Socratic seminars focused on gradually building students’ confidence, discussion skills, and independent thinking through clear structure and predictable routines. Because many students were still developing confidence in academic conversations, I first modeled effective preparation by demonstrating annotated texts, thoughtful written questions, and evidence-based responses. Sentence stems were a key strategy because they supported students in asking questions, respectfully disagreeing, building on ideas, and citing evidence during discussions.
The seminars also included partner roles in which one student served as the participant while the other acted as the observer. Observers took notes on discussion behaviors, use of evidence, and participation patterns. At the end of the seminar, partners reflected and shared feedback with one another to strengthen communication and self-awareness.
Since my course met only once each week, predictable routines were essential. Entry tickets activated prior knowledge and focused students on the discussion topic, while exit tickets reinforced synthesis, reflection, and independent reasoning. To address varying readiness levels, I differentiated preparation materials by providing guided annotation questions or open-ended prompts based on student needs. Rubrics clarified expectations, guided assessment, and supported student self-assessment. Structured academic dialogue strengthens critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and student ownership of learning.
Documentation
Socratic Seminar Rubric
An evaluation tool designed to assess student participation and engagement in classroom discussions. It uses a 4-point scale across four key criteria to determine a total possible score of 16 points.
Figure #1: Discussion Rubric
Sentence Stems
A practical guide designed to help students navigate academic discussions and seminars. It provides specific phrasing to help participants articulate their thoughts more clearly and interact with their peers
Figure #2: Sample Seminar Sentence Stems
Student Entry Ticket
Student A entry ticket in Cycle 1.
Figure #3: Student A entry ticket in Cycle 1.
Exit Ticket
Student A exit ticket in Cycle 2.
Figure #4: Student A entry ticket in Cycle 2.
Measuring Impact
Participation Tracker - Cycle 1
This tool was used to monitor and assess student engagement during a Socratic Seminar, tracking frequency and quality of contributions, use of evidence, active listening, respect for others’ ideas, and building on peers’ responses.
Figure #5: Participation Tracker Cycle 1
Participation Tracker - Cycle 2
The same tracker was used for Cycle 2; however the strategy included teacher feedback and prep worksheets.
Figure #6: Participation Traccker Cycle 2
Student Reflection
Student A’s reflection on their seminar experience.
Figure #7: Student A Reflection
Analysis
The strategies implemented during the Socratic seminars were highly successful in addressing my Problem of Practice by increasing student engagement, critical thinking, and purposeful discussion. During Cycle 1, students used a Socratic seminar rubric and sentence stems during each discussion to support participation and guide academic conversation. Midpoint survey data showed that students found these strategies helpful, but many expressed a need for additional preparation time before discussions. In response, Cycle 2 incorporated prep sheets that required students to pull evidence from the articles, select meaningful quotes, and clarify their opinions and stance before participating. I also began routinely providing teacher feedback after each seminar to help students reflect on their performance and set goals for improvement.
The student data collected through reflections and participation trackers from both cycles demonstrated clear growth in the quality of student discussions. Students improved in their ability to reference the text, ask thoughtful questions, and provide meaningful rebuttals during conversations. These strategies enhanced the learning experience by giving students structured supports while still encouraging independent and critical thinking. Although Socratic seminars naturally promote participation and analysis, the rubric and sentence stems established clear expectations and helped students engage with greater purpose and confidence. Teacher feedback further strengthened the process by helping students identify their strengths, weaknesses, and areas for growth. One remaining challenge is ensuring all students feel equally confident contributing consistently, so in the future I would provide even more opportunities for small-group practice and discussion preparation before whole-class seminars.
Recommendation
I would recommend that other CN or EC professors use Socratic seminars when they want students to engage more deeply with course content, practice critical thinking, and build confidence in academic discussions. The strategy works especially well in high school college-level classes because it encourages students to analyze texts, support claims with evidence, and respectfully respond to differing viewpoints. Providing supports such as rubrics, sentence stems, and discussion prep sheets is essential, particularly for students who may feel hesitant participating in higher-level conversations. These tools create clear expectations and help students contribute with purpose. I also strongly recommend using regular reflection and teacher feedback after each seminar. Feedback helped students recognize their strengths and areas for improvement, which led to stronger discussions over time. Finally, giving students enough preparation time before discussions is critical to success, as students are more confident and thoughtful when they have had time to organize evidence and form opinions beforehand.
