2023 Promoting Critical Thinking
2023 Promoting Critical Thinking
2023 Promoting Critical Thinking
net/publication/371964340
CITATIONS READS
0 74
1 author:
Zijing Hu
University of Johannesburg
20 PUBLICATIONS 56 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Zijing Hu on 01 July 2023.
*
Corresponding author: Zijing Hu; zhu@uj.ac.za
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
138
1. Introduction
Critical thinking is a mental process, that requires acute perception, analysis,
synthesis and evaluation of collected information (Papathanasiou et al., 2014).
This is done through observation, shared experience, participation and
communication. These are skills that are required by health sciences students who
should have diverse knowledge to manage and handle various situations during
their work-integrated learning (WIL). According to Van Nguyen and Liu (2021),
there is evidence that critical thinking skills have improved patient outcomes and
care and support. During WIL, students are faced with various medical conditions;
therefore, critical thinking skills become a necessity for them to ask appropriate
questions and critique the solutions. The author opines that critical thinking is a
necessity for practising medical students; however, anecdotal evidence has shown
that students lack the ability to ask appropriate questions and make evaluative
judgements. The world of work is demanding, and it is expected of students to be
‘quick at wit’ and acute in their observations. However, according to Oraison,
Konjarski and Howe (2019) the primary aim of tertiary education is to prepare
students for the world of work; it is debatable whether higher education institutes
adequately and appropriately provide their students with 21st century workplace
skills. For this reason, the author aimed to explore students’ experiences of
promoting critical thinking skills through the use of Socratic questioning.
Specifically, it addressed the research question on ‘How do students experience
Socratic questioning in promoting their critical thinking in WIL?’
There is much criticism regarding the misalignment in students’ training and the
requirement from the world of work in health sciences (Oraison et al., 2019).
Students are unable to critically think, make appropriate decisions regarding their
practice. Hu et al. (2022) concur with Paul and Elder (2008) that the weakness of
critical thinking is a significant contributor that negatively affects students’
competencies in clinical practice. Abidah (2022) and Oyler and Romanelli (2014)
believe that critical thinking is a fundamental 21st-century skill, particularly in
health sciences where quick appropriate decisions are required. Despite the
absence of a universal definition of critical thinking, Fahim and Bagheri (2012)
agree with Paul (1988) that critical thinking refers to the ability to explore
authentic and accurate knowledge to reach sound conclusions through
observation and information. To improve students’ critical thinking, Kusmaryani
(2020) suggests that Socratic questioning is an effective approach since it helps
students to think critically by focusing explicitly on their own thinking processes
(reflective thinking). However, there is a lack of research that focuses on exploring
students’ experiences, using Socratic questioning to promoting critical thinking
during WIL within the South African context.
Zare and Mukundan (2015) concur with Ennis (1987:10), who explains critical
thinking as “reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to
believe or do”. In their work, Paul and Elder (2001) state that critical thinking
focuses on reasoning with the aim of sharpening one’s thinking by analysing and
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
139
2. Literature Review
2.1 Explanation of Socratic questioning
Socratic questioning is defined as systematic questions that facilitate students to
reflect on their misconceptions or incorrect conclusions on specific topics (Fahim
& Bagheri, 2012; Nair & Ramasubramaniam, 2021). Acim (2018) and Katsara and
De Witte (2019) contend that Socratic questioning is a technique to achieve logical
thinking through inference. Kusmaryani (2020) further explains that Socratic
questioning is performed with frequent and systematic questioning. The role of a
lecturer in Socratic questioning is to facilitate students’ self-reflection to identify
their deficiencies and weaknesses (Acim, 2018). Socratic questioning promotes
critical thinking in the world of work because it assists students in synthesising
their views, analysing and evaluating solutions (Cekin, 2015). Socratic
questioning assists others in identifying what is untrue; because it is difficult for
them to identify their own mistakes without others’ questioning (Suhardiana,
2019). This view concurs with Katsara and De Witte (2019) who highlight that
Socratic questioning aims to probe and reveal contradictions by cross-
examination of information.
Kinney (2022) states that the Socratic method of inquiry is an inspiring process
since the questions are asked both to draw individual answers and encourage
individuals’ fundamental insight into the issue under discussion. Kusmaryani
(2020) mentions that critical thinking consists of the following components: active
involvement, thinking elements, thinking standards and thinking systems. In the
process of Socratic questioning, students are asked to think carefully and answer
open-ended questions to texts that foster controversy about issues and values
(Katsara & De Witte, 2019). This kind of questioning will strengthen students’
understanding of information and the perspectives discussed (Pihlgren, 2014). In
the author’s opinion, promoting students’ understanding of information and
critical thinking in clinical practice is of profound significance. The reason is that
the accuracy of understanding in WIL will influence students’ critical thinking
when making decisions. The author believes that although Socratic questioning
requires more comprehensive skills from lecturers, continuous practice will lead
to success.
Nair and Ramasubramaniam (2021) are of the view that Socratic questioning
requires lecturers to guide students toward their self-reflection on their
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
140
knowledge, skills, attitudes and values (KSAV). Therefore, lecturers do not merely
provide answers to questions asked; instead, they probe for the answers and
facilitate students to discover the correct conclusions by themselves (Kusmaryani,
2020). These questions are for the purpose of facilitating students to evaluate their
knowledge, skills, attitudes and values instead of judgment. In Socratic
questioning, the role of lecturers is to assist students in justifying their thoughts.
Therefore, in the Socratic approach, lecturers facilitate students to construct their
opinion and identify inconsistencies and contradictions in their thoughts (Barnes
& Payette, 2017). Active involvement in discovering answers significantly
promotes critical thinking (Nair & Ramasubramaniam, 2021). Although Socratic
questioning appears simple, it is in fact intensely rigorous. Venkatesan (2020)
explains that Socratic questioning is an effective approach that leads to self-
discovery and self-rectifying of errors in thinking. Therefore, it focuses on
identifying the validity of ideas by asking systematic questions. Suhardiana (2019)
are of the view that the utmost goal of Socratic questioning is changing minds;
therefore, questions that are not designed to change minds cannot be considered
as Socratic questioning. Once a response is made, it is followed up by asking more
probing questions (Overholser, 2018). In a sense, Socratic questioning uses the W-
Question format covering the what-where-which-whom-when-how and why the
sequence of asking queries (although may not be in the same order) for each
statement made by respondents (Dinkins & Cangelosi, 2019).
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
141
Chian (2020) and Zare and Mukundan (2015) further articulate that the purpose
of questioning is to raise self-awareness of misconceptions. They are of the view
that in the Socratic approach, students do not need to memorise and read
textbooks (Zare & Mukundan, 2015). Moreover, Socratic questioning motivates
and inspires students’ self-reflection through questioning (Barnes & Payette, 2017;
Chian, 2020). The author argues that students should acquire relevant knowledge
before participating in answering questions. The reason is that students need to
have fundamental knowledge and understanding of the content knowledge to
apply critical thinking in a clinical setting. Sahamid (2016) reports that students
who have gone through the learning process of Socratic questioning demonstrate
the ability to deliver a more in-depth discussion. In a similar vein, a study
conducted by Kinney (2022) reveals that Socratic questioning significantly
promotes students’ critical thinking skills.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
142
3. Conceptual Framework
This study was anchored to the conceptual framework adapted from the revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy developed by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) and Paul’s
classification of the six types of Socratic questions (Mason, 2011; Paul, 1990).
Bloom’s Taxonomy has been introduced in education to evaluate diverse goals
since the 1950s. In 2001, Anderson and Krathwohl proposed the revised Bloom’s
Taxonomy, which was developed from Bloom’s Taxonomy (Hu, Venketsamy &
Pellow, 2022). Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) propose four types of knowledge,
which are factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge and
metacognitive knowledge. This knowledge is further categorised into six
processes: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating and
creating [See Figure 1] (Barari et al., 2020; Chandio et al., 2016).
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
143
Figure 1. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (As adapted from Barari et al., 2020)
According to Mason (2011) and Paul and Elder (2008), there are six types of
Socratic questions. Table 1 below illustrates different types of Socratic questions.
Chandio et al. (2016) and Fahim and Bagheri (2012) further explain that based on
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy and Paul’s six types of Socratic Questions, there are
different types of questions that lecturers can use to promote students’
understanding and assess their knowledge. The author believes that the revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy and the six types of Socratic questions are effective
approaches to guide Socratic questioning in WIL to promote students’ critical
thinking.
Table 1. Six Types of Socratic Questions (As adapted from Mason, 2011; Paul, 1990)
Types of questions Examples
1. Questions that clarify. What do you mean?
2. Questions that challenge assumptions. How will you justify your argument?
3. Questions that examine evidence or What are the risk factors for …?
reasons. Can you provide any evidence to
support your conclusion?
4. Questions about viewpoints and Can you provide rationale for your
perspectives. conclusion?
5. Questions that explore implications What are the consequences or
and consequences. complications?
6. Questions about the question. How will you advise the patient and
why?
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
144
4. Methodology
Research design
Research methodology is a bridge between the worldview and the findings of
research (Venketsamy & Hu, 2022). The author adopted a qualitative case study
approach to explore South African students’ views and experiences of Socratic
questioning in WIL. The research setting was an identified public university in
Gauteng province. The author utilised a single case study design within an
interpretivist paradigm. The interpretivist paradigm was of particular
significance in this study as it provided an opportunity for the author to
comprehend students’ lived experiences in WIL. The author concurs with Hu and
Venketsamy (2022) and Yin (2018) who substantiate that single case design is
appropriate when the identified case is critical, and the researcher has access to
the identified case.
Research setting
This study was conducted at an identified public university in Gauteng province.
Data collection
In this study, the author utilised text-based interviews as the data collection
instrument. At the identified university, students participated in Socratic
questioning activities after they saw patients in the clinic (WIL). The text-based
interviews were conducted after the Socratic questioning activities which took
place between March 2022 and April 2022. Table 1 below illustrates the
participants and the respective codes used in the data analysis. To ensure
confidentiality and anonymity, pseudonyms were used throughout the research.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
145
Data analysis
In this study, the author utilised thematic analysis to analyse students’ lived
experiences. The reason is that the author concurs with Venketsamy et al. (2022)
and Hu et al. (2022) who articulate that important perspectives of data will be
identified through a systematic process of analysis. The six-step thematic analysis
proposed by Creswell (2014) was followed in this study. The data were analysed
inductively. The author applied qualitative validity criteria to ensure the
trustworthiness of the findings, which included credibility, conformability,
dependability and transferability. To improve the trustworthiness of this study,
the author employed multiple techniques in this study. These techniques included
well-planned research design and methods, rich descriptions, and an audit trail
that was audited by a second coder.
Ethical consideration
The ethical clearance for this study was approved and obtained from a research
committee at a public university in Gauteng province (Ref: REC-1443-2022).
5. Findings
This study explored students’ experiences of Socratic questioning in clinical
practice. All participants in this study acknowledged the importance of Socratic
questioning in WIL. They highlighted several benefits of conducting Socratic
questioning in their clinical training. However, some participants reported that
there was a need to strengthen lecturers’ skills in Socratic questioning. During the
data analysis, two major themes emerged, which are presented below. Direct
quotes are presented in the findings as well.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
146
In her response, P5 said: “The Socratic questioning forces me to go back and revise
content knowledge because the questioning helps me to clarify my weaknesses in my
knowledge.”
P3 said: “The different feedback from the [Socratic] questioning confused me a lot. As I
did not know which part was correct.” In their opinions, P2 and P4 stated that there
was a shortage of competent clinicians in WIL. P5 believed that sufficient time
should be allocated for the Socratic questioning. They all agreed that the shortage
of clinicians further affected the concern about insufficient time. The reason was
that students were waiting for a long time before they could have opportunities
to discuss with clinicians. To this, P2 stated: “From my experiences in the clinics with
different clinicians, I felt like one of the most challenging parts was clinicians’
competencies.” P4 added: “I realised that some clinicians asked random questions which
might not lead to a conclusion.”
P3 said: “We will benefit more if we can have the discussion [Socratic questioning] longer.
Because I felt like we rushed to the end because we did not have sufficient time to discuss
with the clinician.” P5 articulated: “I had to wait for 20 minutes before I could discuss
my case with the clinician. Because the clinic was discussing with other students. It would
be great if there were more clinicians supervising simultaneously in the clinic.”
Furthermore, P1, P2 and P4 were of the opinion that there was limited space in
the clinic where the questioning was conducted. They believed that the absence
to sufficient space negatively affected their learning. To this, P1 stated: “The clinic
was so crowded. We don’t even have space to stand.” P2 said: “I cannot hear what the
discussion was about. Because the clinician room was full of students and I could not go
into the clinician room.” P4 added: “I had to stand outside the door of the clinician room.”
6. Discussion
Critical thinking is of profound importance in the world of work. Scholars, such
as Kusmaryani (2020) and Sahamid (2016), concur that Socratic questioning is an
effective approach to promote students’ critical thinking in WIL. Fahim and
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
147
Bagheri (2012) point out that lecturers should assist students to recognise their
misconceptions through their existing knowledge. The findings of this study
concur with Katsara and De Witte (2019) and Zare and Mukundan (2015) who
indicate that Socratic questioning assists in identifying contradictions; for instance,
P3 said: “It [Socratic questioning] helps me to identify where I go wrong in my thinking.”
P4 stated: “[Through Socratic questioning], I could see I made mistakes [in my critical
thinking].” Researchers highlight the significance of Socratic questioning in
strengthening students’ critical thinking in WIL (Abidah, 2022; Fahim & Bagheri,
2012; Venville, 2018). In the author’s opinion, Socratic questioning significantly
improves students’ critical thinking, which facilitates students to clarify
misconceptions and reach correct conclusions. Moreover, Socratic questioning
promotes students’ learning. Evidence can be found in participants’ responses. P1
indicated: “[Socratic] questioning forces me to go back to study the content knowledge
that I do not understand.”
The finding of this study reveals that there is limited space in the clinic for WIL.
When answering the question: “Please describe the challenges that you
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
148
experienced in the WIL”, P3 stated: “I have to stand outside the clinician room when
students are discussing with the clinician.” The author is of the view that the poor
infrastructure in African countries negatively influences students’ learning. This
view concurs with Hu and Venketsamy (2022) and Hu et al. (2022) who report
that there is a need for policy makers to consider improving infrastructure, in
order to promote learning at higher education institutions (HEI).
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
149
9. References
Abidah, U. F. U. (2022). Reasoning Socratic questioning method to enhance university
students’ critical reading in critical reading course. Research on English Language
Teaching in Indonesia, 10(1), 1-8.
Acim, R. (2018). The Socratic method of instruction: An experience with a reading
comprehension course. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 8(1), 41-53.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and
Assessing, Abridged Edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Barari, N., RezaeiZadeh, M., Khorasani, A., & Alami, F. (2020). Designing and validating
educational standards for E-teaching in virtual learning environments (VLEs),
based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. Interactive Learning Environments.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1739078
Barnes, B., & Payette, P. (2017). Socratic questioning. The National Teaching & Learning
Forum, 26(6), 1-12.
Çekin, A. (2015). The investigation of critical thinking dispositions of religious culture and
ethics teacher candidates (The case of Ankara University and Kastamonu
University in Turkey). Journal of Education and Learning, 9, 158-164.
Chandio, M. T., Pandhiani, S. M., & Iqbal, R. (2016). Bloom’s Taxonomy: Improving
assessment and teaching-learning process. Journal of Education and Educational
Development, 3(2), 203-221.
Chian, H. M. (2020). Targeting misconceptions using Socratic questioning. International
Journal for Cross-disciplinary Subjects in Education, 11(1), 4216-4220.
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities. In J.B.
Baron, & R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice. New
York: Freeman.
Dinkins, C. S., & Cangelosi, P. R. (2019). Putting Socrates back in Socratic method: Theory-
based debriefing in the nursing classroom. Nursing Philosophy, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12240.
Fahim, M., & Bagheri, M.B. (2012). Fostering critical thinking through Socrates’
questioning in Iranian language institutes. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 3(6), 1122-1127.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
150
Govender, C. M., & Wait, M. (2018). Work-integrated learning benefits for students’ career
prospects – mixed mode analysis. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(5),
49-64.
Grondin, A. (2018). Effectiveness of the Socratic method: A comparative analysis of the
historical and modern invocations of an educational method (unpublished thesis).
Columbia: South Carolina Honors College.
Hu, Z., Venketsamy, R., & Razlog, R. (2022). Exploring health sciences students'
experiences of interprofessional education to improve quality learning outcomes.
Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 10(3), 385-398.
Hu, Z., Venketsamy, R., & Pellow, J. (2022). University students’ experiences of the
teaching and learning of an acupuncture programme: A South African case study.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(12), 107-125.
Jeong, S., & McMillan, M. (2015). Work-integrated learning (WIL): Integrating frameworks
for education and practice. Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 2(1), 1-10.
Katsara, O., & De Witte, K. (2019). How to use Socratic questioning in order to promote
adults’ self-directed learning. Studies in the Education of Adults, 51(1), 109-129.
Kinney, J. (2022). Revisiting the Socratic method of teaching to improve third-year
pharmacy students critical thinking and advanced pharmacy practice experience
readiness in a critical care elective. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning,
14(4), 499-506.
Kusmaryani, W. (2020). The effect of Socratic Questioning method in improving students’
speaking skill and critical thinking in English as a foreign language learning. In
W. Kusmaryani, Arifin, J.B. Darmayasa & S. Wulandari. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Innovation in Education and Pedagogy. Indonesia:
Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research.
Mason, J. (2011). Cognitive engagement and questioning online. In A. Mendez-Vilas (Ed).
Education in a Technological World: Communicating Current and Emerging Research
and Technological Efforts. Atlas: Formatex.
Nair, V. G., & Ramasubramaniam, S. (2021). Role of Socratic questioning in improving
critical thinking skills among nursing students. Journal of Cardiovascular Disease
Research, 12(3), 3235-3238.
Nguyen, T. V., & Liu, H-E. (2021). Factors associated with the critical thinking ability of
professional nurses: A cross-sectional study. Nursing Open. 8(4), 1970-1980.
Oraison, H., Konjarski, L., & Howe, S. (2019). Does university prepare students for
employment? Alignment between graduate attributes, accreditation
requirements and industry employability criteria. Journal of Teaching and Learning
for Graduate Employability, 10(1), 173–194.
Overholser J. C. (2018). The Socratic Method of Psychotherapy. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Oyler, D. R., & Romanelli, F. (2014). The fact of ignorance revisiting the Socratic method
as a tool for teaching critical thinking. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
78(7), 1-9.
Papathanasiou, J. V., Kleisiaris, C. F., Fradelos, E. C., Kakou, K., & Kourkouta, L. (2014).
Critical Thinking: The Development of an Essential Skill for Nursing Students.
Acta Informatica Medica. 22(4), 283-286.
Paul, R. (1988). Critical thinking in the classroom. Teaching K-8, 18, 49-51.
Paul, R. (1990). Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing
World. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and
Your Life. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
151
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). The Art of Socratic Questioning. California: Foundation for
Critical Thinking.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning, Part III.
Journal of Developmental Education, 31(3), 34-35.
Pihlgren, A. S. (2014). Thoughtful dialogues and Socratic seminars. Available from:
http://ignitere- search.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Thoughtful-
Dialogue-and-Socratic-Seminars-Students- reading-comprehension.pdf
Sahamid, H. (2016). Developing critical thinking through Socratic questioning: An action
research study. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 4(3), 62-72.
Suhardiana, I. P. A. (2019). Socratic questioning to promote EFL students’ critical thinking
in a language learning. Journal of English language Education, 2(1), 83-102. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.25078/yb.v2i1.994.
Venkatesan, S. (2020). Socratic questioning enabled analysis of problem behaviours.
Journal of Psychology, 11(1-2), 12-22.
Venketsamy, R., & Hu, Z. (2022). School leaders’ responsibilities for ensuring safe schools
for teaching and learning during COVID-19. Perspectives in Education, 40(2), 3-16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v40.i2.2
Venketsamy, R., Hu, Z., Helmbold, E., & Auckloo, P. (2022). Implementing the Japanese
Lesson Study as a professional development tool in South Africa. Journal for the
Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 10(3), 349-362.
Venville, A. (2018). A systematic approach to the evaluation of the student experience in
work-integrated learning. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 19(1),
13-21.
Wilson, D., Aggar, C., Massey, D., & Walker, F. (2022). The use of mobile technology to
support work integrated learning in undergraduate nursing programs: An
integrative review. Nurse Education Today, 116. Doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105451
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). The
United States of America: Sage.
Zare, P., & Mukundan, J. (2015). The use of Socratic method as a teaching/learning tool to
develop students’ critical thinking: A review of Literature. Language in India, 15(0),
256-265.
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter