Guest Post from Charles Calleros on Socratic Teaching

Further Reflections on the Socratic Method

By Charles Calleros

            Thanks to Jeremy for his two posts on this important topic. His discussion spurs me to add a few thoughts and, I hope, to nudge others to chime in.

            Context and Orientation

           In his first post, Jeremy referred to the necessity and value of supplementing the Socratic case method with mini-lectures. That reminded me of lunch decades ago with a distinguished visitor who said that one of his most difficult pedagogic determinations for each class was “what to tell them up front and what to help them puzzle through on their own.”

            Yes, of course, students need some context and orientation before they dive into specific cases or statutes. Summer associates, when assigned a research project in an unfamiliar field of law, will know from 1L Legal Research and Writing that their first step consists of preliminary reading in a secondary source to secure a general understanding of the issues that frequently arise, the general legal principles that have developed over time, and the new debates percolating in courts and legislatures. With that general background, the associate is equipped to research the law in the governing jurisdiction, and to understand its implications.

            The same holds true for the study of cases in our classrooms. After all, everything in the 1L curriculum is presumably unfamiliar territory for most of our students. Throwing them into sometimes cryptic case law arguably might constitute hazing, in my view, unless we provide them with a brief introduction to that topic.

            But providing that introduction in lecture form just before discussing the cases comes too late. We should provide that orientation prior to their briefing the cases, either in lecture at the end of the preceding class, or preferably by using a casebook that introduces each new topic with some helpful orienting text. Fortunately, many modern casebooks provide introductory text at the beginning of each section addressing a new topic, sometimes just a paragraph and sometimes several pages, as the topic requires.  

            Driving the Socractic Method/Case Method at Different Speeds

            Most of the time, our case method will be deliberate and time-consuming, as it must be to address all the nuances of a case and to guide students through the analysis, as Jeremy describes. But each such discussion is like studying a single tree, and soon students risk losing sight of the forest for the trees. We must somehow find time for synthesis—for comparing cases that address the same issue.

            First, you ask, how do we even fit enough cases into the casebook to allow for comparison and synthesis? We need only remember that “cases” including not just main cases, but also note cases and hypothetical cases, so long as students have the critical facts needed to analogize, distinguish, and synthesize. Some hypothetical cases can be dropped on the class during discussion of a case, but in they are much more effective if provided to the students in writing, as part of their preparation for class. Yes, thinking on one’s feet is a skill that students must develop, but they will all train for that in 1L moot court, and we’ll get more from them in our Contracts course if they have time to compare hypothetical cases prior to class. Where do we find suitable cases for comparison and synthesis? You can choose a casebook with a good collection of note cases, or factually rich exercises, or both. Alternatively, simply convey some of the hypos from your lecture notes in writing at least a day prior to class, so that they can think about these spin-offs ahead of time.

            Once we have the cases in place, we can easily ask some fruitful questions: “If we accept the holding and reasoning of [that main case], should the case in Exercise 2.1 come out the same or differently, and why?” The case in Ex. 2.1 might be no more than a few sentences, revealing a few facts that depart from those of the main case. Those facts might clearly call for a different result, to make a fairly basic point about the main case and its reasoning. Or the hypothetical case in Ex. 2.1 might be carefully drafted to fall into a gray area, so that students can debate whether the reasoning of the main case ought to extend to the new one.

            Once we go that far, sometimes one can step on the accelerator and jump right to the synthesis: “The next two cases address the same general issue, but they reach different results. Can you explain that? Are they applying different legal rules, motivated by different policy considerations? Or do they seem to apply a consistent legal approach but to facts that justify different conclusions?” Or, to really jump to the chase, sometimes I’ll point to two consecutive exercises in the casebook, each addressing the same issue but with facts that should point to different conclusions, and I’ll ask a meta question: “Why do you think I put those two hypos side by side? What am I trying to illustrate with those two cases?”  

            Beyond Professor/Student Dialogue

            Let’s not forget how the engagement increases if we add some element other than a verbal line of communication between professor and student. Many of us have found that using simple props to simulate an exchange makes the example more immediate and more memorable. Dividing the students into pairs for negotiations, with instructions for each party, can drive the energy level of a large section through the roof. And, if a question seems to stump the class, we can break the intellectual logjam by asking the students to discuss it in small groups, while we patrol and eavesdrop until we overhear a student who offers an analysis that can be shared with the class and trigger comments from others.

            Keep the Ideas Coming

            I applaud Jeremy for raising the topic of teaching techniques and look forward to hearing tips from others.