What is a Socratic Seminar? In its simplest explanation, a Socratic Seminar is a discussion among students in which they are given the opportunity to (and in fact are required to) make value judgements or moral decisions. Within the context of the AVID classroom, Socratic Seminars can be adapted to fulfill the Writing-Inquiry-Collaboration curriculum model.       In order to understand how Socratic Seminars can fulfill that model, it will be necessary to understand a specific implementation used in many AVID classrooms. In my experiences administering Seminars, I have divided them into three components: the preparatory exercise, the discussion, and the observation.       The preparatory exercise consists of choosing an appropriate source material for the discussion (generally a piece of writing), providing the material to students to analyze on their own, and having the students write responses to the material. These responses could be prompted or free flowing, formal or free-form. The purpose of this writing assignment is twofold: first, it is used to stimulate the critical thinking process prior to the discussion, and second, it may be used by the teacher to select the students who will participate in the discussion (if the entire class will not participate in the discussion.)       Once the teacher divides the class into a discussion group and an observation group (again, assuming that the entire class will not participate in the discussion) the second and third components can begin. The discussion group arranges itself in a circle (therefore earning the name "inner circle") and awaits the teacher's prompt. The remaining students (the "outer circle") arrange themselves outside the inner circle. Every student should have a copy of the source material in hand if possible, and in some cases the inner circle students may need to have their written responses as well. The teacher then asks a single question in reference to the source material. Many teachers use this question as a way to launch the discussion. I instead use it as an opportunity for every inner circle student to provide a statement before the discussion begins. Once every student has been heard from, I then ask a second question that launches the discussion.       As the inner circle maintains their discussion, the outer circle should be watching and listening silently. This is the observation component. To increase their participation, I provide the outer circle students with copies of the questions I plan to ask the inner circle students, and I require them to record at least three answers that they hear in response to each question. I also require them to evaluate the performance of the inner circle students by recording checks, plusses, and minuses for good, terrific, and weak responses that they hear from each student. At the end of the discussion, I allow the outer circle students to explain who they felt did an exemplary job in presenting their views during the discussion, and why.       AVID's writing component is fulfilled when every student writes a response to the source material. The inner circle uses inquiry to propagate the discussion; students search through the material to find support for their views, and students ask each other questions to clarify and deepen their positions. Finally, students who share common views on the source material will strengthen each other's positions by verbal agreement and by building logical bases upon which others can build their own arguments. And in fact students who present their views in a disciplined and supported way encourage others to do so by example. In these two ways, collaboration is achieved.       Three issues deserve further explanation. What qualities should the source material hold? What qualities should the discussion hold? What should the teacher's role be?       Choosing source material should not be made into a difficult or time-consuming process. Newspaper articles, poems, journals, famous essays or speeches, artwork, music… all of these may provide a suitable discussion source. Your chosen source should have two particular qualities, however. One, the source should contain ample room for the discussion of relevant moral, ethical or emotional issues. A newspaper article on a proposed tax cut in Congress may not spur much discussion, but a feature article on how the proposed cut would affect families on welfare may well inspire more. Two, the source should somehow be relevant or relatable to students' lives. The more in tune the students feel with the source, the more interested they will be and the more they will be able to draw upon their own experiences and prior knowledge to support their discussion.       In my Seminars, I have chosen to create my own sources. I choose topics or situations that I feel will be relevant to students in my classroom, and I then write monologues of fictional characters (usually one page in length) that find themselves in those situations. I try to keep from explicitly referring to the age or the gender of the character, and find that in doing so students often confront their own preconceived notions of society and stereotypes. This of course can broaden the discussion in and of itself. Samples of these monologues, along with suggested discussion prompts, have been included in this guide.       We must be careful to delineate the difference between a discussion and a debate. A discussion is qualified as the exchange of ideas for the purpose of enlightenment. A debate is qualified as the confrontation of ideas for the purpose of persuasion. A Socratic Seminar should always be a discussion and should never be a debate. It is not the task of the students to convince others to share their opinions. It is not the task of the students to attack the views of others and dismantle others' arguments. Instead, students in the inner circle should be exchanging ideas: presenting their views with support from the source, and listening to the views of others. We are interested in helping students to explain and support their views, not to argue with each other.       In other words, we are not so much interested in what the students say but in how well they say it, and how they came to believe it. The views that they have are valuable, of course, but we do not want to fall into the trap of trying to evaluate those views for their content. Therefore, students are not allowed to unfairly criticize or attack ideas or speakers during the discussion. Doing so can have disastrous consequences on the self-esteem of students, and should be avoided at all times.       The discussion should also be allowed to flow undirected as long as it remains active and stays within the bounds of the source material's topic. And again, students should always explain their views with references to the source.       What then should the teacher be doing during the discussion? Teachers should act as infrequent facilitators, somewhat similar to the role that tutors have in tutorial groups. Teachers should: pose questions or prompts when the discussion begins to lull or move off-topic, refrain from responding to student views in anything but a neutral manner, remind students to be polite and respect each other when presenting their views, ask for support or clarification of a view presented by a student, monitor both the inner and outer circle students to ensure they are paying attention and participating. Teachers should not: judge student responses in any verbal or non-verbal manner, reprimand students for failing to support their views with evidence from the source, appear more interested in one student's view than another. In short, teachers should be silent and invisible, appearing and speaking only to refocus the discussion or to ask for clarification from a student, or to address inappropriate behavior.