Socratic Seminar Instruction for Accelerated Biology

Ingrid Mitchell
University of New England
April 22, 2015

Statement of Academic Honesty: I have read and understand the plagiarism policy as outlined
in the Student Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct document relating to the
Honesty/Cheating Policy. By attaching this statement to the title page of my paper, I certify that
the work submitted is my original work developed specifically for this course and to the MSED
program. If it is found that cheating and/or plagiarism did take place in the writing of this paper,
I acknowledge the possible consequences of the act/s, which could include expulsion from the
University of New England.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

Abstract
This study evaluated whether a Socratic discussion or seminar is beneficial for a review class in
Accelerated Biology. The seminar method involves a moderator and a series of complex
questions, which the students discuss as peers. This method is often used in Literature or other
Humanities courses but not often applied to the natural science course. For this study twelve
students were asked to review for two summative assessments using this method in addition to
their regular preparation of notes and review questions. These assessments were designed to ask
higher order and critical thinking questions in addition to the basic facts. For the students in the
highest and lowest percentiles this method made no appreciable difference. In the middle
percentiles it increased their retention to some degree but was not conclusive as a beneficial
method for the science classroom. In conclusion this method might be effective in some cases
and for some students. The language skills they gain through the discussion are beneficial to the
students progress in other courses but not proven appropriate to all subjects.

Keywords: Collaborative learning, Socratic discussion, Seminar method, critical thinking,

Biology, Natural science.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

Table of Contents
Abstract....2
Table of Contents.....................3
Introduction..5
Problem Statement.......6
Research Questions..8
Hypothesis....8
Literature Review.....9
Educational theory and Higher Order Thinking... 9
Active Learning.......11
Active learning and motivation......12
Collaborative learning vs. Cooperative learning...13
The Paideia Method....14
Methodology.15
Participants.17
Site.....17
Research Design18
Data Collection Plan..20
Validity of the Study......21
Data Analysis Plan..........................................22
Results....23
Discussion......33
Further Research35

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

Limitations of Study..36
Action Plan37
Conclusion.40
References..41
Appendix A Second Trimester Final Exam....44
Appendix B - Pre-Seminar Survey............45
Appendix C - Post-Seminar Survey.......46
Appendix D Seminar Map......47
Appendix E Seminar Process Assessment......48
List of Tables
Table 1 - Data Collection Matrix.......21
Table 2 Students Baseline Assessment Percentages and Standardized Test Scores...24
Table 3 Data Collection Schedule...........................................................................................25
Table 4 Seminar Grades and Summative Assessment........29
Table 5 Comparison of Seminar B and Test 2 Question........30
Table 6 Action Plan Timeline.39
List of Figures
Figure 1 Survey Question 3.............26
Figure 2 Survey Question 5....27
Figure 3 Survey Question 628
Figure 4 Overall Course Grades Before and After Intervention.....38

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

Introduction
The ideal classroom has changed over the past few centuries. From private tutoring to the
one room schoolhouse, to an average of twenty students in one class moving from room to room
throughout the day. Most educators realize that in the future tailored learning experiences such as
blended home instruction through video and instructional coaching will replace what is
considered traditional instruction. While these changes are appearing in public schools around
the country there is a revolution among private schools to seek more classical educational
methods. In the 1930s and 40s certain educators sought a reform of not only what is taught to
young people but also how it is taught. Over and over again they emphasized the importance of
the dialectic in the process of educating students. Dialectic refers to a practice of discovering the
truth through a series of questions from one person to another to inquire about what is true. This
method includes preparation on the part of the student and clear guiding questions and direction
on the part of the teacher to glean the essential elements of the text and to provide an opportunity
for student-led learning and discovery, (Adler, 1987). It was intended to replace the usual
method of lecture and passive reception of information. Over the years the classical educational
movement has been gaining ground among private and charter schools. This classical view of
education as described by Mortimer Adler aims at helping the student develop the skills to
pursue a lifetime of learning.
Discipline in the traditional liberal arts imparts the skills by which an individual
becomes adept at learning. They are the arts of reading and writing, of speaking
and listening, of observing, measuring, and calculatingthe arts of grammar,
rhetoric, and logic, the mathematical arts, and the arts of investigation, (Adler,
1987).

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

Many schools have not only adopted curriculum that emphasize the liberal arts but also t
incorporated discussions and seminars instead of more traditional instruction. The Paideia Group
has been working on materials that will increase critical thinking skills through the use of the
Socratic dialogue and developing rubrics that correspond to common core standards, (Billings &
Roberts, 2012).
Trivium School founded in 1979 was founded as a private independent classical Catholic
School. Its founders with years of experience in teaching this method in other private schools
around the country sought to bring this renewal to central Massachusetts. Since its founding
Trivium School has incorporated Socratic discussion and dialectic in all its classes. In recent
years, however, it has become harder and harder to use the seminar method in the math and
science curriculum. Some of the more seasoned tutors see it as a necessary update if we are
going to remain viable in a culture that emphasizes high content AP courses with an emphasis on
STEM education. The School must justify using more modern methods of research the wisdom
of a more classical education. This researcher sought to evaluate and assess the seminar method
within the classroom and demonstrate its effectiveness especially in the areas of math and
science.
Problem Statement
Most people would recognize that a stimulating discussion could create a more lasting
impression than a speech or a lecture. In a recent meta-analysis of alternative studies involving
active learning practices it was shown that undergraduates were 55% more likely to fail in a
traditional lecture STEM class, (Freeman et al., 2014). This study also predicted that through
active learning that students could in increase their scores by 6%, (Freeman et a., 2014, p. 8413).
The more a student brings to the table and engages in the discussion the more likely he will

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

remember the topic of conversation. It is this common experience, which drives teachers to
create more collaborative lessons and use peer instruction. Most people would agree that such
discussion would be the fruitful for the humanities. And yet it is possible that the seminar
method could be incorporated more in the science and math classrooms.
Currently the science classes at Trivium School display the tension between a classical
approach and modern content. Collaboration and inquiry-based labs would suffice in aiding the
students to take ownership and bring about discovery. According to Mortimer Adler learning is
is activity on the part of the learner engaged in the process of discovery; when instruction
occurs the teacher is at best the instrumental cause, (Adler, 1988, p. 168). And if this is the case
the method should be universal enough to cross disciplines and should be able to be incorporated
in every course. The problem is that it is hard to know how best to incorporate the seminar
method to the study of science and more particularly in this case to the study of biology.
Currently among the twelve students in the tenth grade Accelerated Biology class there
are students who are having difficulty with retaining complex concepts. The vocabulary or
grammar of the course is difficult but there are a few students who through hard work can master
this content. With regard to process and critical thinking questions the students have difficulty in
applying the basic terms to specific conditions and to apply it to other concepts. This requires
higher order thinking and a deeper understanding. Preparing the students for such questions
using handouts, and review questions does improve their ability to analyze, apply and
comprehend. This presents as a disparity in ability in the students. While is true that the students
judging by their PSAT scores display a wide range of abilities in the verbal and writing skills, the
current disparity in grades seems to correspond more closely to motivation. In general the more
motivated among the students are showing higher grades.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

Research Questions
For this research to be fruitful the researcher identified the best practices and historical
evolution of this method. In recent years cooperative and collaborative learning has included
peer tutoring and discussion groups. How is the seminar distinct or is it a hybrid of other
techniques? It would seem that while Platos Symposium can be seen as an archetype for the
seminar method the researcher identified more modern influences and trends.
In the study the researcher found identifiers from previous students. The researcher
reviewed previous discussions with them and discovered what was memorable and test their
higher ordering thinking and retention. The claim is that is the deeper the discussion the more
likely the student will be able to retain an understanding of the topic and the concept.
A third consideration is for the students themselves. Many students are timid and shy and
while thoroughly capable of entering into a fruitful discussion might not be inclined to share. The
study aim to discover to what extent can the researcher use incentives and would these grade
incentives distort the outcomes.
The problem also arises to the quality of participation dependent upon the ability. Each
student has his or her own capability. Should the study be prepared to take into account a
relative improvement or aim for a certain standard based on student input? And if this is the case
the study should take into account the students perception of his abilities and most importantly
his perception regarding his ability to make a contribution to the class.
Hypothesis
This study hoped to establish a student discussion as the most effective method for
reviewing material and fostering higher order thinking for 10th grade biology students. This

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

hypothesis was tested using summative assessments following reviews which incorporated a
discussion in which the students should answer an overarching question which includes a series
of questions aiming to help the students articulate for each and discover connections between the
concepts.
Literature Review
Educational theory and higher order thinking
It was of the highest importance to Mortimer Adler and his movement that the arts of
teaching should correspond to the arts of learning (Adler, 1941). For him the order of learning is
either discovery (without the aid of a teacher) or instruction (with the aid of teacher) and both
exist primarily in the student and not in the activity of the teacher, (Adler, 1941, p. 189). In his
entire proposal for reform of education this is the theme. That education is the process of aiding
the student to discover the truth on his own.
Through a three-column method of instruction he proposed that the highest level of
learning, true understanding could be developed in the student, (Adler, 1987, p.297). This threecolumn system includes three specific methods of instruction that correspond to certain subjects
and disciplines, (Adler, 1984). According to Adler the first kind of teaching is didactic
instruction in the form of lectures to deliver the subject matter of all disciplines. The second kind
of teaching includes coaching, exercises and supervised practice for purpose of developing skills
of habits in reading, writing, listening, calculating problem solving, observing, measuring,
estimating, and exercising critical judgment. The third level of teaching, which is also third in
chronology, is to develop an enlarged understanding of ideas and values by means of maieutic or

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

10

Socratic questioning and active participation in discussion, (Adler, 1984, p. 8). It is this third
level that the researcher hoped to develop in the area of science education.
Since Adler was primarily objecting to most of the modern educational methods of the
time, it is hard to identify how he would have agreed with the analysis of the educational
psychologist, Benjamin Bloom, as to the order of thinking. In a way Adlers Paideia Proposal
was a reaction to the followers of John Dewey in spite of having a high regard for Deweys
analysis of education, (Adler, 1987). And for this reason it is hard to find evidence of how this
theory of learning corresponds and agrees with Blooms taxonomy.
A description of Blooms taxonomy reveals how they are related. Benjamin Bloom, an
educational psychologist systemized the cognitive activities of the student. He was hoping to
establish a set of metrics that would cross curriculums and specific practices so that there could
be a fundamental basis for evaluation, (Krathowl, 2002, p. 212). For this reason it is clear that
Bloom did not have the intention to be at odds with any particular program such as the Paideia
Program. The original taxonomy consisted of six categories: knowledge, comprehension,
application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation, (Krathowl, 2002). Yet during its implementation
it has been revised into a two-part classification of knowledge and cognitive processes,
(Krathowl, 2002). And as a result the classification of knowledge became known as the cognitive
process of remembering, (p.214). Its revision now includes these six categories: remember,
understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create, (Krathowl, 2002, p.215). A further complexity
is introduced by applying the cognitive processes to different kinds of knowledge: factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge,
(Krathowl, 2002, p. 216). It is clear however that not all cognitive processes will be appropriate
for all kinds of knowledge.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

11

What is interesting about these two systems is how often they intersect with respect to
higher order thinking. Bloom and Adler are not satisfied with measuring students simply
according to memory and retention of facts. Both are concerned with understanding even though
their metrics and order differ considerably. For example, in respect to evaluation Bloom puts it
as a final step for cognitive process while Adler considers it as a means of logical connection for
abstract thought, (Strong, 1996, p. 56). Looking at the skills, operations, and activities of Adlers
three-column program it is easy to see the different cognitive processes. In the first column Adler
has the goal of acquisition of organized knowledge that covers elements of remembering and
understanding. The second column covers analyzing, evaluating and applying. While the third
column, which according to Adler is, enlarged understanding would bear elements from of
comparing, explaining, and creating. Within the discussion the student is engaging in a
conversation to actively discover and express complex ideas. It is through discussion that he
incorporates the higher order thinking because of the fluid nature of the discussion that is
grounded in the other cognitive processes, (Adler, 1984). The purpose of this comparison is to
isolate which elements in modern studies of active learning and discovery can be cultivated using
Adlers seminar method. The next section will identify some modern studies that use active
learning and more specifically in science education.

Active Learning
Active learning has been under investigation for the last three decades. It is most keenly
seen as an opportunity for students to develop a positive interdependence, (Johnson & Johnson,
2009). The positive interdependence can mitigate the negativity found in the individualistic
competitive methods of evaluation and goals. In addition studies have shown that it increases

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

12

opportunities for shared insights and furthers discovery leading to higher order thinking
especially with regards to group to individual transfer, (Gabbert & Johnson, 1986). In this
particular study low achieving students perform much higher than their peers if they have
participated in a group learning activity. The effects of participating in a higher-order thinking
group were able to transfer to the individual during assessment. This is a clear example of
positive interdependence, (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
Active learning and motivation. With respect to scientific education a study was
conducted within an undergraduate biochemistry class. This class traditionally employed a
lecture or didactic method of instruction. Students self-selectively signed up for a class that
incorporated more cooperative learning and problem based learning. These students
outperformed the traditional classroom in of critical thinking and problem solving which made
up a significant portion of their final assessment, (Anderson et al. 2005, p.390). The authors
identified two possible explanations for the significant higher score among the mid-level ability
students. They said that the effect of peer tutoring has an effect or providing a role model and
thus a proof of possibility of mastery, and the second was that the cooperative learning setting
provided a more multi-contextual environment of understanding, (Anderson et al. 2005, p. 392).
It is interesting that the peer instruction can increase a sense of self-efficacy through
modeling. The theory of self-esteem has largely given way to the idea of self-efficacy which is
the ability to know that one has the ability or skills to master a topic or task, (Anderman &
Anderman, 2013, p. 157). It is clear that student motivation depends on this idea, and perphaps
this idea can be instilled best in the student through modeling, (Shunk & Zimmerman, 2007, p.
22). On the other hand students with low self-efficacy can often second-guess themselves in
response to a small group discussion, (Miller et al, 2015). And so it is hard to determine what

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

13

level of self-efficacy is needed as a pre-requisite for peer instruction. On the other hand a study
on silent students in an active classroom showed nearly the same benefits of understanding as the
vocal students, (Obenland et al., 2012). In this case the students were not asked to give an answer
until a final assessment but were given a participatory point for engaging. Even though the silent
students did not engage they did witness the thought processes of their peers and gained a deeper
understanding and retention of the content, (Obenland et al. 2012).
Collaborative learning vs. cooperative learning. For the purpose of this study however
one kind of active learning in the science classroom will be examined. In general active learning
is defined as any alternative to the traditional lecture based instructed during which the student
plays an active role, (Prince, 2004, p. 1) For this study collaborative learning will be emphasized
in terms of discussion. Oftentimes in science education active learning is more often problem
based learning (PBL) or cooperative learning, in which groups hunt down and resolve based on
principles gained through a text, (Prince, 2004, pg. 1). Cooperative learning that is often
distinguished from collaborative learning has specific elements that may or may not be found in
other forms of active learning, (Stahl, 1994). These elements are characterized by a shared task
instead of a shared goal.
The seminar or Socratic discussion has some of these elements but is not as concerned
with as strict a set of criteria and individually assessed outcomes, (Adler, 1984). In this way the
seminar method more closely aligns with what is called peer learning (Boud et. al, 2014, p. 7).
It relies more on the activity of the student and less on the activity or scenario provided by the
teacher. It can be formal or informal, but the key is that there is simultaneous learning, (Boud et
al, 2014, p. 4). In a meta-analysis of discussion based literary programs there was across the

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

14

board improvement in retention and development of themes and persuasive writing, (Murphy et
al, 2010, p. 399), but that further research needs to be done in this area.
The Paideia Method
Peer learning and collaborative learning has been key components to the Paideia Method.
This last section will include research based on the Paideia Method that is:
A thoughtful dialogue is open and respectful, and at the same time with an analytic
character; it springs mostly from the ideas of the students, with the teacher working as a
scaffolding facilitator. By examining a text, a picture, or a question from some decided
points of view, the students will cooperate to come to a deeper understanding, (Pihlgren,
2014, p.3).
The format for a seminar includes an opening question. The core of the discussion
includes an analysis based closely on the text. And it closes with an evaluative portion, (Pihlgren,
2014, p.8). The goal of the class is not to develop the idea of a right or wrong answer to the
opening question but to develop, connect, and deepen the understanding for the work under
discussion, (Roberts & Billings, 1999). A study conducted in New Zealand among middle school
students reaffirmed the benefits of active learning but in particular using the Paideia Method and
Socratic questioning. This study prepared the students according to the three-column method of
instruction, (Adler, 1984) and culminated in a series of Socratic discussions that were student
led, (Davies & Sinclair, 2014). The student-to-student responses were recorded as opposed to
student-teacher and teacher-student responses, and the most significant data suggested that
student-student interaction and response was at a deeper level than with the teacher, (Davies &
Sinclair, 2014). This method gives more autonomy. A further consideration is that the teacher by
witnessing student-to-student interactions has a more reflective consideration of each individual
within the context of the text and the classroom. One teacher describes the ability to pinpoint a
problem based on student responses within the discussion, (Wiggins, 2014). This ability for the

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

15

teacher who is more a facilitator to be able to formally assess the understanding of at least the
vocal students is another reason why this might be a valuable tool for the classroom.
In conclusion there is limited research regarding the seminar method in terms of science
education. It is clear that this method yields results in terms of higher order thinking. It is a
species of active learning and therefore is likely to produce results in a high school science
classroom. And through the strategies developed by author Billings and Roberts, (2012) there
seems a genuine opportunity to develop thought provoking questions and seminars for a biology
class, (p. 46).
Methodology
This research is an attempt to validate the use of the seminar method in the math and
sciences. The seminar method has long been used and proposed as an effective method of
instruction for the humanities. A student has an opportunity to participate in a conversation that
leads him to a deeper understanding of the content and involves a variety of skills and higher
order thinking. In respect to the math and sciences a more didactic approach has been favored.
This study aimed to answer the question regarding how the seminar method can be incorporated
as a form of active learning in a science classroom.
The problem is that while some of the students demonstrated a competence with respect to
memorizing facts, they show greater difficulty in assembling those facts into a logical system. It
was even harder for them to make connections and applications. And often after a few weeks
they could not recall or retain key components to the content of the weeks preceding. This shows
that they were not going deep enough into the coursework and really mastering it.
The literature would suggest that if active learning is not present this is the result.
Mortimer Adler (1984) would say that the students are not progressing because the element of

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

16

discovery is lacking in the method of instruction. The students are too passive. They are hoping
that the content will be spoon-fed to them, and their measure of success is how accurately they
can reproduce the facts for the teacher. Typically in the math and science inquiry based
laboratories and explorations is the appropriate application of active learning for the science
classroom. While this researcher did not disagree with this assertion, it did not preclude the
opportunity for discussion as a means of discovery for the science classroom. In many inquiry
based labs there is a day for discussion as the students must collaborate about the goals of the lab
and how best to craft the procedure and the data collection plans so that they yield fruitful
results. The discussion was used to isolate variables and determine testable hypothesis, (Shields,
2006, p. 236). It is clear that discussion has been already a tool for the scientific classroom. The
discussions questions however mostly mimicked what Adler (1984) would call coaching
examining principles that tried to get the students to question in order to perfect their skills with
an end product in sight, (Roberts & Billings, 1999). In this case the end product is the experiment
or discovery in the laboratory. However, the Socratic seminar is distinct from this kind of
inquiry. It is a conversation about the content itself and is an open ended inquiry in order to make
connections, explain more fully a text, and link it with both observations and experience, Adler
(1984). The discussion would take place after intellectual coaching, after a reading and analyzing
of key texts, and possibly after an inquiry based lab. The purpose was for the students to
collaborate and take a deeper and closer view of the text. So far in this particular class this
approach has not been tried to its fullest extent.
This research planned to use the seminar method as a means for review and develop of the
seminar with in the science classroom. There are three questions guiding this research. The first
question was, can this method applicable to the science classroom? The second question was,

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

17

will a deeper discussion yield more understanding and retention of complex concepts in the
Biology curriculum? The third question was, will students who have difficulty participating in
class be able to use this format to improve relative to their abilities?
The general hypothesis was that through peer learning the students would gain a greater
sense of self-efficacy through peer modeling in a Socratic discussion so that there performance
on summative assessments of their critical thinking skills will improve relative to their ability.
Participants
The participants of this study were the 10th grade biology students at Trivium School in
Lancaster Massachusetts. Currently there are 12 students in the class. They were selected for this
study based on their enrollment in Accelerated Biology. Due to the size of the School this is the
only level of Biology offered in the year 2014-2015. Since the School curriculum emphasizes the
use of the seminar method in its curriculum, the researcher did not outside the mission or scope
of the curricular guidelines for teachers. In this case the school has not emphasized the use of the
seminar method for the math and science classes but it has been hesitant to emphasize it in these
classes. Since all students were given the same instruction there were no anticipated objections
by parents, or administration. Even so the researcher informed parents and students that the
teacher would be using the data produced by these seminars in a research project. The parents
were informed by email from the Headmaster.
Site
The study took place at Trivium School in Lancaster Massachusetts from March 13 to
March 31, 2015 under normal classroom conditions. On two occasions the students class was

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

18

recorded using a digital video recording device and parental permission was requested and given
by all the participants.
Research Design
This study used a mixed method of both qualitative and quantitative data. The
intervention namely the seminar method can also be assessed using qualitative observations, and
yet in order to prove the hypothesis the results should needed to be displayed in both qualitative
and quantitative results.
The first phase of research involved establishing a baseline of aptitude and current
classroom behavior. This used the current standardized tests of the students from their PSAT
scores for this year. The researcher also compiled data from the second trimester final
examination that included critical thinking questions, and a complex essay question, (Appendix
A). This served as a quantitative pre-assessment of their current skill level, (Table 1). The
researcher also took into account the students current course load. Some of the students are
taking six classes and their elective are of various difficulty, and other students are taking five
classes with a study period during the day. Two of the students were receiving outside
instructional coaching and tutoring. Within the small sample size there is a wide range of
abilities and differentiation of instruction.
The first phase will also included a qualitative phase of research. The researcher observed
the same students in other classes. The same students are supposed to be conducting seminars in
their history, theology and literature classes. The researcher observed and kept track in a journal
their participation in these classes with these different tutors.
The second phase included the presentation of the seminar method to the students and
providing them with a timeline for each seminar. The students completed a survey that included

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

19

their perceptions of what a discussion is like and also their opinion regarding its effectiveness in
other classes, (Appendix B). It included general questions and did not necessarily limit the
method to science class. The lesson plans set aside the days in which we engage in discussion as
a similar to the days in which they have presentations, or a guest lecture or a lab, (Billings &
Roberts, 2012). They needed to realize that there extra effort and participation in the seminar
and was different from the rest of their course-work and required preparation and the
development of new skills for some of them. The researcher planned to conduct at least four but
up to six separate seminar days.
During two of planned seminars the researcher planned to record videos, and so that
preparation and emphasis on participating was reinforced not only by a sense of being assessed
not ad hoc but also by the researcher at a later date. Not all the seminars were documented in this
way for the sake of fostering a more natural conversation.
The Paideia Group has been working on a specific multi-step assessment process in
which the students and teachers can assess their participation in Socratic seminars and which can
yield relevant data for the researcher, (Billings & Robert, 2012, p. 64). The authors spent a
considerable amount of time and research developing these tools for assessing seminar especially
in light of common core requirements. These materials have been developed for language arts
primarily but were adapted for more scientific content.
The process begins with a pre-seminar checklist and rubric for the student to state their
goals for the seminar. The student came to the table with either an annotated text prepared or
graphic organizer of the key concept of the text discussed. The teacher researcher then used this
as a measure of what they brought to the table, and the student used it to help formulate further
thought in his post-seminar content assessment. The student was supposed to target two goals

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

20

which had been established from a previous rubric also prepared by Paideia Group that gave a
three level criteria for participation in all the major skills levels of the discussion, (Billings &
Robert, 2012, p.59). During the seminar the teacher drew a map noting the students who
participated and the level at which they participated. The last part of the assessment is a post
seminar process and content component in which the student examines and assesses how she has
met her goal, and produces some written work that includes a complex question and answers
proposed from seminar. It should include elements of the pre-seminar content prepared and the
development of thought from the student. The authors Billings & Roberts (2012) suggests that
the student pre-seminar and post-seminar process documents be weighted 40% and the preseminar and post-seminar contents 45% while the teacher map be weighted 15% in the
assessment given to the student and collected, (pg. 64). This researcher planned to use this
method of assessing the seminar classes and providing feedback to the student.
A final source of data compared the regular summative assessments. Each teacher
generated test that is given after a few chapters contains some critical thinking and application
question or questions. These tests were often linked to class discussions rather than simply a test
of the students ability to think on his feet. These tests were given after a seminar day, and the
researcher hoped to track the progress of each student that respect to these questions. At the end
of the data collection period the students took a modified version of the original survey
(Appendix C) and the results were compared.
Data Collection Plan
The design plan includes collecting baseline quantitative and qualitative data. The
researcher then prepared and coached the students for a seminar style class. The appropriate preseminar and post-seminar process and content assignments were assigned and the teacher

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

21

mapped out the discussion. Specific questions on the test were be noted and recorded. In
addition students were given a survey of their opinion and understanding of the seminar method
in general. After the series of seminars the students will be given the same survey and the results
will be compared.

Table 1. Data Matrix

Research Questions
1. Seminar
Method and
Scientific
Classroom
2. Improved
Participation
for all students
3. Deep
understanding
leads to better
results

Method 1
Field notes from other
seminar classes

Method 2
Pre-seminar student
content assessment

Method 3
Student survey

Teacher map from

seminars

Post-seminar
process assessment

Video recording of
two seminars

Post seminar content

assessment

Critical thinking
questions on tests

Student survey post

seminars

Validity of the Study

The external validity of this study as Mills (2014) states is not be measurable. This study
does not use enough outside quantitative instruments of measuring to make the results valid
according to these tests, (p.114). At the same time the correlation between the student seminar
assessments and their regular summative assessments is internally valid. The comparison of the
individual students progress taking into account their relative abilities and course load with either
correspond to the hypothesis or not. This study is using mixed methods (Mills, 2014), which uses
a different set of criteria for qualitative data in terms of validity, (p. 115). The author uses four
criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, (Mills, 2014, p. 116). In

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

22

this study the qualitative data includes the teacher map, field notes from other classes, study
survey, and video recording.
To provide credibility the researcher asked a colleague to perform a teacher map and take
field notes of one of the recorded sessions. After the class the researcher can then compare maps
and note difference in perspective of observation. Many teachers will notice an underperforming
student gain confidence, but the progress of the average students might not gain their notice.
To provide transferability the researcher took note of the time, date, place, and
considerations of the day for example change in schedule, or the students having major tests in
other classes that same day. It is important that the descriptive data be included to help explain
the results and any anomalies.
To provide dependability the field notes, teacher maps, and video recordings were
analyzed as a unit so that if during the class the teacher as an active observer missed some
relevant data it can be included on the student seminar assessments.
To provide confirmability the researcher asked colleagues to review and comment on all
field notes and note any progress or contradictions with respect to the same students in their
seminar classes.
Data Analysis Plan
The data collected was organized and analyzed based on each individual student. The
data was analyzed taking into account their abilities based on the baseline-standardized tests and
it was analyzed and tabulated on a separate occasion without this information. The qualitative
research for each student was compiled according the rubrics given in the first phase of the
intervention. The field notes were tagged by student name and each student was given a profile
and assessment based on the aforementioned rubrics (Billings & Roberts, 2012). There are

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

23

twelve students. In addition the students progress was correlated to their current grades in other
classes, and progress in the humanities will be noted as outside confirmation of the effectiveness
of the study.
Results
For four weeks the students were given a series of seminar and coaching questions in
order to review key concepts in their Biology course. The students were asked to go beyond the
basic facts of the text, and begin to make connections through a series of what is called coaching
questions, (Billings & Roberts, 1999). After studying the text and answering these coaching
questions the students engaged in a total of four seminars. They received two summative
assessments; one after the first two seminars, and the other after the last two. In addition they
were given an informal seminar to help introduce the idea of discussion within the Biology
classroom. The project aims to discover whether the seminar method is an effective review for
summative assessments in the biology classroom.
The sample size is somewhat limited. Trivium School has only 81 students in grades 7
through 12. The entire 10th grade class has 13 students. The Twelve students who are enrolled in
Accelerated Biology are in a way an expanded case study. By providing base line assessments
and testing the researcher was able to differentiate the students according to natural aptitude and
ability. The goal was to see improvement among all students regardless of their ability or usual
level of participation.
Trivium School according to its mission is a college preparatory school and is somewhat
selective in admissions. At the same time the mission to provide excellent education to families,
and therefore the students occasionally demonstrate a wide range of ability. In Biology 10 the
students received PSAT scores from 117 to 191. The final grades for the Winter Trimester

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

24

ranged from 71% to 100%. The researcher was particularly aware that while some students were
competent in reproducing basic facts oftentimes the students were unable to make more
sophisticated judgments regarding key concepts and unable to retain the more complex
distinctions. This was most clearly seen in their responses to the exam question on their final
exam. The aim of the study was to correlate the student responses on higher order thinking
assignments after conducting seminars and notice any improvement as a result of the method.

Table 2.
Students Baseline Assessment Percentages and Standardized Testing
Winter Term
Student A
Student B
Student C
Student D
Student E
Student F
Student G
Student H
Student I
Student J
Student K
Student L

77
78
82
91
79
80
87
92
94
93
91
96

Essay Question
score
71
79
86
89
93
93
93
93
93
96
96
100

PSAT
164
117
164
150
139
161
164
191
150
139
136
148

Findings
Table 3 includes the dates and assignments completed by the students. Not all students
were present for each activity, and for this reason there are missing assignments and evaluations.
The students were given comparable assignments for their coursework but they were not able to

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

25

make up the work done in the seminars. For this paper the absent assignments are displayed
along with the completed assignments.
Table 3.
Data Collection Schedule.
Date
March 13, 2015
March 15, 2015
March 19, 2015
March 20, 2015
March 23, 2015
March 23, 2015
March 27, 2015
March 30, 2015
March 31, 2015

Activity
Informal Discussion of the
Organs of Plants
Post-Seminar Written
Assignment
Seminar on Kingdom
Animalia
Seminar on Parts of
Animals
Post-Seminar Written
Assignment
Summative Assessment
Test
Seminar on Invertebrates
and Arthropods
Seminar on Arthropods

Attendance
12

Summative Assessment Test

10

12
12
11
11
11
12
12

The researcher conducted a pre-seminar (Appendix B) and post-seminar survey

(Appendix C) for the students. 10 of the 13 questions were answered on a Likert scale, and the
last three were open-ended objective questions. There were a total of 13 questions in which some
indicated the students familiarity with the method, and their learning style. At the end of the
study they were given 12 of the same questions and it was interesting to see the differences in
their answers.
Most of the students before the study did not know the definition of a seminar. 7 out of
12 of the students described it as a lecture. At the end of the student 11 out of 12 students gave

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

26

the correct definition. Even though the Trivium School aims to teach using Socratic discussion or
what is more modernly called the seminar method the students did not understand the term.
Three of the questions in the survey provide a key picture of the students perceptions of
the study. These questions had to do with their perception of how they analyzed the text and
discovered what was important, how much they understood at the end of the class, and how peer
learning caused progress.
Question 3 asked whether the students reading notes were discussed in class. This
question aimed to identify their ability to analyze the text prior to coming to class. In the preseminar only two students did not agree or strongly agree that they often identified the pertinent
facts. After the seminar only 7 of them agreed that they often understood the facts before the
class discussion.
Question 3: Your notes for class are often the notes on the Board.
9
8
7
6
5

Before

After

3
2
1
0
SA

SD

Figure 1. Before and After Comparison of Question 3

Question 5 asked if the students were often sure of important concepts and facts after
class. Only 5 of the students answered that they agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. 5

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

27

students were neutral and 2 students disagreed and asserted that after class they often did not
know what was important. After the seminar 8 students said that they often knew what was
important and 3 responded neutral and only 1 disagreed.
Question 5: At the end of class you are sure you know what is
important.
8
7
6
5
Before

After

3
2
1
0
SA

SD

Figure 2. Before and After Comparison of Question 5

Question 6 aimed to determine whether the students thought that learning from peers was
more effective for their learning. In the pre-seminar survey the students responded: Strongly
agree, 2; Agree, 2; Neutral, 4; Disagree, 4. In contrast in their post-seminar survey the students
responded: Strongly agree, 1; Agree, 6; Neutral, 3, Disagree, 2. The students thought that they
were more likely to listen to their classmates opinions and ideas for explanations after the
seminar intervention than before the intervention.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

28

Question 6: You can remember what you friend said more often than
what you teacher said.
8
7
6
5
Before

After

3
2
1
0
SA

SD

Figure 3. Before and After Comparison of Question 6

The last question in the survey was to identify the learning style of the students. The
researcher asks the students to name a memorable class or lesson from the previous year and
explain why. In the second survey the student had to name a memorable class or lesson from this
school year. In most cases the student gave a very similar reason for why they enjoyed or
remembered the two lessons, and this reason was an indication about their learning style. The
seminar method is most likely to appeal to auditory and tactile learner since it links concepts
with sounds and social activity. In this study the researcher suspects that there are 4 auditory
learners within the group. This question was to identify the students that were most likely to
benefit from the seminar method. After the study, 4 students responded to the question indicating
that they were auditory learners.
In order to correlate improvement in the summative assessments, the researcher needed to
establish a method for assessing the students participation in the seminar method. To do this the

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

29

researcher used a three-part assessment for the student. The first included a map (See Appendix
X.) of the seminar and asked the students to describe the content of the seminar and their
progress. The students ability to achieve their stated goal was taken into consideration. The
students ability to describe the content, course, and conclusion of the discussion was included.
In this way the researcher could correlate a quantitative score with respect to the summative
assessment. The summary assignment was weighted at 45%, the activity and participation of the
student at 15% and their assessment of their progress and actual progress towards their specific
goal was 40%, (Billings & Roberts, 2012, p. 62). Table 4 includes the scores of the students
participation and reflection in the seminar and the scores they received on their subsequent
summative assessments. The scores are all put in terms of percentages to aid in their comparison.
Table 4.
Seminar grades and Summative Assessments

Student A
Student B
Student C
Student D
Student E
Student F
Student G
Student H
Student I
Student J
Student K
Student L

Seminar A
Abs
Abs
69
Abs
91
88
83
92
88
83
99
89

Test 1
35
Abs
80
73
75
65
75
90
95
95
100
100

Seminar B
56
Abs
70
81
87
79
85
85
92
82
100
96

Test 2
70
91
83
89
83
81
Abs
83
Abs
100
99
91

More specifically Table 5. Includes a comparison of the students scores on a critical

thinking question that was part of the Test 2. The question was, Why are there so many species

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

30

of arthropods? What about their structure makes it possible for them to survive in so many
environments? List three reasons. This question was a key part of the discussion, and the
comparison of the two scores demonstrates their ability to transfer the discussion to their
examination.
Table 5.
Comparison of Seminar B Assessment and Test 2 Question
Seminar Assessment
Critical thinking question

Student A
56
33
Student B
abs
100
Student C
70
67
Student D
81
100
Student E
87
100
Student F
79
50
Student G
85
abs
Student H
85
50
Student I
92
abs
Student J
83
83
Student K
100
100
Student L
96
100

Five out of the twelve students did better or the same on the test than the discussion. They
answered the exact same question and in most cases the student test scores reflected their
participation. It is unfortunate that there are two absent test grades, because the researcher cannot
make a conclusive judgments.
The researcher had the opportunity to observe these students in their history and
Theology classes. The students while supposedly engaging in discussion is both these classes did
not seem to follow the typical approach.
In History, the students were asked specific factual questions and occasionally asked
leading questions. These questions aimed to create connections in the students mind and to start
to form conclusions. However these questions clearly had a specific answer. For example one

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

31

question was, Why were the Netherlands such a cultural and political force during the early
1600s? A few students mentioned their economic and political stability. The teacher agreed
with all the answers but acknowledged and affirmation the student who first mentioned their
urbanization. The student had to justify their answer with reasons from the text, but it did not go
beyond the second phase of learning, academic coaching, (Billings & Roberts, 1999, p. 27),
While the teacher asked a series of questions to develop their logical reasoning and connecting
the facts. He did not let them explore the possibilities in discussion. In this particular class he
lectured a few times, and then following the guidelines for coaching questions. The students
responded only to the teacher and did not engage each other. The better students answers easily
and often, but the more challenged students were able to stay mainly passive throughout the
class.
In their Theology class, the discussion was primarily in the form of a formal debate. The
students were told that they received a grade based on the number of times they spoke as well as
the quality of the content. The students discussed the appropriateness of modern music to the
liturgy. Some students put forth the idea that the liturgy could include all kinds of music, while
others adamantly maintained that the liturgy demanded certain criteria for the music. What was
interesting is that they had difficulty isolating those factors and brought up series and series of
examples and personal opinions. This was very similar to the seminars in Biology. The students
struggled with remaining on topic and the quieter students did not engage at all. The students did
not seem to take any notes on the discussion, which quickly became a debate between Student K
and Student E. While other students made contributions the tended to shy back from taking the
lead.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

32

In both their Biology and Theology discussions the students tended to take fewer notes
and rely more on their memory and not the text. The students did not seem to understand that
their discussions were part of the regular coursework but seem to treat them as ancillary
exercises. They obviously enjoyed them, but more like they would have enjoyed a review game.
This relaxed outlook may have contributed to its overall effectiveness. It is hard to tell exactly
how much this attitude affected the results.
Figure 4. Displays the overall result of the intervention the students grade did not make
any discernible progress, and at the same time the intervention did not seem to harm their
progress. It is interesting to not that students on the higher level of ability are less affected by the
intervention that the lower performing students.
Overall course grades before and after intervention
120

Course grades in %

100
80
60
40
20
0

Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student Student
L
K
J
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
A

Pre-Seminar

96

94

92

91

93

93

82

87

80

78

79

77

Post-Seminar

97

94

91

92

88

95

79

86

77

81

80

62

Figure 4. An overall comparison of the students grades before and after the study was
conducted

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

33

Discussion
There were three questions guiding this research. The first question is this method
applicable to the science classroom? The second question is will a deeper discussion yield more
understanding and retention of complex concepts in the biology curriculum? The third question
is will students who have difficulty participating in class be able to use this format to improve
relative to their abilities?
The first overall finding is that the method is not specifically suited to the science
classroom. It did not seem to have any effect on their test scores in terms of review. This does
not mean it cannot be modified and used for the science classroom but it is not an intervention
that will yield instant results. This finding is not surprising. The students themselves reported
that they enjoyed this method. Their test scores showed that students who had trouble with visual
learning and relied heavily on auditory learning improved the most from this method.
It is clear that discussion is an essential component of the scientific method. And research
has shown that students welcome the opportunity for inquiry based labs, peer discussion groups,
and opportunities for collaborative learning, (Wiggins, 2014). These elements are present in the
Paideia Method of seminar instruction. The challenge is to implement them correctly. The
researcher while having some training in the seminar method was not sufficiently trained to
incorporate this method sufficiently. The researcher had the experience of learning with the
students in terms of leading and moderating the discussion.
The second question is somewhat answered with the comparison of the higher order
thinking questions on their tests. The students were able to answer more fully and with greater
understanding as a result of their discussions. Blooms taxonomy identifies key skills for higher
order thinking. They are the ability to apply, to analyze, and to evaluate, (Krathowl, 2002,

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

34

p.215). In this research the students were asked to demonstrate all three. Many students who
already had a greater facility were able to do this before and after the intervention, and a few
more demonstrated this on their testing. The goal is to draw conclusions from concrete facts and
students who formerly could only list facts were able to use these facts to draw general
conclusions and more abstract principles. The researcher guesses that with more practice in
Socratic discussion this would increase.
The third question is whether across the board this method would yield results regardless
of ability. Complex thought requires not only basic ability but also training. After conducting this
research it is unclear to what percentage this is possible. The results are not conclusive. The
Students A through L were labeled according to their previous performance in other classes and
their standardized tests scores. Since their scores did not uniformly improve the supposition that
training can in all cases amplify their ability has not been proved. Another considerations involve
their motivation. Students, B, C, G, I, L, who responded that their learned better from peers in
general improved in their test scores (Figure 4). Those that said they did not showed less
improvement. The trust and confidence in the method indicates that their perceptions about their
progress and their learning style have more an effect that the method used. This points backs to
the idea of self-efficacy through modeling, (Anderson et al., 2005, p. 392).
In addition their preparation for the seminar, namely their diligence in preparing for the
seminars, also highly contributed to their success. How much the students brought to the table
indicated how much they would get out of it. Students G, L, and I are typical high achievers who
produce excellent notes and take their preparation very seriously. While their participation was
above average within the discussions they were not leaders in the discussions, and it is
interesting to note that their critical thinking skills improved as a result of these discussions.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

35

Student G has difficult grasping abstract concepts and after the study she seemed more confident
in expressing conclusions and connections between those facts. Again without more data and a
longer application of the method it is hard to make definite conclusions but the trend is
encouraging.
In comparison Student I often grasps the big picture and abstract concepts but has
difficulty in applying and remembering the concrete facts. In her tests she showed a greater
ability to analyze and evaluate these facts into an ordered whole. Student C and I have been
diagnosed with dyslexia and often they struggle to retain large amounts of visual that is written
content. They both reported that they often learn more from peers and prefer a class that involves
discussion. While their improvement is not conclusive the method might be a useful too in
helping students with certain kinds of learning disabilities.
Further research. The researcher plans to continue the method of reviewing for the rest
of the term. While they are many more laboratory dissections in the following weeks the students
are required to review and draw conclusions from their text and the labs. The labs questions are
for the most part very similar to the coaching questions and can serve as a preparation for the
discussions. With five more weeks of research this teacher will be able to evaluate this method
for next years Biology course.
Another avenue for research is identifying the effect of the seminar method on students
identified with learning difficulties. Trivium School is a college preparatory school but it often
accepts students with mild learning difficulties. Many of these students do very well in the small
class sizes, and eventually are able to overcome their difficulties with extra tutoring, and
practice. It would be interesting to pursue how the seminar method is beneficial to these students
in light of the findings of this study.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

36

In conclusion, the researcher concludes that there is too little evidence to assert that the
seminar method is an effective tool for review for subject such as Biology. In examining the
results it is clear that for the student who has a predisposition to this method because of their
learning style that it is beneficial. At the same time with further testing it might have more effect.
In addition the process has helped the students become more reflective and has increased
their skills in their other subjects. The researcher has found in some cases the summative
assessments scores have improved but not enough to draw a general conclusion.
To properly conduct a seminar the teacher must have more formal training and the
students themselves need a longer time for preparation. To successfully implement this model
the teacher must have experience with learning according to this method.
Limitations. The limitations of this study were due to the schedule that was prone to
interruptions of vacations and absenteeism. Many of the students that are on the lower quartile
were either absent or failed to turn in their assignments. This makes it difficult to assess whether
the method helps all students regardless of their ability. The student who were already high
achieving seem to benefit from the method but that is not enough to draw the conclusion that the
seminar method is appropriate. While at the same time the students progress did not
dramatically change. At the same time the intervention did not seem to have a negative impact
on their progress.
Student A would be the exception to this statement. This student is a special case and just
before the intervention learned that he would be placed at a different school that could offer more
support for his non-verbal learning disability next year. His grades in his other courses have
dropped significantly and it is unclear if this intervention was the clear cause of his lack of
progress. In one of the seminars Student A took the lead and seem to be improving in his ability

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

37

to formulate his thoughts, and then was absent for the next three days. This makes is very
difficult to assess the effect the seminar had for him. I suspect that his lack of preparation due to
his absence had more of an effect than anything else.
For the students in the top percentiles the intervention seems to make no difference to
their success. And while there were some individuals who performed better there is no
discernable pattern between the first and the second set of assignments. Both Seminar A and
Seminar B lasted for two class periods in two successive days and some of the students had
difficulty maintaining the train of thought of their course of two days. Adler (1984, p. )
recommends at least 60-70 minutes for a successful seminar and the students had an average of
35 minutes for each class period.
If this method were to be tested further, the researcher recommends a larger sample size
and a longer duration of testing. The initial plan of 4 weeks easily became 3.5 due to unforeseen
changes in the schedule. The students did not receive any formative written feedback during the
course of the tests, and this may have a beneficial effect to their performance. They did receive a
formative summary of their discussions but this was not given individually.
Action Plan
The findings provide some interesting actions points. The researcher intends to continue
this method and expand it into an opportunity for collaboration among the faculty.
The current full-time faculty has various backgrounds. Some of the teachers have first
hand experience with the seminar method from their undergraduate days and some have no
experience. It is clear through watching other classes that all the faculty if they are to accomplish
the mission of the School, namely to educate according to the liberal arts and to follow the

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

38

principles of discovery (Adler, 1988) that they need to become better at understanding and
moderating Socratic discussion.
This researcher has enrolled in a summer program, which consists of a week of intensive
seminars on works of the 20th century. The program has stated as part of its mission:
The hope was that recovering and harnessing such learning through the Seminars would
invest attending faculty participants with the understanding and confidence to be more
effective in their vocation as wellsprings of reflection on the understanding of human
purpose and meaning in the course of their daily activities as teachers and scholars at
their home institutions, (Fides et Ratio, 2015, personal communication).
In addition to the researchers personal improvement in this area, there is a momentum to
implement an initiative within the faculty Professional Learning Community, (PLC). The PLC
plans to discuss various works regarding the liberal arts and nominate a leader or moderator for
each discussion.
This researcher will propose to the Headmaster the following course of action to promote
professional development in this area. This leader of moderator would become familiar with the
methods found in the work the Paideia Classroom and by implementing them in the faculty
discussions receive on the job training and experience.
If there is an interest and response to this first action the researcher will propose that the
School pursue training from the Paideia Institute. This institute offers on-site training according
to the core principles of the Paideia Method that includes the three-column level of instruction.
This training would be available in the summer ("On-Site Faculty Training | Paideia - Active
Learning," 2015).
As with all interventions this plan needs to be research driven. With a more formulized
rubric and assessment process the faculty can become more familiar and consistent in their
application of this method. For many months the faculty have been formulating a rubric for

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

39

classroom participation. The first few months of implementation will generate more data points
to assess this rubric. The discussion component is key in the humanities courses but somewhat
neglected in the math and sciences. With more training this rubric could be tailored and more
discussion could be implemented in the math and science courses. Currently three of the five
math teachers use academic coaching and discussion, and more need to be trained in these areas
to yield positive results.
Table 6.
Action Plan Timeline
Timeline
Action

Personnel

Data

Resources

June 2015

Proposal to the faculty

regarding professional
development according
to the Paideia Principles

Headmaster
and faculty

Survey and
evaluations of
practice
seminars

Purchasing of
the books the
Paideia
Classroom and
Teaching
Critical
Thinking Skills
in the 21st
Century
Classroom

September
2015

Faculty led Seminars

every two weeks

Faculty

Post-seminar
content
assessments
from faculty

None

January 2016

School-wide evaluation
of implementation of the
formal Seminar method

Researcher and
committee
designated by
the Headmaster

School wide
evaluation of
participation
according to
developed
rubrics and
assessments
and tracked
improvement.

None

June 2016

On-site training from the

Paideia Institute

Faculty

Evaluations
provide by the
Institute

$1000-$2000

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

40

Conclusion
In conclusion, this study gave the researcher and hopefully future faculty valuable
insights into the proper conduct of Socratic discussion according to well-researched methods.
The students who participated are better equipped to develop critical thinking and higher ordered
reasoning in the pursuit of knowledge. The discussion method bears fruit in all vocations. The
requisite skills are important to life long learning. In respect to the math and sciences discussion
is key to further development in empirical studies. The average layperson needs to be familiar
with the body of knowledge that is associated with the natural science in order to understand and
live according to the current explanations and theories about the world. The Socratic method
corresponds to what is natural to communication and to the exploration and discovery of
knowledge. This is why it is of the utmost importance to all students and therefore to all
institutions that are charged with the duty to educate young people.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

41

References
Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2013). Classroom motivation. Pearson Higher Ed. Kindle
edition
Anderson, W. L., Mitchell, S. M., & Osgood, M. P. (2005). Comparison of student performance
in cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based biochemistry classes. Biochemistry
And Molecular Biology Education: A Bimonthly Publication Of The International Union
Of Biochemistry And Molecular Biology, 33(6), 387-393.
Adler, M. J., & Paideia Group. (1984). The Paideia program: An educational syllabus. New
York: Macmillan.
Adler, M. J., & Van, D. G. (1988). Reforming education: The opening of the American mind.
New York: Macmillan.
Adler, M. (1993). Reforming education. Random House Value Publishing.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (Eds.). (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning
from and with each other. Routledge.
Davies, M., & Sinclair, A. (2014). Socratic questioning in the Paideia Method to encourage
dialogical discussions. Research Papers in Education, 29(1), 20-43.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., &
Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science,
engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
111(23), 8410-8415.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

42

Gabbert, B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Cooperative learning, group-to-individual
transfer, process gain, and the acquisition of cognitive reasoning strategies. The Journal
of Psychology, 120(3), 265-278.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational researcher, 38(5), 365-379.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. THEORY INTO
PRACTICE, 41(4).
Miller, K., Schell, J., Ho, A., Lukoff, B., & Mazur, E. (2015). Response switching and selfefficacy in Peer Instruction classrooms. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics
Education Research, 11(1), 010104.
Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A., & Soter, A. O. (2010). Instruction based on discussion.
Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 382.
Obenland, C. A., Munson, A. H., & Hutchinson, J. S. (2012). Silent Students' Participation in a
Large Active Learning Science Classroom. Journal Of College Science Teaching, 42(2),
90-98.
Pihlgren, A. S. (2014). Thoughtful Dialogues and Socratic Seminars.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering
education, 93(3), 223-231.
Roberts, T., & Billings, L. (2012). Teaching critical thinking: Using seminars for 21st century
literacy. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Roberts, T., & Billings, L. (1999). The Paideia classroom: Teaching for understanding. Eye on
Education.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

43

Sears, D. A., & Pai, H. (2012). Effects of Cooperative Versus Individual Study on Learning and
Motivation After Reward-Removal. Journal Of Experimental Education, 80(3), 246.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007). Influencing children's self-efficacy and selfregulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1),
7-25.
Shields, M. (2006). Biology inquiries: Standards-based labs, assessments, and discussion
lessons. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stahl, R. J. (1994). The Essential Elements of Cooperative Learning in the Classroom. ERIC
Digest.
Strong, M., & Strong, D. M. (1996). The habit of thought: From Socratic seminars to Socratic
practice. New View Publications.
Wiggins, A. (2014). Spinning the Web. Educational Leadership, 72(3), 78.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

44

Appendix A
Biology 10 2nd Trimester Final Exam February 25, 2015
Vocabulary
Fill in separate sheet.
Answer ten the following questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Explain the principal function of DNA in cells

Compare and Contrast the structure of RNA with that if DNA.
Summarize the process of protein synthesis. From gene to protein.
Describe Mendel's experiment with bean plants
State and explain Mendel's three principles and how Meiosis explains them.
Identify two external causes of mutation
Explain why sex-linked traits appear more often in males than in females
Draw a Punnet square with a cross of one heterozygous parent and one
homozygous recessive parent for x-linked hemophilia.
9. What is the difference between viruses and cells?
10. What are the main distinctions between the three kinds of viruses?
11. What is the difference between the lysogenic cycle and the lytic cycle?
12. What are the distinguishing features of bacteria?
13. What is the difference between an endotoxin and an exotoxin?
14. How does the environment of protozoa relate to their structure?
15. Compare the methods of movement for different protozoa.
Pick one of the Short essays below:
1. Give a general overview of the discovery of how traits are inherited and the discovery of
DNA. Describe one scientist in particular who was crucial to the understanding of DNA
and prove that they made the key discovery.
2. In History you have been studying the Baconian revolution. In Biology you have studied
medical interventions with respect to viral and bacterial diseases. In addition we have
discussed the usefulness and drawbacks of genetic testing. Compare and contrast the
motivation to study living things, and its usefulness in terms of how to better human
existence. Develop an essay describing what you think the primary goal of studying
genetic inheritance, viruses, and bacteria. You must use examples for your book, or
research papers.

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

45

Appendix B.

Trivium School Student Pre-Seminar Survey

Name_________________________
Date__________________________

Question

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

1. You can remember numbers easily

2. You often take notes when you read for School
3. Your notes for School are often the notes put on
the board in class.
4. It is easy for you to take notes in class.
5. At the end of class you are sure you know what
is important.
6. You can remember what your friend said more
than you can remember what the teacher said.
7. Your enjoy classes in which you can go to board
and explain your thoughts.
8. The teacher is often able to help you picture an
event, person, or idea in your mind.
9. You prefer classes in which you can talk and ask
questions.
10. You take more than 5 class notes a day.
11. What does the word seminar mean?

12. What is the difference between a conversation and a discussion?

13. What lesson do you remember most from 7th or 9th grade science? Why?

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

46

Appendix C.
Trivium School Student Post-Seminar Survey
Name_________________________
Date__________________________

Question

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

1. You sometimes draw concept maps in your

notes.
2. You often take notes when you read for School
3. Your notes for School are often the notes put on
the board in class.
4. It is easy for you to take notes in class.
5. At the end of class you are sure you know what
is important.
6. You can remember what your friend said more
than you can remember what the teacher said.
7. Your enjoy classes in which you can go to board
and explain your thoughts.
8. The teacher is often able to help you picture an
event, person, or idea in your mind.
9. You prefer classes in which you can talk and ask
questions.
10. You take more than 5 class notes a day.
11. What does the word seminar mean?

12. What is the difference between a conversation and a discussion?

13. What lesson do you remember most from this year? Why

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

Appendix D.
A Seminar Map

Figure X. Numerical notations are an approximation of the students contributions to the

discussion. The Q was given to the students who either answered the opening questions or
furthered the discussion but asking a question.

47

SEMINAR INSTRUCTION FOR ACCELERATED BIOLOGY

Appendix E.
Seminar Process Assessment
Name__________________
Date___________________
Seminar Title____________________________________________
Main Idea______________________________________________
My goal for todays seminar is to (check one):
___Yield to another in order to share talk time
___Refer to the text in detail
___Consider multiple points of view
___Speak out of uncertainty
Other goals for future discussions
Representative goals for speaking:
Speak loudly enough so that everyone can hear
Speak voluntarily at least three times
Make clear and accurate statements
Use appropriate grammar and vocabulary
Use relevant vocabulary
Use collaborative tone
Disagree agreeably or in a neutral tone.
Representative goals for listening:
Look at the person speaking.
Paraphrase what you hear someone say.
Respond to what someone else says.
Ask a question
Wait your turn to talk (Dont talk while another is speaking.)
Give way. (Be quiet is you begin talking at the same time someone else does.

48