Andragogy and the Socratic Method : The Adult Learner Perspective

Vol. 2, No. 2.
ISSN: 1473-8376
www.hlst.ltsn.ac.uk/johlste
Andragogy and the Socratic Method:
The Adult Learner Perspective
Alexandros Paraskevas (aparaskevas@brookes.ac.uk)
Oxford Brookes University
Gipsy Lane, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK.

Dr Eugenia Wickens (eugenia.wickens@bcuc.ac.uk)
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College
Kingshill Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5BB, UK.

DOI:10.3794/johlste.22.20
? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education
Abstract
One of the teaching methods available to teachers in the ‘andragogic’ model of teaching is the method
of ‘Socratic Seminars’. This is a teacher-directed form of instruction in which questions are used as
the sole method of teaching, placing students in the position of having to recognise the limits of their
knowledge, and hopefully, motivating them to learn. This paper aims at initiating the discussion on
the strengths and drawbacks of this method. Based on empirical research, the paper suggests that the
Socratic method seems to be a very effective method for teaching adult learners, but should be used
with caution depending on the personality of the learners.
Keywords: andragogy, adult learners, Socratic method, Socratic seminar
Introduction
Historically,
education
has
been
understood
in
terms
of
pedagogy,
the
art
and
science of teaching (or ‘leading’) the child. Pedagogy embodies an instructor-focused education where
instructors assume responsibility for making decisions about what will be learned, how it will be
learned, and when it will be learned. Usually, when pedagogy is practised, the relationship of the
student to the teacher is dependent and (often) passive, and the relationship between the student and
his/her peers is a competitive one. This model of education was fiercely criticised by many educators
who believed it was falling short of its potential (e.g., Dewey, 1938), and who emphasised learning
through various activities rather than traditional instructor-focused curricula. According to these
critics, children learned more from guided experience than authoritarian instruction. These beliefs led
to the development of a learner-focused education philosophy, appropriate not only for children but
also for adults; a completely different set of learners, with totally different values and expectations
from their learning experience (Lindeman, 1926).
Alexandros Paraskevas is a Senior Lecturer in Operations Management. His main research interests
are the web-enabled solutions aiming at sustainable digital advantage and the adoption of
information and communication technology innovation in hotel and tourism enterprises.

Dr Eugenia Wickens is a Senior Lecturer in Tourism. Her main research interests are tourists'
experiences of the visited host community and its people, tourist motivations, tourists' behaviour and
ethnographies of tourism.

---

Paraskevas, A and Wickens, E. (2003) Andragogy and the Socratic Method: The Adult Learner
Perspective

Building on the earlier work of Lindeman (1926), research on adult learning (e.g., Beder and
Darkenwald, 1982) has asserted this alternative set of assumptions about teaching and learning.
Known as andragogy: the art and science of teaching adults (Knowles, 1980:38), the new
instructional model rearranges the relationships between the ‘four common places’ (instructor,
learner, context, curriculum) of an educational situation (Schwab, 1973). It moves from emphasising
‘someone teaching something to someone in a given context’ to one that captures the essentials of the
interaction between those constituents in the following manner: ‘someone learning something with
someone and/or others in a given context that facilitates interaction’. Andragogy produces
collaborative relationships among students and between the students and the instructor. What the class
knows as a whole becomes more relevant. The emphasis shifts from the instructor onto the students’
contributions to the group discussion and learning, their roles, and the responsibility which they
engage in, as well as their attitudes towards change, readiness in filling complementary roles, and the
like (Borko and Putnam, 1996).

One of the teaching methods available to instructors in the andragogic model is the method of
‘Socratic Seminars’ an instructor-directed form of instruction in which questions are used as the sole
method of teaching. The technique is assumed to help emphasise the learning process by placing
students in the position of having to recognise the limits of their knowledge, and hopefully, motivating
them to learn.

Although the Socratic method was adopted in all levels of education, especially in the US as part of
Mortimer Adler's Paideia Proposal for Education's Reform (1982), there is limited research evaluating
its results and its appropriateness in teaching adult learners (Hake, 1991; Bhattacharyya et al., 1995;
Hake and Bird, 1995). This paper aims at initiating the discussion on the strengths and drawbacks of
the method. Based on empirical research, the paper introduces a four-fold classification of adult
learners – the ‘Meno’, the ‘Protagoras’, the ‘Gorgias’, and the ‘Plato’ – named after some typical
participants in the Socratic dialogues.

The focus of the research was on adult learners themselves and it was therefore decided to construct a
typology which could be used as a heuristic device to aid the analysis of the qualitative data. The
decision to use this methodological tool in the interpretation of the variety of adult learners’
experiences, was influenced by recognition of the complexity of the phenomenon under investigation.
As Wickens (1999) points out, the complexity of the social phenomenon under study requires a
theoretical approach that includes a classificatory scheme. Typological distinctions are important for
analytical purposes. Thus, a classificatory scheme was constructed to aid research and hence, the
categories of adult learners presented in this paper are best seen as ‘ideal typical constructs’ in
Weber’s (1968:15) sense of the terms. Limitations associated with the use of this technique in
research of this kind are also recognised by the authors.
Literature review
It is widely recognised that, in most academic systems, curricula and instructors constitute the starting
point, while learners are secondary. Ramsden (1992) claims that the larger part of student 'learning' is
not about understanding theories and concepts, but about adapting to the requirements of instructors.
Much earlier work by Lindeman (1926) proposed a shift in the paradigm of adult education to more
student-centred education as he noticed that too much of learning consisted of vicarious substitution
of the learner's experience (the adult learner's living textbook) and knowledge. Lindeman emphasised
the importance of adult education by writing: ‘Adult education will become an agency of progress if
its short-time goal of self-improvement can be made compatible with a long-time, experimental but
resolute policy of changing the social order’ (Lindeman, 1988:105). Building on the earlier work of
Lindeman, Knowles (1973) asserted that adults require certain environmental conditions in order to
learn:
1. Adults need to be involved in the planning and evaluation of their instruction.
2. Experience (including mistakes) provides the basis for learning activities.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Touris m Education 2(2), 4-14.


5

---

Paraskevas, A and Wickens, E. (2003) Andragogy and the Socratic Method: The Adult Learner
Perspective
3. Adults are most interested in subjects that have immediate relevance to their job or personal
life.
4. Adult learning is problem-centred rather than content-oriented.
Knowles (1973) emphasises that adults are self-directed and expect to take responsibility for decisions
and therefore adult teaching methodology must accommodate this fundamental aspect. In practical
andragogical terms, teaching needs to focus more on the process and less on the content being taught.
Strategies such as case studies, role-playing, simulations, discussions and self-evaluation are
considered most useful.

Most of the teaching strategies for adult learners have been explored by a number of authors (e.g.,
Walklin, 1990; Galbraith, 1991; Gonczi, 1992). The common ground of all researchers is that adult
teaching has to be strongly linked with active learning, a notion that is not very clearly defined.
However, Bonwell and Eison (1991) state that ‘students must do more than just listen: they must read,
write, discuss, or be engaged in solving problems. Most important, to be actively involved, students
must engage in such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation’.
The Socratic Method
Within this context, one of the teaching strategies involving adult learners in thinking about the
concepts they are about to ‘learn’ is the Socratic method. Supporters of this method (Tredway, 1995;
Strong, 1996) suggest that it is a form of structured discourse about ideas and dilemmas that certain
topics present, in this way involving students actively in the learning process by relating activities to
their own experiences and thereby engaging them on an emotional level.

The Socratic method in adult education involves the use of systematic questions, inductive thinking,
and the formulation of general definitions. Adult learners are presented with a scenario and the
instructor systematically poses a series of pre-set questions. The questions are designed to channel the
learners' thought processes along predetermined paths. The learners are required to use their
experience and any knowledge they already possess to solve simple or more complex problems or
issues posed by the questions. Subsequently, inductive techniques are used to help the learners move
beyond the details of the scenario to conceptualise its broader implications. Once the generic ideas
and concepts are understood, the instructor uses questions to help the students develop the rationale or
a more universal definition of the concepts (Macmillan and Garrison, 1988). This way, the learners
have the opportunity to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the topic explored.

In a Socratic seminar, students perform in a ‘variety of thought-demanding ways to explain, muster
evidence, generalise, apply concepts, analogise, represent in a new way’ (Perkins, 1993:29). The
underlying idea here is that when students actively and co-operatively develop knowledge and
understanding, they are more likely to retain these attributes than if they had received them passively.
In the case of adult learners who are generally more experienced than younger ones this method might
be proven more effective, as a large number of them have what Kroll (1978) calls a ‘cognitive
egocentrism’. That is, they find it difficult to entertain points of view other than the ones they
themselves embrace. Two particular Socratic strategies, the elenchus (in Greek: ???????) and inspiring
aporia (in Greek: ??????) will help the instructor to engage the students and, eventually, enable the
students to get rid of their cognitive egocentrism. This is why Kohlberg (1981:3) hails the Socratic
method as the ‘way out from the Scylla of indoctrination and the Charybdis of 'laid-back' relativism or
values clarification’.

The mechanism of the elenchus is straightforward. It works by probing each response from students,
examining whether the entire set of beliefs held by them is mutually consistent. In applying the
elenchus to his interlocutors, Socrates gets them to admit their ignorance, thereby saving them from
false belief. For knowing that one is ignorant is a far better state of affairs for Socrates than
possessing beliefs that are untrue (Robinson, 1971). The natural outcome of the elenchus is aporia, or
confusion. Upon being refuted, the interlocutors can no longer maintain what they originally believed
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
Education 2(2), 4-14.


6

---

Paraskevas, A and Wickens, E. (2003) Andragogy and the Socratic Method: The Adult Learner
Perspective
and are left, typically, in a state of utter perplexity and more importantly, curiosity. In this state,
learners realise that they have to seek new knowledge (Vlastos, 1971).

The elenctic questioning aims at preparing the students not simply to replace passively their existing
knowledge with new, but to actively pursue a new learning experience. However, the instructor must
also consider that the Socratic inquiry never reaches the absolute truth (Vlastos, 1971:11). MacDonald
Ross (1993:11) writes: ‘Socrates believed that [his] method was sound, provided that all participants
co-operated in having the truth as their objective - winning the argument would then be the same as
arriving at the truth.’ He goes further by stating that Socrates’ method gave no definite guarantees that
the truth would be revealed as a result of the inquiry, but should consensus form among the
participants, such consensus would constitute the truth. One must recognise that all knowledge is
fallible and stands open to future revision. The class may have well-justified and widely shared beliefs
that are called ‘true’, yet it should still be recognised that we live in an ever-changing environment
where what is ‘right’ today may be ‘wrong’ tomorrow.
Methodology
The study of the adult learners' perceptions of the Socratic method took place between 1996 and 1999
in two Centres of Vocational Training (CVT) in Athens, Greece, offering EU-funded hospitality,
tourism and catering programmes to unemployed persons. At the end of each training programme,
which usually lasted for four to six months, participants had to complete a programme evaluation form
that would be forwarded by the CVT to the Ministry of Labour, which was in charge of the
programmes. In the section where the teaching techniques were evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= strongly disagree, 3 = indifferent, 5 = strongly agree), two questions related to the appropriateness
and the effectiveness of the 'questioning technique' and an open-ended question asking the students to
give their views and concerns on the method was added. Overall, 1452 answers relating to the Socratic
method were collected, out of which 1266 were usable (the rest were either unclear or did not answer
the question).

The distribution of the population by age and gender was mostly directed by the EU guidelines. The
age distribution visually provided a normal bell curve slightly skewed to the right (generation-X): five
per cent were born before 1940; 23 per cent were born between 1940 and 1949; 29 per cent were born
1950-1959; 23 per cent 1960-1969; 13 per cent 1970-1979; and seven per cent 1980 and later. The
gender distribution was almost even – 48 per cent were females and 52 per cent were male. Forty-two
per cent of the population had prior experience in the hospitality industry of more than three years.
From the remaining 58 per cent, an impressive 87 per cent had worked in hospitality for at least one
season.
Results and discussion
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the answers to the first two research questions.

Answer
Responses
Percentage
Strongly agree
538
42.5%
Agree
410
32.4%
Indifferent
154
12.2%
Disagree
99
7.8%
Strongly disagree
65
5.1%
Total
1266
100.0%
Table 1: "The questioning teaching technique was appropriate for this programme"

The majority of the respondents found that the Socratic method was appropriate for the specific
training programme (74.9 per cent strongly agreed or agreed) and that it had a positive influence in
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
Education 2(2), 4-14.


7

---

Paraskevas, A and Wickens, E. (2003) Andragogy and the Socratic Method: The Adult Learner
Perspective
their learning experience (74.3 per cent strongly agreed or agreed). Although only 13 per cent of the
respondents found the method inappropriate, it was very interesting to explore the reasons why they
were against it. These reasons were provided in the third question, which was - surprisingly enough - a
rich source of information on the 'dark side' of the Socratic method. Overall, 754 usable answers to the
open-ended question were collected from the questionnaires. Hermeneutics, a technique borrowed
from the traditional approach to analysis and interpretation of religious texts (Veal, 1997), was used in
the analysis of the third answer, and content analysis was used for counting the number of occurrences
of certain answers and for classifying them into categories. It is recognised that these techniques -
especially hermeneutics - involve an element of subjectivity (Hultsman and Harper, 1992); however,
every effort was made to ensure a high reliability quotient in the process. The analysts (the authors
and two colleagues from the CVTs) read, sorted and re-read the answers until they reached agreement
on the categories where each answer could be classified. Chi square tests for homogeneity of the
classifications showed no significant differences between the analysts' classifications at the .05 level.
A third judge, an instructor from another CVT, agreed with the classification of most answers (665 of
the 754, or 88.2 per cent). To further ensure reliability with a test-retest reliability check, the two
analysts were asked to perform the same task for a second time, six weeks later. The two analyses
resulted in a 90.6 per cent total reliability quotient, which is much higher than the prescribed level of
acceptance (Kassarjian, 1977).


Answer
Responses
Percentage
Strongly agree
512
40.4%
Agree
429
33.9%
Indifferent
149
11.8%
Disagree
118
9.3%
Strongly disagree
58
4.6%
Total
1266
100.0%
Table 2: "The questioning teaching technique had a positive influence on my
learning during this programme."

The classification of the answers led the authors to the development of a typology of adult learners,
based on their ‘compatibility’ with the Socratic method. The clusters derived by this classification
were named after some typical participants in Socratic dialogues and are given in Table 3.


Type
Respondents (N=754)
Percentage
Meno
138
18.3%
Protagoras
342
45.4%
Gorgias
266
35.3%
Plato
8
1%
Total
754
100
Table 3: A Socratic Typology of Adult Learners

The Meno type learner
Meno is a slave boy whom Socrates meets and with whom he has one of his most interesting
dialogues. However, one will notice Socrates's power and the dominance of an elderly Greek citizen
teaching a slave boy throughout the dialogue. Meno does not look capable of using his knowledge.
Rather, he repeats what Socrates says or is led to say what Socrates wants to hear. Socrates is teaching
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Touris m Education 2(2), 4-14.


8

---

Paraskevas, A and Wickens, E. (2003) Andragogy and the Socratic Method: The Adult Learner
Perspective
by asking his leading questions of the slave boy, because these questions are disguised answers to the
questions that the boy should be asking.

This type of learner is the one who depends totally on the lecture-type of teaching. They need an
authority figure who will give explicitly all the answers to questions they have and to those that they
have not thought about. They prefer a passive role in the classroom and they are the ones who had a
negative reaction to the 'questioning technique'.

These were the respondents who complained about the technique because they “could not take notes”,
“the instructor did not write anything on the whiteboard”, “everyone in the classroom was talking and
(they) could not concentrate on the topic”, and “often (they) did not get the point of the conversation”.

Another weakness that learners in this category had was the lack of relevant knowledge or experience
on the topic that was discussed. The following example illustrates the case:
“This 'questioning technique' was interesting, however, the fact that I
had no prior experience in catering made me feel like a fish out of the
water. All the others knew what to say and quite often I was left out
of the conversation since I had nothing to share with the group.”
Meno type learners may also be those who participate in the programme just for the monetary benefit
(in EU-funded programmes, participants are paid for attending the classes) and lack the motivation to
pursue educational goals.

The most common reaction of the Meno type learners is to 'switch off'. However, teachers might have
positive results if they try to keep on asking questions to Menos in their classroom, even if, in the
beginning, there is a negative reaction. There are examples in the literature showing that the Socratic
method can be used to stun students into a perplexity that might be uncomfortable (much as Socrates
makes Meno uncomfortable with his persistent questions), and force them to go out on their own and
dig under the surface (Thomas, 1985:222).
The Protagoras type learner
Protagoras did seem to have restricted knowledge to sense experience, but he believed emphatically
that whatever was perceived by the senses was certainly true. In the same way, Protagoras type
learners respond to motivational techniques. They can be swept along with the excitement of learning;
however, this depends strictly on the instructor and the way he/she motivates them. They need the
instructor to be directive but also highly supportive, to reinforce their willingness to participate in the
discussion and to keep their enthusiasm at a high level.

These learners approved the Socratic method because they understood that “this is a technique that
brings out the knowledge that already exists in the class and uses it to teach those who do not possess
it”, “felt that this method helped (them) learn more things than any other teaching method”, or simply
because they “liked the instructor and the way he interacted with the class”.

However, learners of this type are also very sensitive to criticism and may become fairly negative in a
Socratic environment, especially when they have limited or no prior experience on the topic
discussed. The following example of comment is self-explanatory:
“When my answers were incorrect, I sometimes felt some sardonic
smiles behind me. This made me quite nervous in my next attempt to
answer. I did not answer very quickly, so some colleagues gave me
withering glances. I felt utterly humiliated. This was my worst
experience ever.”
Instructors using the Socratic method must quickly identify Protagoras learners and try to build their
confidence as much as possible in order for them to participate in the discussion. Dinkmeyer and
Losoncy (1980) suggest using praise, but with an eye to phasing out praise (which builds extrinsic
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Touris m Education 2(2), 4-14.


9

---

Paraskevas, A and Wickens, E. (2003) Andragogy and the Socratic Method: The Adult Learner
Perspective
motivation) and phasing in encouragement (which builds intrinsic motivation). They should also make
sure that the classroom environment is one that respects diversity.
The Gorgias type learner
Gorgias holds that rhetoric is the queen of all arts. If the statesman skilled in rhetoric is clever enough,
he can, though a layman, carry the day even against the specialist. The Gorgias type learners have the
skill and possibly some knowledge, and see themselves as 'owners of their fate'. They feel, however,
the need to explore the topic that is being discussed with a good 'local guide' (Fox, 1983). They need
this guide to further develop their self-confidence and once this is accomplished they will be ready to
explore topics on their own.

They approve the Socratic method because “it is a good way of interpreting experience. (Their)
instructor shared his experiences with (them) and opened others to those experiences”, “(they) were
encouraged to explore topics in an innovative and some times non-conventional way”, “(they) had the
freedom to venture beyond what is safe and known”, “(they) felt free to express the craziest idea
without fearing the reaction of others”, and “this method puts more emphasis upon reasoning and
thinking rather than performance”.

A quote from this learner type illustrates their core educational values:
“(What) I particularly enjoyed (was) the role that our instructor
played in these dialogues: he did not dismiss any of our ideas,
however, he was constantly challenging our reasoning, the way by
which we reached conclusions. He - indirectly - forced us to re-think
things that we took for granted and by doing so, we had to reconsider
many beliefs we had up to that point.”
It is obvious here that the instructor's role is that of a guide, i.e., the facilitator of the discussion,
exactly like in the Socratic method principle. The aim of the dialogue here should be more
concentrated on the development of critical thinking rather than the learning of theories and concepts
(Brookfield, 1987). A class with Gorgias type learners will be a challenging one, as there will always
be the possibility of a conflict between Socrates (the instructor) and Gorgias (the student).
The Plato type learner
Plato was the best student of Socrates. He reached the point of developing his own doctrines which he
felt quite reluctant to attribute to his instructor. This is obvious from the fact that the only dialogue
later than the Theaetetus, in which Socrates takes a leading part, is the Philebus, the one work that
deals primarily with the ethical problems on which the thought of Socrates had concentrated.

The Plato type learner is educationally more mature and more 'in charge' of their learning. It may be
very enjoyable to conduct a Socratic seminar with this type of learner, but the instructor will soon find
him/herself fading back as the Plato learner takes the lead.

Plato type learners approve of the Socratic method, but only when they are left “free to explore topics
as (they) want” and “the relationship with the instructor was more collegial than anything else”.

Instructors dealing with Plato type learners must inspire and mentor. This inspiration can also be
‘provocative’. The quote that follows is a perfect example of a Plato type:
“… (this method) initiated conversations that I enjoyed thoroughly. In
the end I felt an excitement similar to that of a kid opening its
Christmas presents. Or that of a scientist who just invented something
very important. In retrospect, I remember that (the instructor) just
asked one question in the beginning and then the class took over the
discussion. He acted more like an 'arsonist' and not like a 'fire fighter'
like the rest of the instructors in this programme.”
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Touris m Education 2(2), 4-14.

10

---

Paraskevas, A and Wickens, E. (2003) Andragogy and the Socratic Method: The Adult Learner
Perspective
Therefore, a good strategy with this type of learner is to challenge them with controversial ideas and
then step back and leave the discussion to them. Intervene when appropriate to plant some more
paradoxes and again step back.

This type of learner is quite rare in settings like the one examined. In the sample of 1266 respondents
the authors identified about eight students who would match the above description. However, having
them in the classroom may be as much an enjoyable experience as a challenge.
Conclusion and limitations
This study revealed, to a certain extent, that the Socratic method of teaching with leading questions is
a technique that is well accepted by the majority of adult learners. However, it proved that this method
cannot be used in all situations and with all adult learners. The aim of this method is to uncover self-
knowledge and develop critical thinking. Still, the realisation of ignorance may be shocking or even
traumatic to a significant number of adult learners. Here is where the sensitivity, knowledge, and skill
of an instructor, well versed in a Socratically-inspired repertoire of pedagogical strategies and moves
in the dialogue game (Burbules, 1993), come into play. In addition, such an instructor must have a
sympathetic understanding of each student and the nuances of that particular classroom climate.
Otherwise, the use of the method will result in the stripping of Socratic teaching to a mere questioning
exercise.

The authors appreciate that there are some associated caveats, mainly with regard to the sample and
the locality of the study, that do not allow generalisations for all kinds of adult learners. The sample is
restricted to unemployed adult learners who found in these CVT programmes a means to an end, and
perhaps the motivation and the psychology of adult learners in Greece might differ from adult learners
in other countries. Also the somewhat pre-determined (by the Greek Ministry of Labour) format of the
questionnaire did not allow for more questions that would further enlighten the authors on the
response of the adult learner to the method. However, the size of the sample is quite substantial for the
findings to be used as a basis for similar or deeper studies in other countries and contexts.

As an epilogue, the authors would like to report that the projects produced at the end of these
programmes (a basic requirement of EU-funded programmes), by classes taught with the Socratic
method, were marked on average 16.6 per cent higher than those classes that were taught employing
traditional methods. This is certainly consistent with research conducted by other educators (Hake,
1998), showing that classroom use of interactive engagement methods (using heads-on and hands-on
activities which yield immediate feedback through discussion with peers and/or instructors) can
increase course effectiveness, in both conceptual understanding and problem-solving, well beyond
that achieved with traditional (relying primarily on passive-student lectures) methods.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
Education 2(2), 4-14.

11

---

Paraskevas, A and Wickens, E. (2003) Andragogy and the Socratic Method: The Adult Learner
Perspective
References
Adler, M. (1982) A Revolution in Education. American Educator 6(4), Winter, 20-24.
Bhattacharyya, A., Hake R. R. and Sirochman, R. (1995) Improving Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI)
Labs. AAPT Announcer 25(2), 80.
Beder, H. W. and Darkenwald, G. G. (1982) Differences between Teaching Adults and Pre-Adults:
Some Propositions and Findings. Adult Education 32(2), Spring, 142-155.
Bonwell C. C. and Eison, J. A. (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Borko, H. and Putnam, R. T. (1996) Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee (eds.)
Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 673-708.
Brookfield, S. (1987) Developing Critical Thinkers: Challenging Adults To Explore Alternative Ways
Of Thinking And Acting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burbules, N. C. (1993) Dialogue In Teaching: Theory and Practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Dinkmeyer, D. and Losoncy, L. (1980) The Encouragement Book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier Macmillan.
Fox, D. (1983) Personal Theories of Teaching. Studies in Higher Education 8(2), 151-163.
Galbraith, M. W. (1991) Adult Learning Methods. Malabar: Kreiger.
Gonczi, A. (ed.) (1992) Developing a Competent Workforce: Adult Learning Strategies For
Vocational Educators and Trainers. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education and
Research.
Hake, R. R. (1991) Socratic Pedagogy in Introductory Physics. Physics Today 44(9), 110.
Hake, R. R. and Bird, R. (1995) Why Doesn’t The Water Fall Out Of The Bucket? Concept
Construction Through Experiment, Discussion, Drawing, Dialogue, Writing, and Animations.
AAPT Announcer 25(2), 70.
Hake, R. R. (1998) Interactive-Engagement vs Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey
of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. American Journal of Physics 66(1), 64 -
74.
Hultsman, J. and Harper, W. (1992) Interpreting Leisure as Text: The Part. Leisure Studies 11(2),
135-146.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977) Content Analysis in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research
4(1), 8-18.
Knowles, M. (1973) The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
Knowles, M. (1980) The Modern Practice Of Adult Education: From Pedagogy To Andragogy.
Chicago: Follett.
Kohlberg, L. (1981) The Philosophy of Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row.
Kroll, B. (1978) Cognitive Egocentrism and the Problem of Audience Awareness in Written
Discourse. Research in the Teaching of English 12, 269-281.
Lindeman, E. C. (1988) The Meaning of Adult Education. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center
for Continuing Professional and Higher Education (originally published in 1926 in New York by
New Republic).
MacDonald Ross, G. (1993) Socrates versus Plato: The Origins and Development of Socratic
Thinking. In P. Abbs (ed.) Socratic Education. Hull: University of Hull Press.
Macmillan, C. J. B. and Garrison, J. W. (1988) A Logical Theory Of Teaching: Erotetics And
Intentionality. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Perkins, D. (1993) Teaching for Understanding: To Memorize and Recite or To Think and Do.
American Educator 17(3), Fall, 29-33.
Ramsden, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Robinson, R. (1971) Elenchus. In G. Vlastos (ed.) The Philosophy of Socrates. Notre Dame, Ind.:
University of Notre Dame Press, 19-20.
Schwab, J. (1973) The Practical 3: Translation into Curriculum. School Review 81(4), 501-522.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
Education 2(2), 4-14.

12

---

Paraskevas, A and Wickens, E. (2003) Andragogy and the Socratic Method: The Adult Learner
Perspective
Strong, M. (1996) The Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice. Chapel Hill,
NC: New View Publications.
Thomas, D. W. (1985) The Torpedo's Touch. Harvard Educational Review 55(2), May, 220-222.
Tredway, L. (1995) Socratic Seminars: Engaging Students in Intellectual Discourse. Educational
Leadership 53(1), 26-29.
Veal, A. J. (1997) Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide. London: Pitman
Publishing.
Vlastos, G. (ed.) (1971) The Philosophy of Socrates. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame
Press.
Walklin, L. (1990) Teaching and Learning in Further and Adult Education. Cheltenham: Stanley
Thornes.
Weber, M. (1968) Economy and Society. Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich, New York: Bedminster
Press.
Wickens,
E.
(1999)
Tourists'
Voices:
A
Sociological
Analysis
of
Tourists'
Experiences
in
Chalkidiki,
Northern
Greece.
Unpublished
Ph.D.
thesis,
Oxford
Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Touris m Education 2(2), 4-14.

13

---