It is certainly much harder to use than declarative teaching, as you have to model your pupil’s mind so you can tailor the questions appropriately. And it takes longer and more effort to present the same material. Thus it is completely unsuitable for, say, public schools.
If the model is wrong, Socratic questioning fails spectacularly: “I don’t understand what you are asking!” “That’s because you are stupid!” Or worse, it can degenerate into guessing the teacher’s password, with neither side the wiser. I presume that is what you mean by “falling prey to the illusion of transparency”.
However, when done right (and EY is certainly a prime candidate for doing it right), it leads to a deeper understanding of the issue by both sides, precisely because of these “other possible answers”.
It is certainly much harder to use than declarative teaching, as you have to model your pupil’s mind so you can tailor the questions appropriately. And it takes longer and more effort to present the same material. Thus it is completely unsuitable for, say, public schools.
If the model is wrong, Socratic questioning fails spectacularly: “I don’t understand what you are asking!” “That’s because you are stupid!” Or worse, it can degenerate into guessing the teacher’s password, with neither side the wiser. I presume that is what you mean by “falling prey to the illusion of transparency”.
However, when done right (and EY is certainly a prime candidate for doing it right), it leads to a deeper understanding of the issue by both sides, precisely because of these “other possible answers”.
Or maybe I am falling prey to the positive bias.