Socratic Dialogue

The Socratic dialogue is a teaching method based on the deliberate guidance of discussion through questioning. The teacher initiates the discussion, manages its direction, pace, and depth, and uses different types of questions depending on the stage of the process. The discussion begins with a problem question grounded in a specific situation. It is important that the question remains open-ended and encourages students to take a position. The teacher identifies oversimplifications, assumptions, and imprecise concepts, and then explores them further through follow-up questions. In a well-conducted dialogue, several types of questions are used. First, clarifying questions help structure responses and encourage students to express their ideas more precisely. These are followed by questions requiring justification, which prompt students to provide reasons and examples. Next come confrontational questions, which compare different viewpoints or expose inconsistencies. Finally, questions about consequences move the discussion towards decision-making and practical application. The teacher’s role is to maintain cognitive tension throughout the discussion. Rather than closing the discussion too quickly or supplying missing elements, the teacher directs students’ attention to gaps in their reasoning. Silence is accepted, mistakes are treated as a natural part of the learning process, and both are used as starting points for further analysis.

Variant 1. Dialogue in Pairs
Students work in pairs. One student responds, while the other guides the conversation using a short list of prompts, such as: clarify, give an example, identify an assumption, or show a consequence. After a few minutes, students swap roles, which helps increase engagement across the whole group.
Variant 2. Dialogue Based on an Error or Controversy
The starting point is an incorrect answer, a text extract, or a decision that raises doubts. The questions guide students in identifying exactly where the problem lies and which assumptions are inaccurate.

Variant 3. Decision-Making Dialogue
The discussion ends with the selection of a specific solution. Students must explain not only what they choose, but also the basis for their choice and the risks they are willing to accept.
Variant 4. Dialogue with AI as a Partner
Students compare their answers with an AI-generated response and analyse it using Socratic questions. They learn to identify oversimplifications, gaps, and unsupported conclusions.

Course: Process Management
Topic: Identifying Value in a Business Process
Students analyse the order fulfilment process in a manufacturing company. The aim of the class is to help students understand which activities in the process create value for the customer and which generate unnecessary costs or delays. The session also helps students recognise the relationship between operational decisions and the overall efficiency of the process.

Opening Question (5 min)
The teacher begins the class with the question: Which activities in the order fulfilment process actually create value for the customer? Students share their initial responses, which the teacher writes on the board.

Socratic Dialogue (25–30 min)
The teacher develops the discussion through a series of probing questions that gradually lead students from intuitive responses towards a more precise understanding of the problem.
Questions Clarifying Concepts
What exactly does creating value for the customer mean in this process?
How can we recognise that a given activity actually creates value?
Questions Revealing Assumptions
What assumption are we making when we consider this stage of the process necessary?

Does this activity exist because it is needed by the customer, or because the organisation has been designed in this way?
Questions Exploring Consequences
What might happen if this stage of the process were shortened or removed?
How would customer value change if this element of the process disappeared?
Questions Testing Reasoning
Should every activity in a process create value for the customer?
Are there activities that do not create value but are nevertheless necessary?
Questions Leading to Generalisation
What criteria can we use to distinguish value-creating activities from activities that generate waste?
How can this principle be applied to other business processes?

Students answer the questions, respond to one another’s contributions, and justify their positions. The teacher moderates the discussion, organises the emerging arguments, and gradually introduces concepts related to value analysis in processes, such as value-creating activities, necessary activities, and waste.

Reflection (5–10 min)
To conclude, the teacher asks students to reflect briefly on which question in the dialogue most changed the way they thought about the process being analysed, and which activities in the process genuinely create value for the customer.

• During the analysis of complex problems that require interpretation, argumentation, and causal reasoning.
• When the aim of the class is to deepen students’ understanding of concepts and uncover the assumptions underlying different positions or decisions.
• When students already possess basic knowledge and can develop it further through discussion and the comparison of different perspectives.

• When students do not yet possess the basic knowledge needed to participate meaning- fully in the discussion.
• When the aim of the class is to convey a large amount of new information quickly or to teach a specific procedure.

• The discussion may easily drift away from the main issue → the teacher should regularly summarise the key points and bring the discussion back to the central question.
• Some students may feel reluctant to contribute → it is helpful to ask open-ended questions and encourage participation from a range of students across the group.

Easier → The teacher can provide a list of guiding questions or short examples to support stu- dents in initiating the discussion.
More Challenging → Students analyse a complex problem or decision-making dilemma and justify their position by drawing on different theories or perspectives.

• Begin the dialogue with a clearly formulated problem question.
• Ask probing questions instead of providing answers.
• Encourage students to justify their claims and respond to the contributions of others.
• Regularly summarise the key insights that emerge during the discussion.

Formative Assessment

Observe whether students are able to formulate questions, clarify concepts, identify assumptions embedded in statements, and respond to the questions posed by others. During the dialogue, provide brief feedback by highlighting a well-formulated question, an unclear concept that requires further clarification, or an assumption that merits further examination. The purpose of the feedback is to support the thinking process rather than to provide a quick indication of the correct answer.

Summative Assessment

Assess an individual analysis of the problem discussed during the dialogue or of a new, similar case. Students should clearly present their position, define the key concepts, identify the assumptions underlying their reasoning, and justify their conclusions using arguments developed during the dialogue. Assessment criteria may include the accuracy of problem identification, the precision of concepts, the logical coherence of the argumentation, the ability to critically examine assumptions, and the quality of the final conclusion.