Feminist Pedagogy and the Socratic Method: Partners in the Classroom or a Disaster Waiting to Happen?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This article presents a case study analyzing the relationship between the Socratic method and feminist pedagogy in a team-taught undergraduate classroom in the United States. Specifically, we analyze the feedback provided by our students to determine the ways in which the Socratic method conflicted with, but also complemented, feminist pedagogy. Data were collected through two online surveys and an in-class open-ended response. The results suggest that the Socratic method is compatible with feminist pedagogy as it improved critical thinking and consideration of diverse points of view. On the other hand, the results suggest that students felt discomfort when analyzing and discussing their own views, as opposed to the views of others. This discomfort potentially undermines the benefits of a feminist pedagogical approach to classroom discussion. We suggest several ways to improve compatibility of these techniques in undergraduate courses and suggest avenues for future research to better understand the relationship between these pedagogical approaches.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it