Explore the vast range of titles available.

ABSTRACT The article presents the most relevant historical, conceptual and philosophical influences in the historical configuration of the German-style report (Gutachtenstil) or legal opinion as a method for learning and reasoning about Law. The starting point is the following hypothesis: the German method would contain common elements (i) to the Socratic method and Aristotelian contributions (common to teaching in the Common Law system), based on cases; but also (ii) the German particularity would add a plus, since it not only deals with the solution to a problem/case, but also (as a presupposition of that) proposes a clear method to follow in the formative iter of the solution that has roots in the Cartesian method. The article concludes with a summary of the German style of law reporting today, examining its structure, requirements and potential, both academic and professional. KEY WORDS Gutachtenstil - history of legal pedagogy - Cartesian method - Socratic method INTRODUCCIÓN Los informes en derecho a partir de un caso (Gutachtenstil) juegan un papel central en la formación jurídica profesional en Alemania: se intenta relatar si se comprueba la situación jurídica del caso descrito por las partes y corresponde aplicar la norma pertinente1.

Background In medicine, critical thinking is required for managing and tolerating medical uncertainty, as well as solving professional problems and treating diseases. However, the core of Confucianism, teacher-centered and exam-oriented settings in middle and high school education may pose challenges to developing critical thinking in Han Chinese or Taiwanese students. Students may be adversely affected by these pedagogies since student-centered settings were more effective in stimulating their critical and reflective thinking, as well as a sense of responsibility, in the ever-changing world. Therefore, guiding students with less stable foundations of critical thinking might require a different approach. A review article highlighted the potential utility of the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking in the healthcare field. The method involves posing a series of questions to students. More importantly, medical students and residents in clinical teaching are familiar with the method. Almost all healthcare students must complete a biochemistry laboratory course as part of their basic science training. Thus, we aimed to train students to develop critical thinking in the biochemistry laboratory course by using learning sheets and teacher guidance based on the Socratic method and questioning. Method We recruited second-year students from a medical school, of whom 32 had medical science and biotechnology majors (MSB), 27 had pharmaceutical science majors (PS), and 85 were medical undergraduate (MU) students. An exercise in critical thinking was conducted during a biochemistry laboratory course, which consisted of five different biochemical experiments, along with learning sheets that contained three or four critical thinking questions. Then, the teacher evaluated the students’ ability to think critically based on nine intellectual dimensions (clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, logic, fairness, and significance) based on the universal intellectual standards developed by Prof. Linda Elder and Richard Paul. In the following analysis, regression models and multivariate analysis were used to determine how students improved over time, and trajectory analysis were carried out in order to observe the trends in students’ critical thinking skills construction. Results Clarity and logic dimensions were identified as the key elements to facilitate the development of critical thinking skills through learning sheets and teacher guidance in students across all three different healthcare majors. The results showed that metacognitive monitoring via Socratic questioning learning sheets have demonstrated potential encourage students to develop critical thinking skills in all dimensions. Another unique contribution of current study was present the heterogeneous learning patterns and progress trajectories of clarity and logic dimensions within classes. Conclusion Using the Socratic learning model could effectively develop students’ critical thinking skills so they can more effectively care for their patients.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) refers to a treatment approach with strong empirical support for its efficacy for various disorders and populations. The goal of the present review was to provide a comprehensive survey of meta-analyses examining the processes of CBT, namely: treatment processes (cognitive reappraisal, behavioral strategies, emotional regulation, motivation strategies, and psychoeducation) and in-session processes (alliance, goal consensus and collaboration, feedback, group cohesion, and homework). We identified 558 meta-analyses of CBT, and 30 meta-analyses met our inclusion criteria as reviews of process-outcome relations. For treatment processes, the strongest support currently exists for cognitive (n = 8 meta-analyses) and behavioral strategies (n = 3 meta-analyses) as change processes in CBT for anxiety disorders and depression. For in-session processes, the strongest support currently exists for the role of the alliance (n = 8 meta-analyses) and homework assignments (n = 6 meta-analyses) as predictors of outcome. Overall, the evidence base for process-outcome relations in CBT is just emerging. Additional research is needed to examine the range of treatment processes in various clinical contexts. Moreover, except for a meta-analysis on collaboration, no meta-analytic studies have been reported on CBT-specific elements of the therapeutic relationship, such as collaborative empiricism and Socratic dialogue.

The Socratic Method has been described as an important component of CBT interventions yet an empirical case for its use has not been made. The objective of this paper is to review the role of the Socratic Method in CBT in four stages. First, a review of the literature describes how the Socratic Method is applied and defined within CBT, with assumptions regarding its proposed benefits identified. Second, a review of empirical literature demonstrates that multiple challenges to the evaluation of the Socratic Method exist and that no direct evidence supports the premise that it is beneficial in CBT. Evidence is examined which may suggest why the Socratic Method could be beneficial in therapy. Finally, the hypothesised function of the Socratic Method within therapy is discussed in reference to the Interacting Cognitive Subsystems framework. A number of avenues for future research are proposed in order to determine whether this potentially valuable therapeutic component contributes to the efficacy of CBT.

As part of our special issue focused on glia, we are having conversations with both established leaders in the field and those earlier in their careers to discuss how the field has evolved and where it is heading. Here, we speak with Andrea Volterra (visiting faculty at the Wyss Center and honorary professor at the Department of Fundamental Neuroscience, University of Lausanne, Switzerland), an astrocyte biologist, who dedicated his research career to uncovering astrocyte–synapse communications in physiology and disease, and a strong advocate of the Socratic method.

Medical students and residents are familiar with clinical teaching methods in which a faculty member poses a series of questions to them. This technique is often called the “Socratic method,” but it is frequently perceived by learners as an attempt to demean them, a practice that is colloquially known as “pimping.” The distinction between Socratic teaching and pimping lies in the perception of “psychological safety.” Psychological safety allows learners to answer questions or ask for help without threats to their dignity or worthiness. In a psychologically safe clinical teaching context, learners recognize that questions posed by attending physicians probe their current understanding and guide them to expand their knowledge. In pimping, questions are posed to embarrass the learner and to reinforce the teacher’s position of power over them. Absent a threat of disparagement or condemnation, learners are able to focus on building schema for knowledge, skills, and attitudes, rather than worrying about shielding their self-worth. This article presents the proper Socratic method, as intended by Socrates, and contrasts it with pimping. This perspective defines psychological safety as the pivotal factor distinguishing Socratic teaching from pimping, and establishes the foundation for empirical studies of these common practices in medical education.

This paper examines the ongoing challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration in Machine Ethics (ME), particularly the integration of ethical decision-making capacities into AI systems. Despite increasing demands for ethical AI, ethicists often remain on the sidelines, contributing primarily to metaethical discussions without directly influencing the development of moral machines. This paper revisits concerns highlighted by Tolmeijer et al. (2020), who identified the pitfall that computer scientists may misinterpret ethical theories without philosophical input. Using the MACHIAVELLI moral benchmark and the Delphi artificial moral agent as case studies, we analyze how these challenges persist. Our analysis indicates that the creators of MACHIAVELLI and Delphi “copy” ethical concepts and embed them in LLMs without questioning or challenging these concepts themselves sufficiently. If an ethical concept causes friction with the computer code, they only reduce and simplify the ethical concept in order to stay as close as possible to the original. We propose that ME should expand its focus to include both interdisciplinary efforts that embed existing ethical work into AI, and transdisciplinary research that fosters new interpretations of ethical concepts. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches are crucial for creating AI systems that are not only effective but also socially responsible. To enhance collaboration between ethicists and computer scientists, we recommend the use of Socratic Dialogue as a methodological tool, promoting deeper understanding of key terms and more effective integration of ethics in AI development.

Awareness of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) status improves health outcomes in children living with HIV, yet caregivers often delay disclosure. This qualitative investigation explored, through observation, how 30 caregivers responded to a HIV Disclosure study conducted between 2017 and 2020 at Chris Hani Baragwanath Academic Hospital, Soweto, South Africa. Caregivers were assisted in disclosing to their children, aged 7–13 years; followed by a sub-sample of caregivers providing in-depth interviews to elaborate on findings.1) Barriers to disclosure included: caregivers being ill equipped, the fear of negative consequences and children considered lacking emotional or cognitive readiness. 2) Deflecting diagnosis from their children and the need for medication, motivated caregivers to disclosure. 3) Apprehension was evident during disclosure; however, overall disclosure was a positive experience with the support of the healthcare providers. These results highlight the significant role healthcare providers’ play in supporting caregivers through the disclosure process.

Students entering law school today will have an educational experience strikingly similar to that of those who entered in the late 1800s. What will be their required courses? Torts, contracts, civil procedure, property, and criminal law. What will they read? Appellate opinions. How will their professors teach? By deploying the Socratic method. How will they be tested? With a hypo exam. This Article argues that the belief that these practices are the legitimate means by which to teach students \"how to think like a lawyer\" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of their origins. The casebook, the 1L curriculum, the Socratic method, and the hypo exam are all entailments of Christopher Langdell's nineteenth-century strategy to elevate the status of law schools by reimagining them as institutions where students would learn to think not like lawyers, but like scientists. Aiming to cash in on the acclaim of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, Langdell modeled the study of law after Darwin's study of organisms. Like Darwin, law students would study with an evolutionary eye. The judicial opinion would be their specimen; the classroom, their workshop; and the library, their laboratory. Although initially lambasted by the legal community, the model spread because it was preferred by corporate law firms. White-shoe partners commonly observed that students trained under Langdell's methods did not possess much useful knowledge about the law. However, they believed that the social Darwinism embedded in his model could be exploited to the firms' financial benefit. High failure rates, stressful classroom environments, and a do-ityourself method of study mirrored the \"up-or-out\" Darwinian culture at corporate law firms. Receipt of a Langdellian education indicated that a young lawyer would be able to endure the grueling life of a junior associate. Partners' preference for students trained under the model transformed Harvard Law from a middling institution to a financial powerhouse whose educational practices would be mimicked by law schools nationwide. Today, law schools aim to be welcoming and inclusive, yet they default to an educational model that was designed to intimidate and exclude. By clinging to centuries-old educational precedent, law schools miseducate future lawyers and maintain stubborn cultures of alienation and anxiety within their halls. This Article identifies key shortcomings of the dominant model of legal education and recommends actions that will allow new models to flourish.

The Socratic method, as an eminently verbal procedure, will be analyzed from a behavioral perspective in order to clarify how verbal conditioning works within. This work compares the verbalizations that expert and inexperienced therapists emit during Socratic method to find out which and why certain therapist verbalizations are most successful in changing client responses. The sample consisted of 113 Socratic method fragments from 18 cases, analyzed by observational methodology. The expert therapists had more than 6 years of experience, the inexperienced less than 2. Experts had fewer failure Socratic method fragments, but there were no differences in successful ones. The way of questioning had a different pattern: Inexperienced therapists suggested more the response, experts used more didactic verbalizations; also, experts used the aversive component more and contingently. The creation of guidelines based on functional description of verbal interaction and the need for novice psychologists training are some implications of these results.