A complementary questioning method to the Socratic Method: for MBA students

A complementary questioning method to the Socratic Method: for MBA students

 

The Socratic Method is a very useful method for my part-time MBA students to employ to support their intellectual learning with regard to doing course assignment, literature review and refining dissertation proposal. Could you suggest another questioning method that is also good to use for these activities?

A strong complement to the Socratic Method is Bloom’s Taxonomy-based questioning—especially its higher-order levels of analyse, evaluate, and create. It gives MBA students a practical ladder for moving from understanding an assignment topic to critically reviewing literature and refining a defensible dissertation proposal.

Why it complements Socratic questioning

Socratic questioning is excellent for probing assumptions, evidence, logic, and alternative viewpoints through dialogue. Bloom’s questioning adds a structured cognitive progression: students first establish what they know, then apply it, analyse relationships, evaluate quality, and finally create an original research design or argument. 

 

Level	Typical question stem	Use in MBA work
Remember / Understand	“What are the main concepts?” “How does the author define X?”	Identify theories, variables, and key findings
Apply	“How could this model be used in this company?”	Link theory to an assignment case or organisational problem
Analyse	“What factors explain this relationship?” “How do the studies differ?”	Compare studies and identify patterns or contradictions
Evaluate	“How credible is the evidence?” “Which argument is stronger, and why?”	Assess literature quality and justify a research position
Create	“What gap can my study address?” “What research design would best answer this?”	Formulate research questions, conceptual framework, and proposal

Higher-order questions—those requiring analysis, synthesis, and evaluation—are particularly associated with developing critical thinking.

For course assignments

Students can use a “Bloom ladder” before writing:

1.    Understand: What is the assignment really asking me to demonstrate?

2.    Apply: Which management-accounting or business theories fit this scenario?

3.    Analyse: What are the causes, trade-offs, stakeholders, and underlying assumptions?

4.    Evaluate: Which recommendation is most feasible, ethical, and evidence-based?

5.    Create: What is my original, well-supported recommendation or argument?

For example, in a strategic management accounting assignment, a student may move from “What is balanced scorecard?” to “How should this firm adapt its scorecard measures?”, then to “Which measures best support its strategy, and what are the risks?”, and finally to “What revised performance-management system should I recommend?” This progression prevents descriptive answers and encourages evaluative, decision-oriented writing.

For literature reviews

Bloom’s questioning helps students review literature critically rather than merely summarising it. A useful reading template is:

·        Understand: What is the author’s research problem, theory, method, and main finding?

·        Analyse: How does this study relate to, support, or contradict other studies?

·        Evaluate: Is the evidence credible, relevant, current, and methodologically sound?

·        Create: What gap, inconsistency, or unresolved issue does this reveal for my study?

This aligns closely with established guidance to evaluate a source’s theories, debates, methodology, evidence, limitations, and implications for the proposed research.

A practical rule is: for every important source, require at least one “analyse” question and one “evaluate” question in the literature-review matrix. For instance: “How does this study conceptualise customer trust?” followed by “How convincing is its evidence for an online-retail context in Hong Kong?”

For dissertation proposals

The most valuable use is at the evaluate and create stages. Students should ask:

·        Evaluate the problem: Is the research problem important, feasible, and sufficiently focused?

·        Evaluate the gap: Does the literature genuinely show a gap, or has the student simply not found relevant studies?

·        Evaluate alignment: Do the aim, questions, theory, method, and analysis fit together?

·        Create the contribution: What practical, theoretical, or methodological contribution will the study make?

·        Create the design: Which research approach will produce credible evidence for each research question?

These questions correspond to common proposal-development concerns: the driving force behind the research question, its relation to wider disciplinary debates, the fit between methods and questions, sampling, analysis, and limitations.

A simple classroom routine

Ask students to apply the “4Q Bloom Check” to any draft:

1.    What am I claiming? — Understand and apply.

2.    Why is this claim reasonable? — Analyse evidence and relationships.

3.    How strong is the claim? — Evaluate assumptions, sources, methods, and limitations.

4.    What should I do next? — Create a revised argument, research question, or proposal section.

This works well in peer review: one student presents a proposal section, while peers ask one question from each Bloom level. It retains the dialogic strengths of Socratic questioning while giving students a clear, repeatable structure for improving assignments, literature reviews, and dissertation proposals.

 

Provide 3 academic references on this topic in Harvard reference format.

Here are three suitable academic references in Harvard referencing style. They cover Bloom’s revised taxonomy, Socratic questioning, and the use of questioning to develop critical thinking.

1.    Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D.R. (eds.) (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Complete edn. New York: Longman.

2.    Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2007) ‘Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning’, Journal of Developmental Education, 31(1), pp. 34–37.

3.    Mustika, N., Nurkamto, J. and Suparno, S. (2020) ‘Influence of questioning techniques in EFL classes on developing students’ critical thinking skills’, International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 7(1), pp. 278–287.

How to use them

·        Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) is the core source for Bloom’s revised taxonomy and its progression from remembering and understanding to analysing, evaluating, and creating.

·        Paul and Elder (2007) supports the use of Socratic questioning as a means of cultivating disciplined, critical thinking.

·        Mustika, Nurkamto and Suparno (2020) provides empirical support for linking questioning techniques with students’ critical-thinking development, including the use of Bloom’s revised taxonomy.

For an in-text citation, you could write: “Bloom’s revised taxonomy provides a structured basis for designing questions that move students from comprehension towards analysis, evaluation, and creation (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001), while Socratic questioning encourages critical examination of assumptions and reasoning (Paul and Elder, 2007).”