A Socratic–Memetic Didactic Model for Fostering Critical Thinking in Higher Education

Abstract

Critical thinking is a central goal of higher education, yet its development requires pedagogical structures that create opportunities to examine and reconsider reasoning. This study developed a Socratic–memetic didactic model integrating Socratic questioning and Internet memes within critical-thinking education. A qualitative, interpretive model-development approach was employed, comprising three stages: theory-informed construction of the initial model based on critical-thinking, Socratic, multimodal, and didactic-modelling principles; structured appraisal by five purposively selected experts; and refinement informed by their feedback. Expert feedback was analyzed qualitatively, with Likert-type ratings providing supplementary descriptive information. The appraisal identified four areas requiring greater specification: meme selection and use, teacher preparation and pedagogical mediation, contextual flexibility and student participation, and implementation, ethical, and evaluative guidance. These findings informed operational refinement rather than fundamental restructuring. The resulting proposal comprises an interconnected pedagogical architecture and an eight-stage instructional progression in which Socratic questioning is intended to guide the examination of reasoning, while culturally situated Internet memes are proposed as resources for cognitive confrontation, interpretation, and multimodal representation. The model offers a theoretically grounded approach to organizing opportunities for critical inquiry in higher education. Its instructional effectiveness remains to be evaluated through future empirical research.

1. Introduction

Critical thinking is widely recognized as a central learning outcome in higher education, particularly in contexts characterized by information overload, rapidly circulating digital content, and increasing demands for students to evaluate evidence, interpret competing claims, and justify their reasoning (Baloa & Navas, 2024; Bezanilla-Albisua et al., 2018; Facione, 2023; Halpern, 1998). However, its development in university classrooms remains uneven and is frequently addressed implicitly rather than through intentionally designed pedagogical experiences (Abanades, 2024; Carter et al., 2016; López et al., 2022; UNESCO, 2023). This challenge is therefore not only cognitive but also pedagogical, as opportunities for questioning, argumentation, reflection, and evidence-based reasoning depend partly on how learning experiences are structured (Li et al., 2022; Saputra et al., 2019).

Among the pedagogical approaches associated with critical thinking, Socratic questioning has received considerable attention because of its emphasis on dialogue, examination of assumptions, justification of claims, and reconsideration of initial positions. Previous research has linked Socratic approaches to analysis, inference, argumentation, and reflective discussion (Abrami et al., 2015; Delić & Bećirović, 2016; Dinkins & Cangelosi, 2019; Paul & Elder, 2020; Yang et al., 2013). Simultaneously, Internet memes have increasingly been examined as educational resources because of their familiarity within students’ digital cultures and their potential to support interpretation, participation, and engagement (Suárez-Guerrero et al., 2022; Tu et al., 2023; Ugalingan et al., 2022; Yánez Soria et al., 2025). These findings suggest opportunities to connect the interpretive and communicative characteristics of memes with pedagogical approaches aimed at fostering critical inquiry (Altukruni, 2022; Antón-Sancho et al., 2022; DeCook, 2018; Denisova, 2016; Riser et al., 2020).

The pedagogical relevance of integrating Socratic questioning and Internet memes lies in their complementary educational functions. While Socratic questioning promotes engagement with thought processes through dialogue, memes introduce culturally grounded multimodal perspectives that can stimulate critical inquiry. However, their meaningful integration requires more than the simultaneous use of these in-class activities; it demands a coherent didactic structure that links educational goals, teaching processes, participant roles, and contextual conditions (Frohn, 2025; Martynova, 2019; Rodriguez Sandoval et al., 2022).

Against this background, the present study aimed to develop and refine a theoretically grounded Socratic–memetic didactic model for fostering critical thinking in higher education. An initial proposal was constructed by integrating principles from critical thinking education, Socratic pedagogy, multimodal communication, and didactic modelling. Five experts subsequently appraised its conceptual and pedagogical structure, and their feedback informed its refinement.

The study’s original contribution is a theoretically grounded didactic architecture that assigns complementary instructional functions to Socratic questioning and Internet memes within an eight-stage progression. Rather than treating these elements as separate teaching strategies, the model integrates dialogic examination, cognitive confrontation through contrasting memes, reflective reconsideration, and multimodal production into a coherent instructional process. Accordingly, the study was guided by the following research question: What components and instructional stages should constitute a theoretically grounded Socratic–memetic didactic model designed to foster critical thinking in higher education?

2. Theoretical Framework

Critical thinking and its pedagogical development can be approached from multiple perspectives. For this study, the framework draws on selected perspectives concerning critical thinking, Socratic questioning, multimodal communication, and didactic model design that are particularly relevant to the development of the Socratic–memetic model. Together, these perspectives provide the conceptual basis for the pedagogical structure.

2.1. Critical Thinking as a Multidimensional Educational Practice

Within this framework, Facione’s (1990, 2023) conceptualization provides the primary cognitive reference through six interrelated skills: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation. Halpern (1998, 2014) emphasized the purposeful application of cognitive skills and strategies, while Paul and Elder (2008, 2020) highlight the importance of questioning assumptions, evaluating reasoning, and applying intellectual standards to one’s own and others’ thinking. Together, these perspectives frame critical thinking as involving both cognitive processes and deliberate examination of reasoning.

In educational settings, critical thinking is shaped by dispositional, emotional, social, and contextual conditions that influence students’ engagement in questioning, argumentation, and reflection (Bezanilla-Albisua et al., 2018; Facione, 2023; Paul & Elder, 2008). This multidimensional perspective is particularly relevant in higher education, where students engage with disciplinary knowledge, peers, instructors, and complex information environments. Accordingly, the Socratic–memetic model conceptualizes critical thinking as an intentional and reflective practice supported by pedagogical mediation, providing opportunities for students to articulate positions, examine evidence, consider alternative perspectives, and reconsider their reasoning.

2.2. Socratic Questioning as a Dialogic Mechanism for Critical Thinking

Socratic questioning provides a dialogic foundation for the model. Rather than transmitting predetermined conclusions, CT uses purposeful questioning to examine assumptions, clarify concepts, evaluate evidence, and consider alternative perspectives (Paul & Elder, 2008, 2020). Questioning therefore functions not merely as a classroom-participation technique but as a mechanism through which students articulate and examine their reasoning.

A particularly relevant principle for the present model is the Socratic elenchus, understood as a dialogic process of cognitive confrontation in which an initial claim is confronted through questioning, examples, or counterexamples to expose possible contradictions or inconsistencies in reasoning (Candiotto, 2018; Dutilh Novaes, 2022). In this sense, cognitive confrontation is not understood primarily as demonstrating that a student is wrong, but as creating an opportunity to recognize limitations in an initial position and to reconsider or reconstruct the reasoning that supports it.

Research in educational contexts has associated Socratic approaches with critical-thinking processes, such as analysis, inference, argumentation, reflection, and reconsideration of initial positions (Abrami et al., 2015; Delić & Bećirović, 2016; Dinkins & Cangelosi, 2019; Yang et al., 2013). Building on this progressive character, the Socratic–memetic model positions questioning as a continuous form of pedagogical mediation rather than an isolated classroom activity. Throughout the instructional sequence, the instructor guides students to articulate their initial positions, examine their assumptions and evidence, consider alternative perspectives, and reconsider their reasoning, while allowing them to construct and challenge their own interpretations.

2.3. Internet Memes as Multimodal Cultural Artifacts

A second central component concerns the incorporation of Internet memes. From a cultural perspective, memes are not simply humorous images but digitally circulating artifacts through which meanings, positions, values, and interpretations are reproduced and transformed (Shifman, 2014). Their communicative power frequently depends on the interaction of visual and textual elements, cultural references, humor, irony, and contextual knowledge (Antón-Sancho et al., 2022; Zhu et al., 2024). Interpreting a meme therefore often requires readers to infer meanings that are not explicitly stated and connect them to broader social and cultural contexts.

From a multimodal perspective, memes combine semiotic resources through which meaning is constructed (Kress, 2010). Educational research has examined Internet memes as resources for student engagement and classroom interaction (Lin & Sun, 2023; Tu et al., 2023), multimodal interpretation and argumentation (Ugalingan et al., 2022), and the representation or assessment of learning (Suárez-Guerrero et al., 2022). These studies illustrate different pedagogical applications of memes, although their findings do not establish that meme-based activities necessarily improve critical thinking skills.

The model also incorporates memes created by students as an opportunity to summarize, convey, and discuss the viewpoints developed through Socratic dialogue.

2.4. Didactic Models as Structured Pedagogical Frameworks

In the educational literature, didactic models are distinguished from more general pedagogical models based on their role in organizing educational goals, instructional components, and the relationships among them (Font et al., 2010; Herrera Gutiérrez & Villafuerte Álvarez, 2023; Rivilla, 1982; Villafuerte et al., 2026). These components may include objectives, content, methods, resources, participant roles, the course of instruction, and mechanisms for monitoring learning (Frohn, 2025; Martynova, 2019; Rodriguez Sandoval et al., 2022). Accordingly, the Socratic–memetic approach is conceptualized as a didactic model that integrates these elements into a coherent pedagogical architecture rather than treating Socratic questioning and Internet memes as isolated strategies.

Another theoretical consideration underlying the lesson sequence is the productive cognitive confrontation. Conflicting perspectives can encourage learners to question their initial assumptions and reconsider their reasoning processes. This is consistent with research on sociocognitive conflict, which suggests that such encounters can promote learning as long as attention remains focused on the task at hand or the knowledge being addressed (Butera et al., 2019). Within the proposed model, opposing memes are intended to introduce competing perspectives, while Socratic questioning supports their interpretations and critical examinations.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design and Development Process

This study adopted a qualitative, interpretative approach within an iterative model-development process to develop and refine a theoretically grounded Socratic–memetic didactic model for higher education. This methodological approach was appropriate because the study aimed to integrate theoretical principles and expert judgments rather than measure the effectiveness of instruction. In line with qualitative research, the analysis focused on the substantive meaning of the experts’ observations and their implications for the conceptual coherence, pedagogical organization, and feasibility of the model (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

The model development process consisted of three phases: theory-guided creation of the initial draft (Section 3.2), structured evaluation by five carefully selected experts (Section 3.3), and refinement based on their qualitative feedback and the model’s theoretical foundations (Section 4.3). Qualitative observations formed the primary basis for refinement, whereas numerical evaluations provided supplementary descriptive information.

3.2. Theory-Informed Construction of the Initial Model

The original Socratic–memetic didactic model was developed as part of a theory-informed design process in which the conceptual perspectives discussed in Section 2 were translated into pedagogical functions and an instructional sequence. Rather than conducting a systematic literature review, this study integrated complementary theoretical foundations using a relational approach to develop a conceptual framework (Jabareen, 2009).

Four design decisions guided this process: establishing critical thinking as the pedagogical goal (Facione, 1990, 2023), positioning Socratic questioning as the central dialogic mechanism (Paul & Elder, 2008, 2020), incorporating Internet memes as culturally situated multimodal resources (Kress, 2010; Shifman, 2014), and organizing these elements into an interconnected didactic structure (Frohn, 2025; Martynova, 2019; Rodriguez Sandoval et al., 2022). The model also defines teachers as facilitators of inquiry and students as active participants, with reflection and contextual adaptability integrated into the design.

These principles informed an eight-stage instructional sequence that progressed from initial questioning and clarification to cognitive confrontation, critical evaluation, reflective reformulation, multimodal production, and closure. The stages are organized according to their pedagogical functions rather than assigned exclusively to individual critical thinking skills. Table 1 presents the initial structure submitted for expert appraisal.

Table 1. Initial structure of the Socratic–memetic didactic model.

Step	Component	Pedagogical Purpose
1	Generative question	Introduce a debatable issue and elicit students’ initial interpretations and positions
2	Clarification of assumptions	Make underlying meanings, concepts, and assumptions explicit through Socratic questioning
3	Formulation of hypotheses or provisional positions	Encourage students to articulate and justify an initial position that can subsequently be examined
4	Cognitive confrontation through memes	Use a memetic stimulus to problematize initial assumptions, generate productive discomfort, and introduce alternative interpretations
5	Critical evaluation of initial positions	Examine the consistency of claims, evidence, assumptions, and competing perspectives
6	Synthesis and reflective positioning	Integrate the discussion and reconsider, refine, or reformulate the initial position
7	Reflective creative production	Represent and synthesize a reformulated position through the creation of a brief multimodal artifact
8	Reflective closure	Revisit the reasoning process and articulate final reflections emerging from the experience

3.3. Expert Appraisal

The original model underwent a formative expert review to examine its conceptual clarity, theoretical and pedagogical coherence, pedagogical relevance, structure, and feasibility. Expert evaluation provides an opportunity to assess a proposed framework based on the informed judgments of specialists in relevant fields (Escobar-Pérez & Cuervo-Martínez, 2008). In this study, the evaluation focused on identifying areas for further development of the model rather than determining statistical consensus, psychometric validity, or didactic effectiveness of the model.

3.3.1. Expert Participants and Selection Criteria

Five university experts participated in the evaluation. They were selected using a targeted, criteria-based sampling method that preferred participants whose knowledge and experience are relevant to the research objective (Palinkas et al., 2015). The selection was based on academic and professional expertise in the fields of critical thinking, higher education, pedagogy, educational innovation and technology, social media and digital visual resources. Relevant professional competence was assessed based on research, teaching, scholarly output, and professional engagement in these areas. None of the experts were involved in the model’s initial development or the evaluation instrument’s design.

Previous research provides examples of how relatively small groups of experts have been used for various development and evaluation purposes. For example, interviews with four experts were used to examine a proposed higher education model (Allah Pitchay et al., 2025), while six experts participated in the content evaluation of an educational assessment instrument (Rodríguez Medina et al., 2021). Although these studies differ in their objectives and methods, they illustrate the use of carefully selected experts in educational research. In the present study, the appropriateness of the five-member expert panel was assessed in terms of the assessment’s developmental purpose, the participants’ relevant subject-matter expertise, and the qualitative depth of their feedback—rather than in terms of numerical representativeness.

Table 2 provides an overview of the experts’ fields of expertise and their academic experience. Affiliations with institutions and any potentially identifying professional details were omitted to protect the participants’ confidentiality.

Table 2. General profile of experts participating in the expert appraisal.

Expert	Broad Area of Expertise	Relevant Academic Experience
Expert 1	Critical thinking and education	University teaching and educational research
Expert 2	Digital media and education	Research and teaching in educational contexts
Expert 3	Educational technology	Research in education and technology
Expert 4	Pedagogy and education	University teaching and educational research
Expert 5	Digital resources and education	Teaching and academic work involving digital resources

3.3.2. Appraisal Procedure and Materials

Expert appraisal began in late April 2026. Each expert received a personal invitation, a detailed document describing the theoretical foundations, pedagogical structure, components, and initial lesson plan of the model, and a visual presentation created in Canva that summarized the key elements. The experts then completed a structured evaluation tool provided through Google Forms.

The instrument was developed specifically for this study to examine the conceptual, pedagogical, and implementation-related characteristics of the model. Its design was based on criteria commonly used in educational evaluation and expert reviews, particularly coherence, relevance, and feasibility (Gadke et al., 2021; López Quiroz, 2016; Rodríguez Medina et al., 2021). Prior to its use, the doctoral advisor reviewed the instrument, and three fellow doctoral students tested its comprehensibility and user-friendliness in a pilot test, which led to minor revisions. These colleagues were not the same as the five experts who subsequently evaluated the model, and their feedback was not included in the analysis of the expert evaluation. The preliminary review and pilot test were intended to improve the instrument’s clarity and user-friendliness, but not to establish its psychometric validity.

The instrument comprised nine dimensions: (1) conceptual clarity, (2) theoretical and conceptual coherence, (3) pedagogical relevance, (4) pedagogical organization, (5) pedagogical interaction and student-centeredness, (6) integration of educational resources, (7) development of complex competencies, (8) feasibility, and (9) overall evaluation. These dimensions served as structural criteria for examining the model as an integrated pedagogical approach rather than as independent psychometric constructs. The items within each dimension referred to specific features of the model, allowing for the consideration of both numerical ratings and qualitative observations regarding the same aspects of the approach. The complete instrument, including the original wording of the items, questions, response scale, and options for the overall evaluation, is included in Supplementary Material S1.

Closed-ended items were rated using a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (does not meet the criteria) to 4 (fully meets the criteria), with intermediate categories of 2 (partially meets the criteria), and 3 (adequately meets the criteria). Each section also included an open-ended question and a field for additional comments on the questionnaire. Qualitative responses formed the primary basis for model refinement, and numerical ratings provided supplementary descriptive information. This combination of structured ratings and open-ended feedback is consistent with previous expert appraisal procedures used in the evaluation of educational models (Zamora-de-Ortiz et al., 2020).

All experts were invited to an optional follow-up meeting to clarify or supplement their responses. One expert participated and submitted an annotated version of the model with additional comments. The remaining experts did not request a meeting. Additional written feedback, including email correspondence, was retained when it was elaborated on an expert’s appraisal. The five complete questionnaires constituted the primary evidence, while the follow-up meeting, annotated document, and additional correspondence were treated as supplementary evidence rather than equivalent sources available to all participants.

3.3.3. Analysis of Expert Feedback

The experts’ feedback was analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach based on Elo and Kyngäs (2008), taking into account the phases of preparation, organization, and reporting to identify observations relevant to model refinement. The analysis was predominantly inductive, as the categories were derived from the experts’ observations rather than predetermined. The theoretical foundations and didactic components of the model subsequently provided the context for interpreting the categories and evaluating their implications for refinement. The primary qualitative data consisted of responses to open-ended questions as well as fields for suggestions at the section level of the structured evaluation instrument. Supplementary information from the follow-up meeting, annotated document, or written communication was included when it clarified, elaborated on, or supplemented an expert’s structured response. The experts’ feedback was analyzed in the language in which it was originally provided. Excerpts from responses originally written in Spanish and reproduced in English were translated for publication, with the translated text cross-checked against the original comment to preserve the intended meaning.

During the preparatory phase, the experts’ written comments and relevant supplementary feedback were compiled and reviewed to familiarize ourselves with the material. During the organizational phase, the qualitative material was organized into an analysis matrix and examined across all experts to identify recurring concerns, conceptual similarities, and recommendations related to specific components or instructional phases of the model. The first author assigned descriptive codes to meaningful sections of the expert feedback. Subsequently, related codes were compared and grouped into higher-level categories based on their content similarities and the pedagogical issues they addressed. This process resulted in four overarching areas for further development, which are presented in Section 4.2. Table 3 contains illustrative examples of how the experts’ written observations were assigned descriptive codes and linked to the overarching areas for further development. During the reporting phase, these categories were used to structure the findings and explain their implications for further model development. Qualitative coding and matrix organization were performed manually using Microsoft Excel for Microsoft 365, version 2608.

Table 3. Selected Examples of Descriptive Coding of Expert-Appraisal Responses.

Original Expert Observation	Descriptive Code	Area of Refinement
“How do you guard against cultural bias in the selection of memes.”	Cultural bias in meme selection	Meme selection and use
“Creo que la familiarización e interés del docente con el material es crucial, así que la capacitación que se va a ofrecer debe remarcar la organización didáctica muy claramente.” [I believe that teachers’ familiarity with and interest in the material are crucial, so the training provided should clearly emphasize the instructional organization.]	Teacher preparation and familiarity with the model	Teacher preparation and pedagogical mediation
“The model should be flexible enough to allow for professional discretion.”	Professional discretion in implementation	Contextual flexibility and student participation
“Específicamente en la evaluación, podría ayudar tanto a la investigadora como al docente una guía/rúbrica de observación para poder leer las reacciones y/o el lenguaje de los estudiantes.” [Specifically regarding assessment, an observation guide or rubric could help both the researcher and the teacher interpret students’ reactions and/or language.]	Need for observational assessment guidance	Implementation, ethical, and evaluative guidance

Note. The examples were taken from the experts’ original responses. Spanish-language comments are presented with English translations in parentheses. The table illustrates the relationship between the experts’ comments, descriptive codes, and four areas of refinement; it does not represent the complete qualitative dataset.

The resulting coding and category structure was reviewed by the second author, who served as the doctoral advisor, with particular attention paid to the consistency between the experts’ original observations, the assigned codes, and the overarching interpretive categories of the study. Where differences in interpretation arose, both authors discussed the relevant comments and revised the analytical structure, as necessary. Recommendations were evaluated based on their substantive relevance to conceptual coherence, pedagogical structure, clarity, and feasibility of the model, rather than solely on how frequently they were mentioned by the experts.

Following this joint review, an additional peer debriefing session was held with a researcher experienced in qualitative methodology who was not part of the author team and had not been involved in the model development, expert evaluation, or initial coding. During the discussion, the alignment between the experts’ observations, descriptive codes, and four areas for refinement, as well as the analytical assumptions and alternative interpretations, were critically examined. The feedback was then discussed by both authors, and the resulting interpretive decisions were documented to strengthen the credibility, reflexivity, and transparency of the analysis.

Likert-type ratings were treated as supplementary descriptive information rather than a standalone branch of quantitative analysis. Given the ordinal nature of the four-point scale and the small, purposefully selected panel of five experts, the ratings were summarized using medians, ranges, and response frequencies calculated from the aggregated item-level responses within each rating dimension. These summaries described the distribution of the ratings rather than comparisons among the experts or statistical consensus. The numerical information was examined alongside the qualitative comments, which formed the primary basis for model refinement. No inferential analyses, psychometric validation, or statistical estimation of consensus were performed.

The analysis matrix also supported the traceability between the experts’ observations and the subsequent decisions regarding refinement, as shown in Section 4.3.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Overview of the Expert Appraisal

Across all nine evaluation dimensions, the five experts generally rated the original Socratic–memetic didactic model positively. As shown in Table 4, the median rating at the item level across all dimensions was 4, with ranges varying between 3 and 4 and 1–4. The responses focused on categories 3 (meets the criteria adequately) and 4 (meets the criteria fully), although lower ratings were recorded for some dimensions.

Table 4. Distribution of expert appraisal ratings: medians, ranges, and frequencies.

Appraisal Dimension	Items	Median	Range	1	2	3	4
Conceptual clarity	6	4	3–4	0	0	6	24
Theoretical and conceptual coherence	6	4	3–4	0	0	7	23
Educational relevance	5	4	2–4	0	1	8	16
Pedagogical organization	5	4	3–4	0	0	12	13
Pedagogical interaction and student-centeredness	5	4	2–4	0	1	10	14
Integration of educational resources	5	4	2–4	0	2	10	13
Development of complex competencies	5	4	1–4	1	2	5	17
Implementation feasibility	5	4	3–4	0	0	8	17
Overall assessment	5	4	3–4	0	0	3	22

Note. Ratings were provided on a four-point scale: 1 = does not meet criteria, 2 = partially meets criteria, 3 = adequately meets criteria, and 4 = fully meets criteria. Medians and ranges were calculated from the pooled item-level ratings within each appraisal dimension. The columns labeled 1–4 report the frequency of ratings in each response category. Each expert rated multiple items per dimension; therefore, these summaries describe item-level responses rather than independent expert-level scores.

At the item level, all five experts assigned the highest rating to the items concerning the model’s potential to foster critical thinking and the appropriateness of proceeding to a subsequent empirical examination. These responses were interpreted as expert appraisals of the proposal’s developmental readiness rather than evidence of its effectiveness. Items concerning meme selection guidance and autonomous learning also revealed areas requiring closer examination. These observations were considered alongside the experts’ qualitative comments, which informed the subsequent refinement of the model.

At the conclusion of the appraisal, all five experts selected “approved with minor revisions” as their overall judgment of the proposal. None selected approval without revisions or rejection. The qualitative observations and recommendations underlying these appraisal patterns are examined in Section 4.2 below.

4.2. Expert-Identified Areas for Refinement

Qualitative analysis of the experts’ comments identified four interrelated areas in which the initial model required greater clarification or specification: (1) meme selection and use, (2) teacher preparation and pedagogical mediation, (3) contextual flexibility and student participation, and (4) implementation, ethics, and evaluative guidance. These concerns were directed primarily toward how the model would be interpreted and enacted in educational settings rather than toward the rejection of its underlying theoretical rationale. The findings below describe the concerns and recommendations identified through expert appraisals. The design decisions made in response to these are presented separately in Section 4.3.

4.2.1. Meme Selection and Use

Meme selection emerged as one of the most recurrent areas requiring greater specificity. Experts questioned whether the initial proposal sufficiently explained the types of memes appropriate for pedagogical use and how instructors should identify suitable resources. One expert explicitly noted that “the type of memes needs to be clarified” [authors’ translation], while another questioned how cultural bias would be addressed in their selection criteria.

Practical guidance was another recurring concern, particularly for instructors who may be unfamiliar with meme culture or locating suitable materials. Suggestions included illustrative examples, a repository of memes, and resources for identifying potential stimuli. At the same time, one expert cautioned against making such examples prescriptive, emphasizing the need for instructors to exercise professional judgment in relation to disciplinary and sociocultural contexts. The issue, then, was not simply access to memetic resources, but clearer guidance for selecting and using them appropriately.

4.2.2. Teacher Preparation and Pedagogical Mediation

A second recurring area concerned teacher preparation and pedagogical mediation. Experts emphasized that the enactment of the model was closely connected to how instructors organized and mediated the learning process. Their observations identified several aspects requiring greater specification, including familiarity with Socratic questioning, understanding the pedagogical purpose of memes, facilitating classroom dialogue, and encouraging students to examine and justify their positions rather than merely express opinions. Experts also raised concerns about instructors’ ability to sustain questioning and participation across different classroom dynamics.

In relation to implementation, experts identified the need for clearer guidance to support instructors who may be unfamiliar with the model or with the pedagogical use of Internet memes. Their recommendations included practical resources, illustrative examples, and simulated applications that could help clarify how Socratic questioning, memetic resources, and classroom interaction should be organized during instruction.

4.2.3. Contextual Flexibility and Student Participation

Experts also emphasized that implementation could not be considered independently of the educational context. One expert stated that “the model should be flexible enough to allow for professional discretion,” while others identified factors such as group size, student interest and participation, course characteristics, available time, and instructor familiarity as conditions that could influence enactment. Complementary written feedback cautioned against treating the model as an independent intervention whose functioning could be separated from institutional context, educator preparation, and student expectations.

Student participation was also raised in relation to the dialogic and student-centered character of the model. Experts noted that students’ willingness and opportunities to contribute to discussions and engage with the resources presented are relevant to its enactment. Some comments also raised the possibility of involving students in aspects of resource selection within appropriate pedagogical parameters.

Additionally, the experts’ appraisals revealed uncertainties regarding autonomous learning. This item received the lowest descriptive rating in the structured appraisal, and one expert explicitly questioned the extent to which autonomy could be attributed to a model whose reflective processes relied substantially on questioning, dialogue, and interaction with others. Because autonomous learning was not a central objective of the proposed model, these observations were interpreted primarily as indicating the need for greater precision regarding the scope of competencies attributed to the model rather than requiring a modification of its dialogic orientation.

4.2.4. Implementation, Ethical, and Evaluative Guidance

The fourth area concerns the level of guidance required for responsible and feasible implementation. Experts noted that the pedagogical purpose of memes should be made explicit to prevent their use from being perceived as insufficiently rigorous or inappropriate.

Ethical and evaluative considerations also required greater specification. Complementary feedback recommended expanding the ethical guidance associated with implementation, particularly in relation to the use of digital cultural resources. One expert also questioned whether the proposed implementation “indicators” functioned as indicators in a sufficiently observable sense and suggested more explicit forms of documenting classroom interactions and teacher questioning. These observations highlighted the need to distinguish between general descriptions of desirable classroom processes and concrete guidance for observing, reflecting on, or formatively assessing implementation.

4.3. Integration of Expert Feedback into Model Refinement

The expert-appraisal findings were translated into model-refinement decisions by examining each recommendation in relation to the corresponding element of the initial proposal and its theoretical rationale. Based on feedback from experts, the model’s pedagogical functions and the guidelines for its implementation were further developed. As Table 5 shows, most of the changes involved clarifying or specifying elements that were already included in the original proposal rather than introducing new components.

Table 5. Traceability of expert-appraisal findings and model-refinement decisions.

Expert-Appraisal Finding	Initial-Model Status	Design Decision	Resulting Refinement
Greater specification is needed regarding the selection and pedagogical use of memes, including cultural and contextual considerations.	Critical meme selection and ethical use of digital resources were represented in the initial model. The initial cognitive confrontation stage involves a single memetic stimulus.	Clarify and expand the existing guidance rather than introduce meme selection as a new component. Incorporate two contrasting Internet memes into the cognitive confrontation stage to facilitate the comparison of different perspectives.	Meme-selection guidance was further specified to emphasize thematic relevance, potential to stimulate questioning and interpretation, visual-textual coherence, and sociocultural and ethical appropriateness. Illustrative examples and potential sources of memetic resources were incorporated for implementation support. The refined cognitive confrontation stage specifies the use of two contrasting Internet memes to support the examination of assumptions, alternative perspectives, and reasoned reconsideration through Socratic questioning.
Teacher preparation and pedagogical mediation require greater specification for enactment across different classroom dynamics.	The initial model conceptualized the instructor as a mediator of inquiry and identified teacher preparation as an implementation consideration.	Expand the description of teacher mediation, and provide more explicit implementation guidance for instructors.	Teacher guidance was further specified in relation to Socratic questioning, the facilitation of multiple perspectives, reasoned participation, the management of classroom dialogue, and the maintenance of the pedagogical purpose of the activity. Supporting examples of implementation were also included.
Contextual conditions and student participation require greater consideration, and the appraisal raises uncertainty regarding autonomous learning.	The initial proposal incorporated pedagogical flexibility, contextual adaptation, and an active student role. Autonomous learning was examined in the appraisal instrument but was not the model’s central objective.	Clarify the relevant contextual conditions and the boundaries of adaptability, while maintaining alignment between the model’s intended purpose and the competencies attributed to it.	Guidance was expanded to recognize the adaptation of questions, memetic resources, discussion dynamics, and thematic content according to disciplinary and classroom conditions while preserving the model’s underlying pedagogical progression. Student and group characteristics were made more explicit as implementation considerations in this study. Autonomous learning was not a central expected outcome of the model. The instructor was responsible for selecting memes during cognitive confrontation, despite a recommendation to involve students in this selection.
Implementation, ethical, and evaluative guidance require greater operational specificity.	The initial model included ethical considerations, formative assessment, and general implementation guidance.	Deepen and operationalize existing guidance rather than adding a separate theoretical component.	Implementation guidance was expanded to address the practical and ethical considerations associated with the use of digital cultural resources and classroom enactment. Guidance for observing classroom processes and supporting formative reflection was also provided.

Note. The table distinguishes elements already present in the initial model from the refinements informed by expert appraisal. Resulting refinements therefore represent clarification, expansion, or operational specification, unless otherwise indicated.

Not all of the experts’ recommendations were adopted. For example, the responsibility of instructors for selecting memes during the cognitive engagement phase was retained to ensure pedagogical coherence and sociocultural appropriateness. Nevertheless, students actively participate by interpreting, questioning, and critiquing these memes, as well as by creating their own multimodal representations. This decision reflects the model’s orientation, which emphasizes pedagogical coherence rather than the automatic adoption of expert suggestions.

4.4. Components of the Expert-Refined Socratic–Memetic Didactic Model

The expert-refined Socratic–memetic didactic model integrates interrelated components related to its educational purpose, pedagogical strategies, multimodal resources, participant roles, reflection, formative assessment, and contextual conditions. These components constitute the model’s pedagogical architecture, whereas the eight-stage sequence presented in Section 4.5 organizes their instructional implementation.

To support responsible implementation, Table 6 provides an ethical and pedagogical checklist for selecting and using Internet memes. The checklist translates the model’s ethical considerations into practical questions that instructors can consider before and during classroom use.

Table 6. Ethical and Pedagogical Checklist for Selecting and Using Internet Memes.

Assessment Criterion	Pre-Use Verification Checklist	Yes/No
A. MEME SELECTION
1. Pedagogical relevance	The meme is directly related to the learning topic and supports the intended critical thinking activity.	☐/☐
2. Critical inquiry potential	The meme presents assumptions, tensions, claims, or alternative perspectives that can be examined through Socratic questioning.	☐/☐
3. Cultural and contextual appropriateness	The meme’s language, humor, and cultural references are appropriate for the students.	☐/☐
4. Stereotypes and discrimination	The meme does not promote discriminatory stereotypes, hate speech, or stigmatization.	☐/☐
5. Sensitive or harmful content	The meme does not trivialize violence, trauma, or marginalization.	☐/☐
6. Accuracy and representation	Misleading claims or oversimplifications can be critically examined without presented as factual evidence.	☐/☐
7. Copyright and attribution	The source is identified where possible, and the intended use respects the applicable copyright requirements.	☐/☐
B. CLASSROOM MEDIATION
8. Respectful classroom dialogue	The instructor establishes the expectations for respectful disagreement.	☐/☐
9. Response to student discomfort	The instructor is prepared to acknowledge concerns, pause the discussion, and replace the meme if necessary.	☐/☐
10. Student participation and privacy	Students can express disagreement or use an alternative forms of participation without disclosing personal experiences.	☐/☐

Note. The checklist is intended to guide instructors before and during classroom implementation. A “no” response indicates that the meme or its planned use requires reconsideration. Materials presenting unacceptable ethical risks should be replaced rather than selected solely for their potential to provoke discussion. The checklist is proposed as practical instructional guidance and was not independently evaluated by the expert panel or empirically validated.

Table 7 summarizes the didactic components of the model, their characteristics, and their pedagogical functions.

Table 7. Didactic elements and their expression in the expert-refined Socratic–memetic model.

Didactic Element Identified in the Theoretical Framework	Expression in the Socratic–Memetic Model	Function and Operationalization
Educational and cognitive purpose	Critical thinking	Creates opportunities for interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation through the examination of claims, evidence, assumptions, and alternative perspectives.
Methods and pedagogical strategies	Socratic questioning	Dialogue is structured through clarification, justification, examination of evidence, consideration of alternative perspectives, and reflective reconsideration.
Resources and media	Internet memes and student-generated multimodal artifacts	Memes stimulate inquiry and examination of perspectives, and student-created artifacts communicate and synthesize reasoned positions.
Teacher role	Mediator of inquiry	Selects resources, guides questioning, facilitates dialogue, and supports justification and participation without prescribing conclusions.
Student role	Active participant and meaning-maker	Examines assumptions, interprets memes, evaluates perspectives, justifies arguments, and communicates reconsidered positions.
Teacher–student–content relationships	Dialogic and participatory interaction among teacher, students, content, and multimodal resources	Supports the collaborative examination of reasoning through interaction rather than unidirectional transmissions.
Reflection and formative assessment	Ongoing examination of reasoning throughout the instructional process	Uses explanations, responses to questioning, evaluation of evidence, and reconsideration of positions as observable opportunities for formative feedback.
Organization and instructional progression	Eight-stage Socratic–memetic instructional sequence	Organizes inquiry from initial questioning and clarification to critical examination, reformulation, multimodal production and reflection (Section 4.5).
Contextual and implementation conditions	Context-sensitive enactment supported by teacher preparation and ethical guidance	Allows adaptation to disciplinary, curricular, sociocultural, and classroom conditions while preserving the model’s pedagogical logic.

Note. The first column synthesizes didactic elements identified across the theoretical perspectives informing the model rather than representing a universal or prescriptive set of components applicable to all models. The elements operate relationally within the Socratic–memetic model.

4.5. Instructional Stages of the Expert-Refined Socratic–Memetic Didactic Model

The components described in Section 4.4 are implemented through an eight-step instructional sequence (Figure 1). The sequence progresses from the formulation of initial viewpoints through their critical examination and re-evaluation to multimodal presentation and reflection. The stages provide a flexible pedagogical progression rather than a rigid script, with Socratic dialogue operating throughout. An illustrative classroom application of the eight-stage instructional sequence is provided in Appendix A.

Figure 1. Eight-Stage Instructional Progression of the Socratic–memetic Didactic Model.

Table 8 summarizes the pedagogical functions of the eight stages, the corresponding forms of teacher mediation, and their relationships with the components of the model.

Table 8. Pedagogical Organization of the Eight Instructional Stages.

Instructional Stage	Pedagogical Function	Teacher Mediation	Articulation of Model Elements
1. Generative question	Introduces a problem or tension and elicits students’ initial interpretations and perspectives.	Introduces and contextualizes an open, debatable question and invites initial responses without directing students toward a predetermined conclusion.	Critical thinking orientation; Socratic questioning; teacher–student interaction.
2. Clarification of assumptions	Makes meanings, assumptions, presuppositions, and underlying reasoning more explicit.	Uses questions requesting clarification, definitions, examples, and explanations to make students’ underlying reasoning visible.	Socratic questioning, critical-thinking orientation, reflection, dialogic interaction.
3. Formulation of hypotheses or provisional positions	Supports the articulation of a tentative position and the reasons underlying it.	Encourages students to formulate a clear but revisable position and articulate the reasons supporting it.	Critical thinking orientation, active student role, Socratic questioning, and dialogic interaction.
4. Cognitive confrontation through memes	Introduces two contrasting Internet memes to challenge initial reasoning, reveal differing assumptions, and encourage examination of alternative perspectives.	Selects and presents two contrasting Internet memes and uses Socratic questioning to guide their interpretation, comparison, and critical examination.	Memetic and multimodal resources, Socratic questioning, critical thinking orientation, teacher–student–content interaction.
5. Critical evaluation of initial positions	Supports the examination of reasons, evidence, assumptions, criteria, limitations, and alternative interpretations.	Facilitates examination through questions that request justification, probe evidence and assumptions, and invite consideration of alternative interpretations.	Critical thinking orientation, Socratic questioning, reflection and formative feedback, and dialogic interaction.
6. Synthesis and reflective positioning	Supports the reconsideration and reformulation of positions, considering the preceding inquiry.	Invites students to revisit their initial positions and identify what they retain, modify, qualify, or reconsider.	Critical thinking orientation, reflection, active student role, and Socratic questioning.
7. Reflective creative production	Enables students to synthesize and communicate a developed position through multimodal representation.	Provides guidance for creating a brief multimodal artifact while maintaining an emphasis on the clarity and meaning of the position represented.	Memetic and multimodal resources; active student role; critical-thinking orientation; reflection.
8. Reflective closure	Makes the reasoning process and possible changes or continuities in students’ positions explicit.	Facilitates reflection on the reasoning process, perspectives encountered, and factors that contributed to maintaining or reconsidering students’ positions.	Reflection and formative feedback, critical thinking orientation, Socratic questioning, and teacher-student interaction.

Note. Socratic questioning, reflection, interaction, and formative observation may operate across multiple stages according to the development of dialogue and educational context.

Within the eight-stage Socratic–memetic sequence, students’ reasoning can be assessed formatively through their contributions to existing instructional activities. Drawing on Facione’s (1990) critical-thinking framework, Table 9 presents a proposed approach developed for the present model, linking observable evidence of reasoning to assessment criteria and corresponding Socratic follow-up questions. During classroom discussions, instructors examine students’ responses in relation to these criteria and use their observations to guide immediate feedback. For example, an unsupported claim may prompt a request for evidence, an unexamined assumption may lead to further questioning, and an alternative perspective may invite students to reconsider their conclusions. In larger classes, this assessment is necessarily selective rather than an exhaustive evaluation of every student. It does not involve assigning scores or grades but supports session-specific formative feedback. Assessing improvements in overall critical-thinking ability would require a separate empirical assessment design.

Table 9. Proposed formative assessment of students’ reasoning within the Socratic–memetic model.

Existing Activity	Observable Evidence	Assessment Focus	Formative Feedback
Initial positioning	Reasons supporting a position	Explanation	Ask for supporting reasons
Contrasting memes	Identification of assumptions	Interpretation and analysis	Ask how assumptions influence meaning
Examination of arguments	Justifications and judgments about the relevance of evidence	Evaluation	Ask whether the evidence supports the claim
Alternative perspectives	Comparison of competing interpretations and justification of conclusions	Inference	Ask what conclusion follows from the alternatives
Meme creation	Explanation of the intended message	Explanation	Ask how the meme communicates the argument
Final reflection	Reflection on the reasons for maintaining, qualifying, or revising an initial position	Self-regulation	Ask why the position was maintained or revised

Note. Developed for the present model, drawing on Facione’s (1990) critical-thinking framework and the eight-stage Socratic–memetic instructional sequence. The table provides illustrative guidance for formative assessment and is not a validated measurement instrument.

5. Discussion

The original contribution of this study lies in the development of a theoretically grounded and expert-refined didactic architecture that integrates Socratic questioning and Internet memes through complementary pedagogical functions. Previous research has examined Socratic pedagogy and the educational use of memes largely as separate approaches, with the latter frequently associated with student engagement and digital culture (Abrami et al., 2015; Paul & Elder, 2020; Suárez-Guerrero et al., 2022; Yánez Soria et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2013). Rather than merely combining these resources, the proposed model organizes Socratic dialogue, cognitive confrontation through contrasting memes, reflective reconsideration, and multimodal production within a coherent, eight-stage instructional progression.

The first contribution concerns the organization of critical thinking processes within the context of an instructional sequence. Critical thinking is not understood here as the isolated outcome of a specific activity but rather as a recurring practice of formulating, examining, justifying, and reconsidering arguments (Aston, 2023; Paul & Elder, 2020). The model translates these processes into interconnected pedagogical functions supported by dialogue, cognitive engagement, multimodal interpretations, and reflection. Therefore, its contribution lies in specifying instructional conditions that aim to make critical thinking an explicit focus of classroom activities without assuming that participation will necessarily lead to measurable improvements in critical thinking skills.

A second contribution concerns the epistemic role attributed to Internet memes. Although previous research has examined Internet memes as resources for student engagement and interaction in the classroom (Lin & Sun, 2023; Tu et al., 2023), the proposed model views them as a means of engaging with claims, assumptions, contradictions, and alternative perspectives. It is important to distinguish between two complementary functions: memes selected by teachers open perspectives for critical engagement, while multimodal artifacts created by learners offer opportunities to summarize and communicate perspectives developed within the framework of inquiry-based learning. By integrating these functions into a theoretically grounded didactic architecture, the model illustrates how culturally situated digital resources can support critical inquiry without their characteristics dictating instructional design (Martynova, 2019). Whether these intended functions are implemented in classroom practice remains an empirical question.

Beyond these conceptual contributions, the expert evaluation provides an important methodological insight: Theoretical coherence does not automatically provide sufficient guidance for implementation in the classroom. The evaluation contributed to a more precise specification of meme selection, teacher preparation, pedagogical mediation, contextual adaptability, and ethical and evaluative considerations. These refinements did not constitute evidence of instructional effectiveness; rather, they helped clarify how the model’s theoretical principles could inform proposed instructional decisions. The distinction between conceptual coherence and operational guidance is therefore relevant to the development and evaluation of didactic models in a broader sense.

A related aspect concerns the distinction between the intended educational goals and the competencies assessed as part of the expert evaluation. The inclusion of a competency in an assessment tool does not necessarily mean that it is considered an intended learning outcome. In this study, this distinction was particularly relevant to autonomous learning, which, although considered in the evaluation, was not positioned as a central goal of the model. Maintaining consistency between the theoretical foundations, stated goals, evaluation criteria, and expected outcomes is crucial for interpreting the scope of expert-supported further development.

6. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting this study. First, the expert evaluation involved five specialists who were purposively selected to contribute complementary expertise to refining the model. A larger panel or one with a different composition might have provided additional subject-matter and contextual perspectives. Accordingly, the evaluation should be understood as a formative assessment of the model rather than a definitive validation of its pedagogical structure.

Second, the study did not include classroom implementation or a direct assessment of students’ learning progress. Although expert feedback informed the refinement of the model’s conceptual coherence, pedagogical organization, and implementation guidance, its instructional effectiveness remains to be examined empirically.

Future research should examine how the model, as refined by experts, functions in various disciplinary, institutional and sociocultural contexts. Comparative classroom implementations could examine how student characteristics, group dynamics, teacher preparation, and the interpretation of memetic resources influence the implementation of the model, while also assessing whether the underlying pedagogical relationships can be maintained across various contexts.

Future studies should examine the extent to which participation in the Socratic–memetic sequence is related to students’ critical thinking processes, including interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation. Qualitative classroom observations and appropriate measures of critical thinking could help examine the contribution of Socratic questioning, contrasting memes, and multimodal artifacts created by students while distinguishing observable manifestations of reasoning from measurable changes in critical thinking skills.

7. Conclusions

This study developed a theoretically grounded Socratic–memetic didactic model and refined its pedagogical architecture through expert appraisal. The study’s key contribution is the functional integration of Socratic questioning, contrasting Internet memes, and reflective multimodal production within an eight-stage instructional progression designed to make the examination of reasoning an explicit pedagogical process.

The expert review provided insights into greater operational specificity regarding the selection of memes, teacher facilitation, contextual adaptability, and ethical and evaluative guidelines. As a theoretically grounded proposal refined by experts, the model requires empirical investigation to examine its implementation in the classroom and its potential contribution to the development of students’ critical thinking.