LECTIO

Purpose: The aim of the initial level is the careful and thoughtful reading of the source materials, which can be classic literature and/or the founding literature of that discipline. This level is information-gathering and comprehension of the writers' arguments.

Focus: Emphasis is put on understanding the text and grasping its meaning as expressed by the original context of the text. Students read the text with the intent of finding out the thesis of the text and its arguments.

Methodology: Active reading, note taking, marking important concepts, and looking for a wider context of the presented subject matter.

MEDITATIO

Purpose: Reading must be followed by reflection in the learning process for students to achieve its purpose. They take time to reflect on the read content criticall

Emphasis: Emphasis should be placed on the ideas or arguments explored in the text. The students are expected to relate to the ideas presented in the text both emotionally and rationally, thinking about how the ideas connect with other ideas they have explored.

Approach: This stage promotes independent thinking and involves the student in processing the material by developing their own connections.

DISPUTATIO

Objective: This stage involves dialogue and debate, whether through formal or problem-solving methods. The objective of the stage is to evaluate the concepts appeared in the text in terms of various perspectives, arriving eventually at a more refined concept or understanding.

Target: Open critical dialogue with the peer group or mentors to question assumptions and arguments presented by the text. Counterarguments and the merits of points presented by the text will also be assessed for their authenticity.

Approach: It is an important process in which students engage in Socratic questioning. Students pose questions in order to interpret and analyze any piece of information. It is also an opportunity in which students are able to synthesize their knowledge.

EXPOXITIO 

Purpose: The ultimate step in the Scholastic Method entails integrating all the knowledge acquired and presenting it to other people in an organized and efficient manner. The student should be in a position to provide rational justifications for all the knowledge attained.

Emphasis: Emphasis is placed on effective and organized communication. This is usually where one undertakes tasks such as essay writing assignments, making presentations, or other forms of intellectual expression.

Approach: Upon synthesis of the subject matter, the thoughts are organized in an effective argument for presentation. Here, the approach is to demonstrate mastery of the subject matter in addition to communicating it effectively.

The Scholastic Method: Students are encouraged and engaged with the subject matter, and they apply critical and analytical thinking to synthesize the knowledge they have acquired. This serves as an apt tool for the development of polymaths, where they apply logical and articulate reasoning in dealing with diverse ideas that fall within the context of Project Irenaeus.

Not peer-reviewed, but it is something we have thought about as it is rarely thought about in pedagogical research, and there are extremely little mentions about it, besides a vague level 1-4 system which we were not fond of, we do employ that too, but the question below helps us in a practical non-formal way.. consign to our vocation.

We treat knowledge as a living and breathing entity, different isles of knowledge all have a uniqueness factor. The challenge lies whether to have them exist in isolation as many separate islands and risk epistemic federalism, or to overly synthesize them and lose their original flavour and axioms in the process. Here are the 2 paradoxes and the dilenma faced by our clubmates. 

• The melting pot destroys all distinction and diversity and creates a "unity". Although this habit resembles those of very notable integration intelligence, the system-builders, rather than the inhabitors, it's potential weakness lies in over-personalization or generalization. Another risk is the loss of subject-unique perspectives. 

• The mosaic preserves the differences while creating fracture and fragmentation, and in the worst case, creates a bad habit for the learner in the loss of innovation and weakens the creative factor. There is no more convergence only learning. 

We'd like to take the alternate view of a permeable membrane instead. Each individual domain should exist first whole and complete: its axioms, intuitions, methodologies and internal standards must all be learned and understood by its own rules and not through reduction or simplification as a collateral damage from fusion or convergence. While we try to selectively engage in synthesis, convergence, and systems-building.

Here are the nuances explained in a condensed manner: 

When a domain is lacking a tool from another domain there is no shame in supplying it. When external insights can cover blind spots it is therefore useful to employ and integrate. When two fields have noticably a shared structure, or have similar axioms, imposing one on another can be done more easily, readily, and in a way that is less noticable or destructive. It is immensely difficult to hold to this methodology, it requires epistemic awareness, deep subject knowledge, and carefulness which are traits we teach all every member of Irenaeus to embody.

So at Irenaeus, we try not to melt knowledge into a soup that tastes disgusting, nor create the same lollipop excessively when we trying to retain it's unique flavours. What we want is a candy floss, pleasant in sweetness and easy to mold while remaining true to it's original taste.