86 Similarity
Saving a more detailed description of the variations in teacher style for Chap-
ter 7, here it will suffice to note that three different, broadly defined styles of teaching
are discernible in the classes of this study. First, one professor (Class #7) used largely
lecture. He spoke 95% of the time and spent 91% of the time in monologue, or
lecture. This is in marked contrast with all of the other professors of the study, who
spent more time in dialogue with the students and far less time lecturing. This was
the class in which the professor exercised the most control over the classroom talk.
Next in line along the spectrum of professorial control were the classes in which
professors utilized some Socratic dialogue. None of the classes conformed as strictly
to the Socratic style of teaching as did the classroom from the pilot study, analyzed
in Chapter 4. However, a number of teachers used what could be called a modified
form of Socratic teaching, in which there was a relatively high proportion of dia-
logue focused on one person (focused dialogue). These professors spent between
45% and 60% of class discussion in focused dialogue with individual students. These
classes are also identifiable as Socratic in terms of qualitative features of the pro-
fessor-student exchanges. Finally, we can identify classes in which there was a higher
percentage of shorter professor-student exchanges (nonfocused dialogue), with
professors spending only between 21% and 29% of the time in the more extended
focused dialogue exchanges. In the subsections that follow, we will see how a simi-
lar message about legal readings is imparted despite these differences in teaching
styles.
Lectures on Legal Texts, Doctrines, and Authority
We begin with a class in which a lecture format predominated (Class #7). Recall
that this professor’s turns constituted 95% of the total class time, and that 91% of
his time speaking was spent in monologue, or lecture.
Transcript 5.3 [7/3/11–12]Prof.: [First portion of 10.45 turn omitted] For thirty-seven years with Mrs.
Feinberg () [a case discussed in class previously], there is no case, that’s a
gratuitous promise. There is no way to say there’s consideration there
and make a plausible argument. This one, there’s ways to argue it both
ways. It seems to- that is part of the process of identification is to
recognize what’s () and also to recognize what’s a close issue. You get a
close issue like this and say, “Look, here is competing considerations, I
would favor it for the following reasons,” and then lay it out. Demon-
strate to me that you understand that this is a much closer call, a close
question. And that there are an awful lot of areas involved that are close
questions. But there are also a lot of changes that are very definitive. So
you have to learn to discriminate. Well, okay, what- I think we were still
back- we have played with this characterization. I think we have to
advance the understanding a little bit further about how we are going to
go about, on a case-by-case basis, to distinguish bargained-for exchange
from a gratuitous promise subject to a condition. You cannot tell
exclusively by the format of the language. This is a tough case, this is a
tough determination. Because what’s happening, it’s stating the