Epistemology and Teaching Styles 93the entertainment business and that she went to him because she
wanted to look more beautiful, I think, it’s- it can be (but) implied
that in two surgeries, “I’m going to give you a beautiful nose.”
Prof.: You think that from what you’ve read of the record and what you
know of the case, that the transaction between them was one in
which he promised her to improve her appearance. She wouldn’t
have undergone the surgery had he not made that promise?
Student #1: Mmmhmm.
Student #2: Under that theory, though, anybody could sue any plastic surgeon
under, under an implied promise because if you imply that I’m going
to the plastic surgeon to be- to become more beautiful, if that
doesn’t happen then I would have grounds to sue then.
Prof.: Well, one- one way that, that doesn’t happen is the physician is just
really // exceptionally //
Student #2: // right // clear in having you sign I didn’t-wasn’t promised
any particular results. But [... ] Why do you have the clear proof
here?
Student #3: Because of the picture he said was stolen.
Prof.: That was helpful?
Student #4: I thought it was the fact that you had two surgeries. If there was just
one--
Prof.: --apparent- well, it’s questionable as to whether they said in the
first place she was supposed to have // two; // I think, that the
testimony is conflicting on that, she ended up having three.
Student #4: //Okay//
Student #5: I think, she looked at the analysis they have under the remedy for the
breach of contract. [Rest of .23 turn omitted]Here the professor is teaching the students to identify the particular facts that are
legally relevant to the question of how to define the actual promise underlying the
contract in this case. This line of questioning prompts the professor, at a later point
in the exchange, to take the students back to the jury deliberations, reminding them
that the facts as accepted by the appeals court are those approved by the jury below.
In Transcript 4.7, we saw this identical point made through a combination of fo-
cused dialogue and mini-lecture by the professor. Thus we see, over and over
throughout these transcripts, identical lessons taught through varying pedagogi-
cal means. The same set of tools—from recitation of facts through policy discus-
sion—are imparted in every class, with the same metalinguistic message attached
regarding the centrality of legal-textual authority. And note that although here we
have primarily focused on the discursive differences among the classrooms, we also
are repeatedly reminded of considerable continuities. All employ some form of
dialogue, all use lectures for clarification, and there is a similar deployment of
question-answer sequences in deciphering texts, whether internal to a professor’s
turn, or between professor and one designated Socratic partner, or among pro-
fessor and students with several interlocutors chiming in. Socratic dialogue may
provide a more precise mirroring of the message in discursive form (i.e., it has