Professorial Style in Context 145The professors also use humor and other techniques to soften the questioning, again
a departure from the stereotypical harshness and humiliation that some deemed
to be central to Socratic questioning. If the traditional stereotype portrayed Socratic
dialogue as similar to oral argument at the appellate level (where judges sharply
question attorneys),^13 the Socratic exchanges in these classrooms seem to more
frequently approximate direct examinations, in which the questioner is attempt-
ing to elicit and coproduce an integrated narrative. This, of course, does not mean
that students do not feel pressure when they are required to sustain lengthy ex-
changes with their teachers, sometimes under the eyes of more than one hundred
classmates. And, unlike a direct examination, the classroom exchange is not re-
hearsed. The student in a sense occupies a place somewhere in between the wit-
nesses in cross-examinations and direct examinations; although the professor is
not the student’s attorney, with a strong investment in eliciting a seamless narra-
tive, in these transcripts we find evidence that professors are in fact attempting to
ease the dialogic process through a number of devices, such as framing. Professors
may not have the complete overlap of interest in production of a smooth narrative
found between a client and attorney during a direct examination. However, they
do have a strong interest in keeping classroom exchanges going in a coherent and
productive fashion. In this sense, there seems to be a difference between the modi-
fied Socratic teachers of this study and the opposing counsel bent on breaking down
a witness through cross-examination, or even the appellate judge zealously pok-
ing holes in an attorney’s oral argument.
In this example from Class #4, taught by a white male professor in a relatively
highly ranked regional school, we see how the teacher coconstructs a story with
his chosen Socratic partner. This student takes up 66% of the student turns on this
particular day. The remaining 34% of student turns are taken up by one other stu-
dent, so that the entire class consists of extended dialogue with two different stu-
dents. The exchange begins with a fairly typical request for a recitation of the facts
to elicit a telling of the underlying story as framed by legal exigencies.
Transcript 7.1 [4/17/6–7]Prof.: [turn begins with a summation of a key point regarding the case that he had
just finished discussing with another student] All right. Now let’s turn to uh
to the Ricketts case. [.30 shuffling noise]. Uh, let’s see, um Ms. B., how are
we doing in Ricketts and what’s going on?
Ms. B.: Well, there’s a conflict between grandfather and granddaughter that um
he would give two thousand dollars on demand and 60% interest per
annum and said that she didn’t have to work. And um, she said that she
gave up her work on reliance on this um promise and uh she- () she
wants to get the money.
Prof.: Right, okay. You have the promise of some um money, uh, the granddad
to his granddaughter, okay? Um, what we’re asking in consideration
questions, we always ask about the return promise, right? So, uh, what
was the return promise in this case?
Ms. B.: Well it’s not really sure that there was one because she um [[Prof:
Right]], she’s saying that she um relied on the money and she didn’t ()