Professorial Style in Context 151At another point, when Ms. B. begins to stumble, the professor again jumps
in quite directively: “Okay, hold it right there. We know from the hypothetical that
the employer didn’t have a real intention, but it says something else, doesn’t it?”
Student: “(Apparent) intention.” Prof.: “Or apparent intention. What do you make
of that?” This vigorous approach, which redirects student responses quickly when
they begin to stray, is another means by which the professor uses a strongly con-
straining discursive frame to guide students in coproducing coherent narratives.
Similarly, the professor at times uses prosodic features like stress to cue students
as to the likely correct response, as in this set of questions: “So, is that all you need
to raise this estoppel point? Just a promise?” The student’s response (“No”) is pre-
dictable from a sensitive reading of these cues in the preceding question. At sev-
eral points in this exchange, the professor also redirects the student by framing a
response she has given as correct—but for a different situation. He then emphati-
cally reiterates what the coordinates of this situation are (e.g., “Yes, in that situa-
tion, okay.... In the actual case, to get back to the actual case, Ms. B.”; or “Okay,
that’s really the second question I was going to ask.... The first question I was
going to ask, though, was... ”). The professor will also at times forge ahead when
the student is floundering and answer his own question. In another turn, the pro-
fessor supplies dialogue for the student, warning her against a trap that is simulta-
neously one of thinking and saying:
Transcript 7.7 [4/17/8]Prof.: All right. So, we would ask the benefit-detriment question. [writes on
board] Okay? Ask the benefit-detriment question. Benefit in the uncle,
well, we might go off on a hair-brained theory about that, but we don’t
need to, right? Is it a detriment to the promisee, I guess, the answer’s
pretty obvious, right, Ms. B.? Assuming she really promised that, is it a
detriment? Now, don’t get caught in this trap, you’re gonna say, “Well,
not really, because she’s going to get this money.” Yeah, but that’s not the
way to think about it. That’s not what we mean when we ask if there was
a detriment, okay. We don’t say, “Gee, is it really worth it for the nephew
to give up these three fun things, in exchange for the money? Is it net
detriment?” The answer is, “Who cares?” right? You don’t look at the
detriment () for the thing you promised. You just look at what you were
promised.... You were gonna say, “Well, maybe not,” but now you’re
gonna definitely say, she said it. [[class laughter]] “Because she’s giving
up a ten dollars a week, bookkeeping job, no question about it. That’s
clearly a detriment.” Don’t get- don’t get confused in that net detriment
concept.... [continues through 2.23 turn]The professor here warns the student of a discursive-cum-thinking trap, holds the
dialogue for her, anticipating a possible problem, and in one sense averts a possi-
bly embarrassing (and confusing and time-consuming) tangle. (Although in an-
other sense, he puts words in her mouth that she may never have uttered.) Here,
as throughout our modified Socratic classrooms, the professor also employs humor
to lighten the tone of the exchange. Thus, in contrast with the stereotypical Socratic
exchange, the professor is doing a great deal of work to smooth out bumps in the
dialogue, to help and cue the student when she appears to stumble, and to keep a