Disclaimer: I’m still in college. So, it may be easier for me.
She really gave a damn about the subject, and about knowledge in general. She didn’t think the students couldn’t contribute, and saw classes as more collaborative than authoritative, so a lot of the classes had students piping in with stuff, and she’d reference… I guess you could say “fringe”?? stuff. You know, that one line where, in a lecture on scholasticism in the 12th century, she’d mention how Abelard has this one theory that helps to create the rise of the gender binary in the 17th century, which then becomes fodder for a lot of Foucault’s work. Or mentioning off-handedly how we know someone was gay because his contemporaries kept mentioning the length of his hair and top. So, for those of us that were interested (which, luckily, was pretty much everyone who came to that class), there was a lot of ideas for research (either for fun or for a paper), and you got to expand your knowledge outside of the textbook.
She also really gave a damn about the students as students; she might not know everyone’s name and spent no class time having everyone write down 3 things about them (which I hate – how is my favorite sports team relevant to understanding the Protestant Reformation? Answer: it isn’t.) but she would totally spend as much time as you needed (often after class) helping you understand a particularly tricky concept (even if it wasn’t for her class) and would clearly explain the various critiques she gave in grading so that you could actually improve upon those points in the future instead of just knowing that you did something wrong but aren’t sure of what.
Also, combined both macro and micro explanations to help everyone get a full idea of what’s going on and why something’s important.