Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts

Cognition and Instruction

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 467-498

  Cornelius, Lindsay L ^a   Herrenkohl, Leslie Rupert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 10844290377     PISSN: 07370008     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s1532690xci2204_4     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Au, K. H. P., & Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organization factors in learning to read: The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 115-151.
2. Bahktin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination (pp. 342-354). Austin: University of Texas Press.
3. Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representation to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.). Proceediingss of CSCL '97: The Second International Con-ference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 10-19). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
4. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis. & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 115-143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
6. Bianchini, J. A. (1997). Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1039-1065.
7. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.). Review of research in education (Vol. 24. pp. 61-100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
8. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Burbules, N. C., & Linn, M. C. (1991). Science education and philosophy of science: Congruence or contradiction? International Journal of Science Education, 13, 227-241.
10. Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
11. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
12. Cornelius, L. L. (2004). Learning to participate in disciplinary discourses: What happens when the conversation ends? In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Scott Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Embracing diversity in the learning sciences: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 136-141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Inc.
13. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
14. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in the classrooms, Science Education, 84, 223-238.
15. Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-484.
16. Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation. In L. C. Wilkinson (Ed.). Communication in the classroom (pp. 153-181). New York: Academic.
17. Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18. Foucault, M. (1999). Power as knowledge. In C. Lemert (Ed.). Social theory: The multicultural and classic readings (pp. 475-478). Boulder, CO: Westview.
19. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Goodnow, J. (1990). The socialization of cognition: What's involved? In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.). Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 259-286). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said, she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
22. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
23. Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse and student engagement in fourth grade. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 431-473.
24. Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 451-493.
25. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.
26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. W. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge. England: Cambridge University Press.
27. Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
28. Lensmire, T. (2000). Powerful writing, responsible teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
29. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30. O'Connor, M. C. (2001). "Can any fraction be turned into a decimal?" A case study of a mathematical group discussion. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 46, 143-185.
31. O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63-103). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
33. Phillips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp. 370-394). New York: Teachers College Press.
34. Polman, J.L.,& Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223-238.
35. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Sharrock, W. W. (1974). On owning knowledge. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 45-53). Middlesex, England: Penguin Education.
37. Shepardson, D. P. (1996). Social interactions and the mediation of science learning in two small groups of first-graders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 159-178.
38. Shulman, L. S., & Quinlan, K. M. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 399-422). New York: Simon & Schuster.
39. Stevens, R., Wineburg, S., Herrenkohl, L., & Bell, P. (under review). The comparative understanding of school subjects: Past, present, and future.
40. Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). Do you know the way to inquiry-based learning?: Revealing elusive issues in the teacher-as-guide model. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 393-429.
41. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
42. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.