Toward a Model of Influence in Persuasive Discussions: Negotiating Quality, Authority, Privilege, and Access Within a Student-Led Argument

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 245-268

  Engle, Randi A ^a   Langer Osuna, Jennifer M ^b   McKinney de Royston, Maxine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900028418     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508406.2014.883979     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Authority and authority relations in mathematics education: A view from an 8th grade classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 58, 145-168.
2. Anderson, C., Holland, D., & Palincsar, A. (1997). Canonical and sociocultural approaches to research and reform in science education: The story of Juan and his group. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 359-383.
3. Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., McNurlen, B., Archodidou, A., Kim, S., Reznitskaya, A., Gilbert, L. (2001). The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1-46.
4. Angelillo, C., Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (2007). Examining shared endeavors by abstracting video coding schemes with fidelity to cases. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 189-206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Aristotle. (1924). Rhetoric (W. D. Ross, Ed.). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
6. Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27, 195-225.
7. Bangerter, A., Clark, H. H., & Katz, A. R. (2003). Navigating joint projects in telephone conversations. Discourse Processes, 37(1), 1-23.
8. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307-359.
9. Benz, A. (2003). On coordinating interpretations-Optimality and rational interaction. In P. Kühnlein, H. Rieser, & H. Zeevat (Eds.), Perspectives on dialogue in the new millennium (pp. 304-334). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
10. Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37(3), 241-255
11. Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.
12. 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.
13. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
14. Carletta, J., Anderson, A. H., & Garrod, S. (2002). Seeing eye to eye: An account of grounding and understanding in work groups. Cognitive Studies, 9(1)1-20.
15. Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16. Chizhik, A. W. (1999). Can students work together equitably? An analysis of task effects in collaborative group work. Social Psychology of Education, 3(1-2), 63-79.
17. Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321.
18. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259-294.
20. Cobb, P., & Whitenack, J. W. (1996). A method for conducting longitudinal analyses of classroom videorecordings and transcripts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30(3), 213-228.
21. Cohen, E. G. (1982). Expectations states and interracial interaction in school settings. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 209-235.
22. Cohen, E. G. (1994a). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College.
23. Cohen, E. G. (1994b). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1-35.
24. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99-120.
25. Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26. Cornelius, L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 467-498.
27. Cruttenden, A. (1996). Intonation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28. Dembo, M., & McAuliffe, T. (1987). Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 415-423.
29. Edelsky, C. (1993). Who's got the floor? In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 189-227). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Reprinted from "Who's Got the Floor," by C. Edelsky, 1981, Language in Society, 10, pp. 383-421)
30. Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts, and current developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161-200). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
31. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. C. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399-483.
32. Engle, R. A., Conant, F. C., & Greeno, J. G. (2007). Progressive refinement of hypotheses in video-supported research. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 239-254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), The handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York, NY: MacMillan.
34. Erickson, F. (2005). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
35. Esmonde, I., & Langer-Osuna, J. (2013). Power in numbers: Student participation in mathematical discussions in heterogeneous spaces. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 288-315.
36. Fay, N., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (2000). Group discussion as interactive dialogue or serial monologue: The influence of group size. Psychological Science, 11, 487-492.
37. Fried, M. N., & Amit, M. (2008). The co-development and interrelation of proof and authority: The case of Yana and Ronit. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 20(3), 54-77.
38. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.
39. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press.
40. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London, England: Methuen.
41. Hamm, J. V., & Perry, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in first-grade classrooms: On whose authority? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 126-137.
42. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379-432.
43. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Huberman, M., & Miles, M. B. (Eds.). (2002). The qualitative researcher's companion: Classic and contemporary readings. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
45. Inglis, M., & Mejia-Ramos, J. P. (2009). The effect of authority on the persuasiveness of mathematical arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 27, 25-50.
46. Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1991). The constitution of expert-novice in scientific discourse. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 149-181.
47. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2000). Constructive controversy: The educative power of intellectual conflict. Change, 32(1), 28-37.
48. Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
49. Kohl, J., & Wingate, L. (1995). Endangered species: The way it was. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley School of Education, Fostering Communities of Learners Project.
50. Kruglanski, A. W., Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., Sharvit, K., Ellis, S., Mannetti, L. (2005). Says who? Epistemic authority effects in social judgment. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 345-392.
51. Kurth, L. A., Anderson, C. W., & Palincsar, A. S. (2002). The case of Carla: Dilemmas of helping all students to understand science. Science Education, 86(3), 287-313.
52. Langer-Osuna, J. (2011). How Brianna became bossy and Kofi came out smart: Understanding the trajectories of identity and engagement for two group leaders in a projects-based mathematics classroom. The Canadian Journal for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 11(3), 207-225.
53. Langer-Osuna, J., & Iuhasz-Velez, N. (2013, April). Relational power as what's missing in understanding collaborative student-led problem solving. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
54. Leander, K. M. (2002). Silencing in classroom interaction: Producing and relating social spaces. Discourse Processes, 34(2), 193-235.
55. LeBaron, C. D., & Streeck, J. (1997). Built space and the interactional framing of experience during a murder interrogation. Human Studies, 20, 1-25.
56. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
57. McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24(3), 245-275.
58. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 27(4), 283-297.
59. Miller, G. R. (2002). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In J. P. Dillar & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 3-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Original work published 1980)
60. Myung, I. J., Pitt, M. J., & Kim, W. (2005). Model evaluation, testing and selection. In K. Lambert & R. Goldstone (Eds.), Handbook of cognition (pp. 422-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. O'Keefe, D. J. (1998). Justification explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying support articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35, 61-75.
62. Olitsky, S. (2007). Facilitation, identity formation, group membership, and learning in science classrooms: What can be learned of out-of-field teaching in an urban school? Science Education, 91(2), 201-221.
63. Ranney, M., & Thagard, P. (1988). Explanatory coherence and belief revision in naive physics. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 426-432). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
64. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small-group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839-858.
65. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
66. Scheflen, A. (1973). How behavior means. New York, NY: Aronson.
67. Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. London, England: Allen Lane.
68. Solís, J. L., Kattan, S., & Baquedano-López, P. (2009). Socializing respect and knowledge in a racially integrated science classroom. Linguistics and Education, 20(3), 273-290.
69. Southerland, S., Kittleson, J., Settlage, J., & Lanier, K. (2005). Individual and group meaning-making in an urban third grade classroom: Red fog, cold cans, and seeping vapor. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 1032-1061.
70. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
71. van Eemeren, F. J., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
72. Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
73. Wortham, S. (2004). From good student to outcast: The emergence of a classroom identity. Ethos, 32(2), 164-187.
74. Wortham, S. (2005). Learning identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
75. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 458-477.
76. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. London, England: Sage