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

It is commonly observed that during classroom or group discussions some students have greater influence than may be justified by the normative quality of those students’ contributions. We propose a 5-component theoretical framework in order to explain how undue influence unfolds. We build on literatures on persuasion, argumentation, discourse, and classroom discussions to develop a framework that models how each participant’s level of influence in a discussion emerges out of the social negotiation of influence itself and the following 4 components that interact with it: (a) the negotiated merit of each participant’s contributions; and each participant’s (b) degree of intellectual authority, (c) access to the conversational floor, and (d) degree of spatial privilege. We then illustrate how the framework works by explaining how 1 student became unduly influential during a heated, student-led scientific debate. Finally, we close by outlining how our framework can be further developed to better understand and address differences in influence in classrooms and other learning contexts.

[1]  J. A. Blair,et al.  Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory : A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments , 1997 .

[2]  Rachel A. Lotan,et al.  Working for Equity in Heterogeneous Classrooms: Sociological Theory in Practice (Sociology of Education Series) , 1997 .

[3]  Karl A. Smith,et al.  Constructive Controversy: The Educative Power of Intellectual Conflict , 2000 .

[4]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Contributing to Discourse , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Leema K. Berland,et al.  Making sense of argumentation and explanation , 2009 .

[6]  Annemarie S. Palincsar,et al.  The Case of Carla: Dilemmas of Helping All Students to Understand Science , 2002 .

[7]  A. Raviv,et al.  Says Who?: Epistemic Authority Effects in Social Judgment , 2005 .

[8]  J. Lemke Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[9]  A. Scheflen How Behavior Means , 1972 .

[10]  S. Wortham From Good Student to Outcast: The Emergence of a Classroom Identity , 2004 .

[11]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1999 .

[12]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[13]  E. Cohen Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .

[14]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Schemes , 2008 .

[15]  Gail Richmond,et al.  Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small‐group discourse and scientific knowledge building , 1996 .

[16]  A. Kendon Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters , 1990 .

[17]  Leslie R. Herrenkohl,et al.  Power in the Classroom: How the Classroom Environment Shapes Students' Relationships With Each Other and With Concepts , 2004 .

[18]  R. P. McDERMOTT,et al.  Criteria for an Ethnographically Adequate Description of Concerted Activities and their Contexts , 1978 .

[19]  Sally Jacoby,et al.  The Constitution of Expert-Novice in Scientific Discourse! , 1991 .

[20]  A. Botinis,et al.  Intonation , 2001, Speech Commun..

[21]  Myron H. Dembo,et al.  Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups. , 1987 .

[22]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .

[23]  Kevin M. Leander,et al.  Silencing in Classroom Interaction: Producing and Relating Social Spaces , 2002 .

[24]  Alexander W. Chizhik,et al.  Can Students Work Together Equitably? An Analysis of Task Effects in Collaborative Group Work , 1999 .

[25]  Anton Benz,et al.  On coordinating interpretations — optimality and rational interaction , 2003 .

[26]  Anne H. Anderson,et al.  Seeing Eye to Eye : An Account of Grounding and Understanding in Work Groups (特集 言語コミュニケーションの科学に向けて) , 2002 .

[27]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Navigating joint projects with dialogue , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[28]  D. O’Keefe Justification Explicitness and Persuasive Effect: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Varying Support Articulation in Persuasive Messages. , 1998 .

[29]  Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar,et al.  Canonical and Sociocultural Approaches to Research and Reform in Science Education: The Story of Juan and His Group , 1997, The Elementary School Journal.

[30]  R. Sellars Rhetoric , 1996, The Classical Review.

[31]  Karin Baier,et al.  The Uses Of Argument , 2016 .

[32]  Jennifer M. Langer-Osuna How Brianna Became Bossy and Kofi Came Out Smart: Understanding the Trajectories of Identity and Engagement for Two Group Leaders in a Project-Based Mathematics Classroom , 2011 .

[33]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Guided discovery in a community of learners. , 1994 .

[34]  Michael N. Fried,et al.  The co-development and interrelation of proof and authority: The case of Yana and Ronit , 2008 .

[35]  James Price Dillard,et al.  The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice , 2002 .

[36]  Michael N. Fried,et al.  Authority and Authority Relations in Mathematics Education: A View from an 8th Grade Classroom , 2005 .

[37]  S. Garrod,et al.  Group Discussion as Interactive Dialogue or as Serial Monologue: The Influence of Group Size , 2000, Psychological science.

[38]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Environments to Relate Structure, Grounds, and Conceptual Quality , 2008 .

[39]  Paul Cobb,et al.  A method for conducting longitudinal analyses of classroom videorecordings and transcripts , 1996 .

[40]  Jennifer M. Langer-Osuna,et al.  Power in Numbers: Student Participation in Mathematical Discussions in Heterogeneous Spaces , 2013 .

[41]  Mark A. Pitt,et al.  Model Evaluation, Testing and Selection , 2005 .

[42]  W. Chafe Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing , 1996 .

[43]  E. Cohen,et al.  EXPECTATION STATES AND INTERRACIAL INTERACTION IN SCHOOL SETTINGS , 1982 .

[44]  Paul Thagard,et al.  Explanatory Coherence and Belief Revision in Naive Physics , 1988 .

[45]  H. Bernard,et al.  Data Management and Analysis Methods , 2000 .

[46]  C. Goodwin Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers , 1981 .

[47]  Julie A. Bianchini,et al.  Where knowledge construction, equity, and context intersect: Student learning of science in small groups , 1997 .

[48]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  The Snowball Phenomenon: Spread of Ways of Talking and Ways of Thinking Across Groups of Children , 2001 .

[49]  Michelle Perry,et al.  Learning Mathematics in First-Grade Classrooms: On Whose Authority? , 2002 .

[50]  Juan Pablo Mejía-Ramos,et al.  The Effect of Authority on the Persuasiveness of Mathematical Arguments , 2009 .

[51]  P. Cobb,et al.  Sociomathematical Norms, Argumentation, and Autonomy in Mathematics. , 1996 .

[52]  Sherry A. Southerland,et al.  Individual and Group Meaning-Making in an Urban Third Grade Classroom: Red Fog, Cold Cans, and Seeping Vapor. , 2005 .

[53]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[54]  R. A. Engle,et al.  Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement: Explaining an Emergent Argument in a Community of Learners Classroom , 2002 .

[55]  E. Cohen,et al.  Producing Equal-Status Interaction in the Heterogeneous Classroom , 1995 .

[56]  S. Michaels,et al.  Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life , 2008 .

[57]  G. Miller On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions , 2002 .

[58]  O. Oha Fallacies , 2005 .

[59]  Elizabeth G. Cohen,et al.  Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom , 1986 .

[60]  Brigid Barron When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[61]  Curtis LeBaron,et al.  Built Space and the Interactional Framing of Experience During a Murder Interrogation , 1997 .

[62]  David Yun Dai,et al.  Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings : enhancing intellectual growth and functioning , 2012 .

[63]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Navigating Joint Projects in Telephone Conversations , 2004 .

[64]  Jorge L. Solís,et al.  Socializing respect and knowledge in a racially integrated science classroom , 2009 .

[65]  Stacy Olitsky,et al.  Facilitating identity formation, group membership, and learning in science classrooms: What can be learned from out-of-field teaching in an urban school?† , 2007 .

[66]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[67]  Ricki Goldman,et al.  Examining Shared Endeavors by Abstracting Video Coding Schemes With Fidelity to Cases , 2014 .

[68]  Joseph Berger,et al.  Status Characteristics and Social Interaction , 1972 .

[69]  M. Pressley,et al.  Discourse Patterns and Collaborative Scientific Reasoning in Peer and Teacher-Guided Discussions , 1999 .

[70]  付伶俐 打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[71]  Carole Edelsky Who's got the floor? , 1981, Language in Society.

[72]  Frederick Erickson Talk and social theory : ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life , 2004 .

[73]  R. Linn,et al.  Qualitative methods in research on teaching , 1985 .