In this article, I study role enactment and status relationships in university design studio classrooms. I analyze conversations that take place during discussions of student creative work, and I interpret them in the context of previous studies of learning, classroom discourse, and creativity. I found that professors and students jointly establish and maintain a complex and hybrid participation structure in which they enact dialogic status: they simultaneously perform both an authority relationship and a peer relationship. I analyzed the interactional mechanisms that dialogically perform these two status relationships, drawing on prior studies of role and status in conversation. I show that the dialogic blend of authority and peer relationships continuously and frequently varies throughout reviews of student work. Drawing on past studies of creativity in education, I argue that the joint enactment of dialogic status is an effective pedagogy for teaching and learning for creativity.
AtkinsonJ. MaxwellHeritageJohn. 1999. “Jefferson’s Transcript Notation.” Pp. 158-66 in The Discourse Reader, edited by JaworkskiA.CouplandN.New York: Routledge.
2.
BakhtinM. M.1981. “Discourse in the Novel.” Pp. 259–422 in The Dialogic Imagination. Edited and translated by HolquistMichael, translated by EmersonCaryl. Austin: University of Texas Press.
3.
Bardovi-HarligKathleenHartfordBeverly S.1993. “The Language of Comembership.” Research on Language and Social Interaction26(3):227–57.
4.
BlairBernadette. 2004. “Interpretations of Assessment: A Study of Students’ Understanding of the Assessment Criteria through the Practice of Formative Feedback.” Pp. 74–90 in Enhancing Curricula: Towards the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, edited by DaviesA.London: CLTAD: The Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design.
5.
BradacJames J.MulacAnthonyThompsonSandra A.1995. “Men’s and Women’s Use of Intensifiers and Hedges in Problem-Solving Interaction: Molar and Molecular Analysis.” Research on Language and Social Interaction28(2):93–116.
6.
BransfordJohn D.BrownAnn L.CockingRodney R., eds. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7.
BransfordJohn D.SchwartzDaniel L.1999. “Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal with Multiple Implications.” Review of Research in Education24:61–100.
8.
BrownPenelopeLevinsonStephen. 1978. “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” Pp. 56–289 in Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, edited by GoodyE. N.New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ButtonGrahamLeeJohn R. E.1987. Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
10.
CazdenCourtney B. 2001. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. 2nd ed.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
11.
CraftAnna. 2005. Creativity in Schools: Tensions and Dilemmas. New York: Routledge.
12.
DannelsDeanna P.2005. “Performing Tribal Rituals: A Genre Analysis of ‘Crits’ in Design Studies.” Communication Education54(2):136–60.
13.
DuncanStarkeyFiskeDonald W.1977. Face-to-Face Interaction: Research, Methods, and Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
EdelskyCarole. 1981. “Who’s Got the Floor?” Language in Society10(3):383–421.
15.
FormanEllice A.Ramirez-DelToroVirginiaBrownLisaPassmoreCynthia. 2017. “Discursive Strategies That Foster an Epistemic Community for Argument in a Biology Classroom.” Learning and Instruction48:32–39.
16.
GoffmanE.1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
17.
GoffmanErving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
18.
GoodwinCharlesDurantiAlessandro. 1992. “Rethinking Context: An Introduction.” Pp. 1–42 in Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited by DurantiA.GoodwinC.New York: Cambridge.
19.
HeritageJohn. 2012. “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1):1–29.
20.
HerrenkohlLeslie RupertGuerraMarion R.1998. “Participant Structures, Scientific Discourse, and Student Engagement in Fourth Grade.” Cognition and Instruction16(4):431–73.
21.
HouseErnest R.KasperGabriele. 1980. “Politeness Markers in English and German.” Pp. 157–85 in Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, edited by CoulmasF.The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.
22.
JablinFredric M.1979. “Superior-Subordinate Communication: The State of the Art.” Psychological Bulletin86:1201–22.
23.
JacobySallyOchsElinor. 1995. “Co-Construction: An Introduction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction28(3):171–83.
24.
JamesPatricia. 1996. “The Construction of Learning and Teaching in a Sculpture Studio Class.” Studies in Art Education37(3):145–59.
25.
JeffersonGail. 1984. “Transcript Notation.” Pp. ix–xvi in Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by AtkinsonJ. M.HeritageJ.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26.
JordanBrigitteHendersonAustin. 1995. “Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice.” Journal of the Learning Sciences4(1):39–103.
27.
KapurManu. 2008. “Productive Failure.” Curriculum and Instruction26(3):379–424.
28.
KohnenAngela M.2013. “‘I Wouldn’t Have Said It That Way’: Mediating Professional Editorial Comments in a Secondary School Science Classroom.” Linguistics and Education24(2):75–85.
29.
KooleTom. 2010. “Displays of Epistemic Access: Student Responses to Teacher Explanations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43(2):183–209.
30.
LakoffRobin. 1975. Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
31.
LambTheodore A.1981. “Nonverbal and Paraverbal Controls in Dyads and Triads: Sex or Power Differences?” Social Psychological Quarterly44(1):49–53.
32.
LaveJeanWengerEtienne. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
LeaperCampbellRobnettRachel D.2011. “Women Are More Likely to Use Tentative Language, Aren’t They? A Meta-Analysis Testing for Gender Differences and Moderators.” Psychology of Women Quarterly35(1):129–42.
34.
LernerGene H.1999. “Turn-Sharing: The Choral Co-Production of Talk-in-Interaction.” Pp. 225–56 in The Language of Turn and Sequence, edited by FordC. E.FoxB. A.ThompsonS. A.New York: Oxford.
35.
LoAdrienneHowardKathryn M.2009. “Mobilizing Respect and Politeness in Classrooms.” Linguistics and Education20:211–16.
36.
MacbethDouglas. 1991. “Teacher Authority as Practical Action.” Linguistics and Education3:281–314.
37.
MarkeeNuma, ed. 2015. The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
38.
MaroniBarbara. 2011. “Pauses, Gaps and Wait Times in Classroom Interaction in Primary Schools.” Journal of Pragmatics43(7):2081–93.
39.
McHoulAlexander. 1978. “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society7(2):183–213.
40.
OakArlene. 2012. “‘You Can Argue It Two Ways’: The Collaborative Management of a Design Dilemma.” Design Studies33:630–48.
41.
ParkerJohn N.CardenasEdgarDorrAlexander N.HackettEdward J.2018. “Using Sociometers to Advance Small Group Research.” Sociological Methods and Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118769091.
42.
PsathasGeorge. 1995. Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43.
RidgewayCecilia L.BergerJoseph. 1986. “Expectations, Legitimation, and Dominance Behavior in Task Groups.” American Sociological Review51(5):603–17.
44.
RogoffBarbara. 1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.
45.
SacksHarveySchegloffEmanuel A.JeffersonGail. 1974. "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation."Language50(4):696-735.
46.
SalazarStacy McKenna. 2013. “Studio Interior: Investigating Undergraduate Studio Art Teaching and Learning.” Studies of Art Education: A Journal of Issues and Research55(1):64–78.
47.
SawyerR. Keith. 2012. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. 2nd ed.New York: Oxford.
48.
SawyerR. Keith, ed. 2014. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Second Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SawyerR. Keith. 2017. “Teaching Creativity in Art and Design Studio Classes: A Systematic Literature Review.” Educational Research Review22:99–113.
SawyerR. Keith. 2018b. “Teaching and Learning How to Create in Schools of Art and Design.” Journal of the Learning Sciences27(1):137–81.
52.
SawyerR. Keith. 2019. The Creative Classroom: Innovative Teaching for 21st Century Students. New York: Teachers College Press.
53.
SchegloffEmanuel A.1992. “In Another Context.” Pp. 191–227 in Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, edited by DurantiA.GoodwinC.New York: Cambridge.
54.
SchegloffEmanual A.2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Vol. 1. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
55.
StevanovicMelisaPerakylaAnssi. 2012. “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(3):297–321.
56.
StiversTanya. 2006. “Treatment Decisions: Negotiations between Doctors and Parents in Acute Care Encounters.” Pp. 279–312 in Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, edited by HeritageJ.MaynardD. W.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
57.
TabakIrisBaumgartnerEric. 2004. “The Teacher as Partner: Exploring Participation Structures, Symmetry, and Identity Work in Scaffolding.” Cognition and Instruction22(4):393–429.
58.
WagnerD.Herbel-EisenmannG.2014. “Identifying Authority Structures in Mathematics Classroom Discourse: A Case of a Teacher’s Early Experience in a New Context.” ZDM Mathematics Education46:871–82.
59.
WaringHansun Zhang. 2002. “Displaying Substantive Recipiency in Seminar Discussion.” Research on Language and Social Interaction35(4):453–79.
60.
YngveVictor H.1970. “On Getting a Word in Edgewise.” Pp. 567–78 in Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, April 16–18, 1970. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.
