Students’ Power in

Classroom Discourse1
ANTONIA CANDELA
Cents de lnvestigacidn y Estudios Avanzados

This article presents a discourse analysis study of classroom interactions

focusing on local power taken as a feature of discourse. The main purpose of
this study is to demonstrate that the discursive resources through which the
teacher exercises power in the classroom are also available to students who
may appropriate and use them to defend versions alternative to those pro-
posed by the teacher, even within the Initiation-Response-Evaluation struc-
ture. The specialized tools of conversational analysis within an ethnographic
perspective are applied to teacher-student interaction in science classes in the
elementary school of a shanty town around Mexico City. This discourse anal-
ysis shows students managing to contradict the teacher’s orientations and
even evaluating peers and teacher’s assertions. Through these interventions,
the children can reverse the interactional roles within the Initiation-
Response-Evaluation structure, change the situational power asymmetry, and
wield power to control locally the discursive interaction. The analysis dis-
plays discourse dynamics as being modified by students in the local negotia-
tion in conflicting situations when the topic being discussed is meaningful
for them. These student modifications show the dependence of the classroom
social structure on academic content. Furthermore it is revealed that the
structure of discourse (IRE in this case) does not define who is in control of
classroom interaction. The study shows that the students, even in this mar-
ginal environment, constructthemselves assubjectswho discursivelyestab-
lish their role asknowledgeableandcompetentcommunicators
who areable
to influencesocialinteraction.

INTRODUCTION
Traditional work on classroomdiscourseestablishesthe teacher-directedinterac-
tional sequence,the Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE),* as one of the more

Direct all correspondence to: Antonia Candela, Depto. de Investigaciones Educativas, Centro de
Investigaci6n y Estudios Avanzados, Apdo. Post. 19-197, Mexico D.F., MCxico. mcandela@mail.
cinvestav.mx.

Linguistics and Education lO(2): 139-l 63 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
Copyright 0 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc. ISSN: 0898-5898
140 CANDELA

familiar features of classroom talk (Cazden, 1986; Mehan, 1979; Wells, 1993).
These studies often assume that the IRE structure allows teachers to control
classroom discourse, because they are the ones who ask the questions, orient the
students’ responses, and evaluate their answers(Leith & Myerson, 1989; Sinclair
& Coulthard, 1975).3
Teacher control has been frequently mentioned as an inhibitor of students’
ideas (Edwards & Furlong, 1978; Edwards & Mercer, 1987). It has been sug-
gested that this control is a mechanismthat causesstudentsto develop compe-
tence in giving the “correct” answer, rather than in looking for an explanation
(Holt, 1969). For this reason, teacher control in classroomdiscoursehas been
seen as a force that works against reflexive education. Reaserchersfrequently
state that the IRE structure is not the best way to facilitate the goal of increasing
student understandingof curricular topics.
In this article I want to make a contribution to the study of the educational
effects of the IRE format by analyzing students’ verbal participation in the ele-
mentary-level science classroomof a shanty town around Mexico City to seeif
IRE always maintains the teacher’spower. For educational purposes,it is impor-
tant to seehow active the studentsare, and whether they are subordinatedto the
teacher’sorientation. My main interest is in analyzing the learners’ contribution
to classroomdiscourseto seewhether they follow what the teacher wants them to
do or if they manipulate the local construction of discourse to seize power in
order to construct their own representationof the curricular topics.
Erickson (1986) postulated that only the teacher has legitimate power in the
classroombecauseof their institutional position and their greater knowledge of
the topic. He explains, however, that the studentshave the power to resist leam-
ing what the teacher wants to teach them. Erickson statesthat this resistancecan
becomea form of power when it changesthe interactional dynamics. In this first
approach, students’ power is defined as resistance to learning (Alpert, 1991;
Willis, 1976). This resistancehasbeen studied asone of the causesof children’s
exclusion from paths that lead toward academic achievement. That is why I am
alsointerestedin analyzing whether the students’resistanceto follow the teacher’s
orientation is necessarilya resistanceto learning.
Most studies of classroomdiscoursefocus the analysis on the teacher’s per-
spective (Cazden, 1986; Wells, 1993). I study the IRE structure from the stu-
dents’perspective, while taking into account that the discursive structure depends
on a negotiation between all the classroomparticipants.

NEW KNOWLEDGE IN RECENT STUDIES OF

CLASSROOM DISCOURSE
Wells (1993) summarizesdifferent points of view in actual educational research
on the Initiation-Response-Feedback(IRF) structure.4He finds that even though
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 141

the IRF is the dominant genre in classroom discourse, it could have alternative
functions in the interaction depending on the educational goals and on the spe-
cific tasks of each educational activity. Lemke (1990) focuses his attention on
students’ discourse to find the relationship between their patterns of knowledge
and the patterns of scientific knowledge. Analyzing science classes in secondary
school, he finds that the IRE structure, which he calls triadic dialogue, is the prin-
cipal structure in the classroom, even with modifications. But in his analyses, he
also finds situations where the pattern of interaction is that of a debate, and then
the IRE structure is broken.
Hicks (1996, pp. 17-18) states that since the publication of the Cazden review
(1986), recent works on classroom discourse, especially those with a neo-
Vygotskian orientation, have found deviations from the norm of the IRE structure
as a standard feature of teachers’ practice and as a descriptive feature of educa-
tional researchers’ analysis. These studies reveal the complexity and unruliness
of classroom discourse structure as much as its order and systematicity. They
analyze language use in classrooms as overlapping, sometimes confusing, and
often indeterminate. It is frequently found that teachers revoice students’ com-
ments and that students can have the same agentive footing in the interaction as
the teacher and often even have the last word. These new studies open the possi-
bility of understanding the multiple and simultaneous processes happening in the
classroom. We can consider this discourse structure not as a simple one-to-one
interaction, but rather as a sociocultural ecology (Erickson, 1996) to which all
participants contribute. The special issue of Linguistics and Education edited by
Green and Dixon (1993) has interesting articles on institutional and classroom
discourse positions and positionings, different interactional classroom models
(Gutierrez, 1993), influences on students’ participation (Heras, 1993), and the
social construction of content areas. These studies show the complex discursive
and social actions of all the classroom participants.
Taking into account that deviation from the IRE structure in classroom dis-
course is actually a well known phenomenon, the purpose of this article is to
examine whether the IRE structure always means that the teacher has control or
whether the students can manage to seize local power and wield it to defend their
versions of the educational topics within this discourse format.
For the detailed analysis of the classroom discursive interaction, I have chosen
the approach to discourse analysis of Edwards and Potter (1992). I use conversa-
tional analysis tools such as preference patterns to study how students’ participa-
tion influences the following turns of classroom talk, as well as to examine the
interactional dynamics and construction of knowledge in science classes (Candela,
1993,1995,1997a, 1999).
The idea of preference has been developed in conversational analysis to char-
acterize those conversational events where the participants can choose among sev-
eral alternative and non-equivalent actions (depending on the lexical choice, the
design of the phrase, or the sequence of action), (Sacks, 1973). Pomerantz (1984)
142 CANDELA

analyzes one kind of preference structure: the various ways second turns of talk
agree or disagree with prior turns. She finds a number of special rules as to how
the first and second assessments act. The second assessment is one that takes
place after a first assessment. In this article I make reference to the property of
preference structure that states: if the second assessment does not act as an imme-
diate acceptance (no hesitation) of the previous turn, its function is that of denial
of it.

SITUATED AND INTERACTIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF POWER

From the perspective of conversation analysis, asymmetry is one of the interac-
tional features that is revealed in discourse. Recent ethnographic, dialogic, and
classroom discourse studies agree with a reflexive interpretation of discourse.
This interpretation states that asymmetrical aspects of local interactions are not
introduced into the analysis as part of a preestablished reality, but as features of
the relationships displayed and oriented to as such by the participants (Drew &
Heritage, 1992; Markova & Foppa, 1991; Schegloff, 1992). Power, as an inter-
actional construction, is analyzed through the way participants in the discourse
deal with it. Differentiated use of discursive resources in specific talk context
displays and constitutes the asymmetries of power among the participants in
the discursive interaction.
The reconstruction of asymmetries in the interactive work between teachers
and students will focus on those moments when the children’s participation
acquires a significative presence in classroom discourse. These special situations
appear when there are conflicts in the interaction (Edwards & Mercer, 1987;
Grimshaw, 1990). These conflict settings are good moments to see the students’
ideas, their versions on educational topics, the discursive resources used to state
and defend a position, and, thus, their subjectively constituted roles in the discur-
sive interaction.
Diamond (1996) suggests that in every community there is hierarchy, but the
institutional status alone does not account for the relative power and political
effectiveness of the members. She defines institutional rank as a social stratifica-
tion based on sex, age, nationality, race, family relations, occupation, institutional
position, economics, marital status, education, and other factors that are more or
less fixed. This concept depends on external social variables so it does not take
into consideration contextual dependency. There is also a local rank constituted
by those social variables whose meaning is internal to a particular community.
This differentiation of rank has implications for power in discourse. When people
bid for the floor, compete, negotiate rules, interrupt each other, or overlap, they
are vying for local rank. While institutional rank permeates and affects roles in
discourse, the actual institutional rank of each member cannot be contested
through discourse. For the local community, the battle for equality and for power
is waged at the level of local rank. Although hierarchies are created and enforced
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 143

by social norms and institutional status, microanalysis showsthat the individuals

do contest power and compete for leadership roles in every verbal interaction
(Diamond, 1996, p. 11). In accord with theseideas,Sacks(1992, p. 49) statesthat
questionsare an interactive format that deals with discoursecontrol. He shows
that questionsobey certain rules in every conversation: (1) the questionerhas the
right to speak after the answer; (2) the questioner controls the conversation
becausehe/she defines the relevance of the next turn and decides or orients the
topic; (3) there is a generaltendency to try to be in the position of questioner; and
(4) there are many possible ways to elude an answer, such as responding with
another question in a debatefor control.
Diamond (1996) further arguesthat local power is consensualbecausethere is
no power assignedto anybody for ever. Local power requires acknowledgment
and ratification so the participants that ratify it also hold power (as Erickson,
1986, anticipates). I share with Diamond an interest in the microanalysis of
power as a discoursefeature accessibleto all participants. This local dimension
showsthe dynamic quality of power because it is negotiatedthrough discourse.
I understandlocal power to meanthe differentiated use of discursive resources
or actions that influence the discourse of other participants. These discursive
resourcesor actions are shown in the control of next turns, of adjacency pairs, or
of discursive patterns and in the ability to influence the topics of the interaction.
Local power may indicate what the participants take to be differences in knowl-
edge, as seenin the ability to win an argument, to introduce a new topic, to gain
popularity, to modify local relationships, to change roles or to use special
resourcesto deal with the links within discourse.

THE SCHOOL CONTEXT

To analyze relationshipsof power, it is necessaryto take into account the content
of discourseand not only its grammatical form. I will undertake an analysis of
several transcriptions of science classesin an elementary school, focusing on
how the asymmetry of power is built up, and how it becomesrelevant as part of
the discursive interaction between teachersand students.Science classesfurther
allow me to examine whether and how scientific languagehas any effect on the
power relations that teachersattempt to have on the students.
The data baseof the presentwork is madeup of ethnographic notes and video
and audio recordingsmade while observing severalclassesat a public elementary
school located in the marginal neighborhoodsof Mexico City. The classesare of
5th grade, so the studentsare about 10 or 11 years old. Most of the groups have
between35 and 40 students,about half girls and half boys. The topics under study
in the selectedextracts are: gravity, relative densities,combustion,and carbon diox-
ide production. Those are topics taken from the sciencetextbooks that are part of
the official and nationalcurriculum in Mexico, obligatory for all elementaryschools.
144 CANDELA

I have known the school since 1985 when I visited it two or three days a week
for one year to observe thirteen teachers’ classroom practices. The data reported
in this paper was collected during 1992. The neighborhood community is made
up of recent immigrants to the city from rural towns who maintain some of their
traditions, for example, their food preferences and some festivities. Most of them
have a lower class status and work in the informal sectors of the economy. Most
of the teachers of the school were young people with few years of teaching expe-
rience, but with strong interest in improving their teaching practice, even though
they have not had any special training. For this paper, I made recordings of nor-
mal everyday lessons. It was the first time I worked with these teachers.
The following discourse analysis is based on transcriptions of the audio tape
recordings, with special notation (Edwards & Potter, 1992),5 complemented by
ethnographic notes and some visual information taken from the video tape. As
the original data are in Spanish I had to translate them into English and adapt the
special notation to the differences in semantics. The original transcriptions are
presented immediately after each extract for analytical purposes and to facilitate
the text for Spanish readers. The ethnographic approach of the whole project
allowed me to have helpful information about the classrooms context for the
interpretation. The conversational analysis machinery permited a detailed study
of turn sequences to describe the work done at each turn in the discursive con-
struction of everyday interactions (Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, 1973, 1992; Sacks,
Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974).

Alternative Ways of Answering the Teacher Questions

When faced with a question from the teacher there are many different possible
responses from the students. If indeed the responses are generally kept within an
IRE structure, that does not mean that their content necessarily conforms to what
the teacher may be expecting them to say.
One way of manipulating the teacher’s orientation is by using the inherent
ambiguity of discourse.6 The following is an example of a 5th grade lesson about
gravity. The students have weighed in a balance the same volume of different
materials to analyze the concept of density. After the activity, the teacher asks
every child to make a list of ten materials in descending order of density. The fol-
lowing extract is part of the debate that ensues when the group attempts to answer
the teacher’s question “<whi::ch one do you think is the he:avie:st?>” and
arrive at a collective decision about the first place in the list.

Extract 1:
147 B,,: lead.
148 T: 5s lead hea::vier? (2)
149 why: ?
150 B: oh:: no:: (@he tone suggests a retraction))
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 146

151 B,,: because it has more ma::tter?

152 T: [rea::ly:?
153 G: [more matter
154 B,: no:: (.) lead almost doesn’t weigh (.) teacher
155 T: >lead doesn’t weigh m::ch<
156 B: ha ha ha ha ha::: ((looking to B&)
157 ** B,: NEITHER DOES STEEL

Extract0 1:
147 Ao,,: el plomo
148 Ma: *el plomoesm8spesado:?(2)
149 por &?
150 Ao: ay no:: ((por el tono parece coma que se retracta))
151 Ao,,: porquetienem8smate::ria?
152 Ma: [si:::?
153 Aa: [mfismateria
154 Ao,,: no:: (.) el plomocasinozeta (.) maestra
155 Ma: >el plomono pesamcho<
156 Aos: ja ja ja ja ja::: ((mirando a Ao,,))
157** Ao,: TAMPOCO EL ACERO

In this sequencetwo student responsesappearfor each of the teacher’sques-

tions (lines 148-149 and 152). Taking into account their semanticform and the
patterning of preference structure, it can be said that the teacher’s interventions
have a double interactional potential. They are an explicit demandfor a justifica-
tion. But theseinterventions, (lines 148-149 and 152) becauseof their sequential
placementand consideringthe properties of the preference structure (Pomerantz,
1984), also function as denialsof the previous turn by not expressingimmediate
acceptance.The teacher interventions have an ambiguousfunction asthey ask for
a justification, but also for a modification of the previous answer. The opposite
meaningsof students’responses(in lines 150 and 151 and also on lines 153 and
154) are manifestationsof this double function or this ambiguity of the teacher’s
requests.While the boys in lines 151 and 153 argue in favor of lead, responding
to the requestfor argumentsimplied in teacher’squestions,in lines 150 and 154
other boys deny that lead is the right answer,respondingto the teacher’s implicit
disagreement.These alternative answersto teacher’s orientations seemto force
her to expressher own version (line 155). Even after this manifestation of the
teacher’s version, in the next turn (line 157) one child contradicts it in a loud
voice. The teacher’s intentions of guiding the children to a specific answer by
giving them clues in the interaction, and later giving her version, have failed. The
children’s argumentsalso changethe discoursedynamics, pushing the teacher to
make explicit and to justify her own position.
What can be seenwith this example is that there are many ways of responding
to a question, and that studentsare able to take advantageof that ambiguity in the
146 CANDELA

teacher’s discourse to make contributions that may counter the teachers’ orientation.
The children negotiate their versions, reasoning about the possible answers even
within the bounds of an IRE discourse structure, and being able, at the same time, to
reject the teacher’s orientation. That is to say, sometimes they follow the IRE struc-
ture, but in a sophisticated way that takes advantage of its functional ambiguity,
which enables them to avoid complying with the teacher’s implied preference.
In line 157, the boy openly rejects the teacher’s assertion (of line 155) on a
discursive action that plays an evaluative function. This move made by a student
in order to defend his version not only implies negotiation of the different propo-
sitions under discussion, but also negotiation in spite of the teacher’s position of
power and her control of the discourse sequencing patterns. It is interesting to
notice that the child appropriates the same argument used by the teacher against
lead, and uses it against steel. If classroom asymmetry is based on the teacher
being the one who knows, while the students do not know, in this example some
students seem to question that asymmetry by not following the teacher’s request
to change their answers.
Even when student participation is not so active, they do not always accept the
teacher’s version. There are also situations where the students openly give an
answer that is contrary to what the teacher explicitly demands. The next extract is
part of a 5th grade class following the textbook lesson on combustion. Before the
selected sequence, the group has discussed the importance of fire in the history of
humanity. Later the teacher comments on the role of friction in the production of
heat. Then a few activities that are proposed in the text are carried out, such as an
experiment to see “WHAT:: does fire produce apart from light and heat?”
Children observe a glass that covers a lit candle and follow the teacher’s ques-
tions that attempt to guide them to the conclusion that water is produced during
the combustion. The dominant structure of this part of classroom discourse is that
of IRE as it is oriented by the teacher and followed by the students. The last part
of the lesson is another experimental activity in which the teacher asked the chil-
dren to see the difference between lime water put in a glass with recently burned
cotton, and lime water in another glass where there is a piece of cotton which has
not been burned. In this case, the teacher not only suggested an answer by various
implicit discursive mechanisms, but he directly said that they should see the dif-
ference between more and less transparent water. He was just requesting confir-
mation of this fact from the students. Nevertheless, throughout a sequence of 73
lines in which the teacher insisted that they should see the difference, he got
responses from only five students. Everyone denied that they could see what he
suggested they should see.

Extract 2:
918 * ((The teucher is preparing the two glasses with lime water; one
919 * with a piece of burned cotton and the other with an unburnt
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 147

920 * one. Lots of pupils are joking amongst themselves))

921 * T: oka::y (2) let’s see now the difference between
922 these ~ lime waters (.) oka:y? (3) THIS IS SO THAT
923 you do not say that the cotton is faded (.)
924 that the cotton (.) made (.) the lime water ge::t
925 milky but that it was only the combustion consecuence (0.2)
926 “on this pla::ce (5)
927 = > Bj: IT IS NOT SEEN::::
928 Ch: he:: he::
929 T: on this side7 (.) the lime water is almost
930 transparent (2) isn’t it Javier?
931 => B: not:::
932 T: [and on this other side it looks whiter (2)
933 in spite of having [pieces of burned paper (2)
934 and let’s=
935 * =>B: [I can not see it teacher
936 * ((there are several incomprehensible comments but
937 * the teacher doesn ‘t stop speaking))
938 * T: =pass by your places so you can see it (2) do you?
939 * let’s put in here (2) a bit more lime water (0.4)
940 * tha::t’s it (.) let’s pass by here (2) & you
941 ** seen it? (.) here it looks a little
942 ** >whiter< (.) the water that is here still
943 ** looks transparent (5)
944 ** ((lots of children’s comments in quiet voices))
945 ** T: look at it both of you (.) have you both seen it?
946 ** => B: no
941 ** T: ye::s look here it looks whi::ter and here it
948 ** still looks almost transparent (.) as we prepared it from
949 ** the beginning (.) isn’t it Maricela? (2) “SIMON
950 ** (.) KEEP QUIET (.) WILLYOU? (.) please (.) have
951 ** you seen (.) on this side (.) it looks whia
952 ** the water is m like milk than in this other
953 ** one, in this one it is completely transparent as
954 ** when we w (3) have you seen? (5) this one
955 ** is clearer isn’t it?
956 ** => G: ‘no’ ((lots of pupils, speaking quietly))
957 ** T: “‘scuse me (3) I’ll drop it”
958 ** ((the teacher has been lowering his tone))
959 * T: Omore transparent” have you seen in this side ((glass))? (6)
960 * => B: ‘oh:: how ugly”
961 * T: “have you seen it?” ((he is saying the same in
962 * turn to each boy and girl around the classroom but
963 * they only look at it without saying anything))
964 T: “this water looks more transparent than the one on
148 CANDELA

965 this other side ((glass)), on this side it looks more

966 transparent’ (2) Ahave you already seen that on
967 this side it looks more transparent than on this
968 other one? (.) “well it is because it has carbon
969 dioxide that has been mixed (.) on this glass it
970 i::s more transparent than on this other and on
971 this one it has more gases/is it? do we all
972 agree? (.) look this one’s more transparent (.)
973 isn’t it? without color and this one i::s whiter
974 “have you seen it yet? (4) are you 1oo::king at
975 it? (2) Ta:nia? (2) on this side it is m
976 and on this side it has less colour it is more
977 transparent (2) isn’t it? (2) /we::ll(.) “WELL
978 just a moment before on page number one hundred
979 and thirteen of your textbook (.) it clearly says
980 tha:t (2) this solution is called & water
981 “pay attention! (.) Maricela! (5) on page one
982 hundred and thirteen it says that this solution is
983 called lime water and it turns mi::lky (2) when
984 it mixes with carbon dioxide “that is an
985 inmle gas (.) carbon dioxide can not be seen

Extract0 2:
918 * ((el maestro echa agua de cal en dos vasos, uno con un algodo’n
919 * quemado y otro sin quemal: Muchos niAos bromean entre ellos))
920 * MO: y ahora si:: (2) vamos a ver que diferencia hay
921 entre las & aguas de Cal(.) si? (3) EST0 ES
922 para que no digan ustedes que el algodon se
923 de:spi:nto:: (.) que el algodon (.) hizo (.) que
924 el agua de cat se pusiera::: lechosa sino que fue
925 exclusivamente la combusti6n (2) “de este lado::
926 (5)
927 => Aoj: NO SE VE::::
928 As: je:: je::
929 MO: de este lado (.) esta casi transparente el agua de
930 cal Javier (2) si:?
931 => Aoj: no[::::
932 MO: [y de este lado se ve mas blanco (2) a pesar de
933 que tie[ne pedazos de papel quemado (2) y vamos a
934 =>* Ao: [yo no veo maestro
935 * ((hay otros comentarios incomprensibles pero el maestro
936 * no deja de hablar))
937 * MO: pasar por sus lugares para que 10s vean (2) si?
938 * vamos a poner aqui (2) un poquito m&s de agua de
939 * cal (4) ahi esta::: vamos (.) a pasar por aca
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 149

940 * (2) m vieron? (.) aqui se ve un poquito >mas

941 * blanca< el agua que aqui (2) aqui se ve todavia
942 * transparente (5)
943 * ((hay muchos comentarios de 10s nifios pet-o en voz muy
944 * baj4)
945 * MO: veanlo 10s dos (.) ya lo vieron 10s do::s?
946 =>* Ao: no
947 * MO: si: mira aqui se ve mas blanca:: y aqui se ve casi
948 * transparente todavia (.) coma la hicimos en un
949 * principio (.) si Maricela? (2) “SIMON (.) GUARDEN
950 * SILENCIO SI? por favor(.) ya viste::? (.) de este
951 * lado (.) se ve m8:s blanca el agua &s 1echo::sa
952 * que de este lado, de este lado esta completamente
953 * transparente coma cuando cornen= (3) ya vieron?
954 * (5) esta mas Clara C:sta verda::d?
955 =>* Aa: ‘no’ ((muchos nifios hablan pero en voz baja y no
956 * se entiende))
957 * MO: “mande? (3) se va a caer” ((hablan muchos en tono
958 * bajo, el maestro tambidn bajd notablemente el tono))
959 MO: ‘mas transparente ‘ya vieron que de este lade?(6)
960 Ao: ‘ay que fee”
961 MO: Oya vieron?” ((va diciendo a cada nifio o nifia
962 per0 ellos sdlo miran y no contestan nada))
963 MO: ‘esta agua se ve mas transparente que de este
964 lado, de Bste se ve m&s transparente’ (2) “ya
965 vieron que de este lado se ve mas transparente que
966 de Cste? (.) “bueno es que tiene bioxido de
967 &bono que se mezcl6 (.) de este lado esta:: mas
968 transparente que de Bste y de Cste tiene mas
969 gases /si? estamos de acuerdo?, vean Csta que
970 esta mas transparente (.) esta casi blanca y Csta
971 esm un poquito m&s, est& transparente si? sin
972 color y Csta estk: mas bca A~ vieron? (4) si
913 estan viendo:? (2) Tania:? (2) de este lado
974 esta: mas blanca y de este lado tiene menos color
975 esta:: m&s transparente (2) sf:::? (2) /bue:::no
976 (.) “BUENO hate un mome::nto en su 1i::bro en la
977 pagina numero cientotre::ce (.) dice claramente
978 que: (2) esta solution se llama agua de d
979 “pongan atenci&! (.) Maricela! (5) en la pagina
980 cientotrece dice %sta soluci6n se llama agua de
981 cal y se pone 1echo::sa (2) cuando se mezcla con
982 bi6xido de carbon0 “que es un gas invi&& (.)
983 el bi6xido de carbon0 no se ve
150 CANDELA

Throughout this sequence there was a constant confrontation between two

versions of “what can be seen” in the experimental activity. The teacher asks
questions from the beginning to the end of the sequence requesting the children
to confirm what he says: “on this side ((glass)) the lime water is more trans-
parent.” The students begin to intervene saying that “IT IS NOT SEEN::::”
what the teacher says it can be seen. The children’s responses became lower in
tone, but they keep on denying that they can see a difference between the two
glasses of lime water (no[:::; [I can not see it teacher; no; “no’; ‘oh:: how
ugly”). From turns 934 to 958 the students give few answers in the public dis-
course of the classroom, and they increase their private comments. A raising mur-
mur dominates the classroom. Finally, in lines 961 to 983, the students stop
talking among themselves, but they also stop responding to the direct, indirect,
personal, or group questions that the teacher insistently asks. There are several
pauses (from one to five seconds) after the teacher questions that usually function
as a demand for an answer, but the children refuse to respond.
We can then say that the students produce three types of answers to the
teacher’s questions in this sequence:

1. verbal denial of the requested answer, gradually lowering their voices;

2. use of whispering as a form of resistance and refusal to participate in the
public space;
3. silence as a response to requests for participation.

According to preference structure norms, the three kinds of responses can be

seen as forms of denials, of the orientation that the teacher tries to give to the
content of the discourse. In the first one, the IRE structure is maintained but
the teacher does not control the content of students’ answers. In the other two
cases the teacher is the only one who participates in public interaction of the
class, even though he is asking for the students’ confirmation of his assertions. As
a form of discursive disengagement, the children direct their comments to the pri-
vate space of peer communication, leaving the teacher out.
The absence of response is a form of denial according to the rules of prefer-
ence structure. In spite of the idea that whoever has the floor is in power, this
example clearly shows that the teacher seems to have the floor but is far from
controlling the students’ discourse. Refusing to follow the teacher’s orientations
concerning the content of their answers and resisting the appeal to participate
seem to be ways for the students to exercise a certain power. The teacher needs
the collaboration of the children to carry out his work, and to maintain the class-
room communication (Mercado, 1991). If the students refuse to participate, his
power is broken down, and he is left alone. With this collective move, children
invest themselves with the power to influence discourse dynamics in the class-
room. A refusal to participate, as a form of resistance (Erickson, 1986; Rockwell,
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 151

1987), modifies the asymmetry that gives the teacher the power to determine the
orientation of students’ discursive interventions. The teacher, with all of his insti-
tutional power, cannot use it to control students if they refuse to accept it and to
follow his indications.
In these examples we see that an IRE discourse structure where the teacher
is the questioner, the students answer, and the teacher evaluates, does not guar-
antee the teacher’s control over classroom discourse, since the content of the
children’s responses (whether verbal or non-verbal) may not correspond to
what the teacher is evidently trying to obtain. Therefore, even in IRE exchanges
where the teacher is in the position of being the questioner and the evaluator,
one cannot be sure that the children’s ideas will be inhibited, and that the teacher
is in control of children’s knowledge.

Students as Evaluators of Classroom Knowledge

In class, students do not just express their versions and their judgments and
defend them. They also provide evaluations of other’s contributions, the teacher’s
included. On some occasions these evaluative interventions are individual, but in
other cases classroom discourse is conducted within a constant background of
group comments that play an important part as a social evaluation of the ongoing
interventions. The last line of extract 1 (NEITHER DOES STEEL) is a good
example of a student’s evaluation of the teacher’s version. The next extract is
taken from another 5th grade class, where the children are also asked to make a
list of ten different substances in a descending order of density. This is the same
activity as that of extract 1, but in another group, with a male teacher. The stu-
dents had a debate about the first material of the list and then the teacher inter-
vened in a conclusive manner:

Extract 3:
55 * T: OK (2) let’sput iron (.) basedon the
56 majorityopinion,laterwe’ll continuethe list=
57 = > B: =how canwe knowif now it’s:: right?
58 T: let’ssee(2) canyou comeup Ruben(.) to put
59 the secondone?

Extract0 3:
55 * MO: bueno(2) pongamos el fierro (.) por mayoria
56 deopiniones,luegovamosa hater unalista=
57 = > Ao: =cbmo vamosa sabersi ya es&?:bien?
58 MO: a ver (2) t6 Rubentli pasas(.) a ponerla
59 segunda?

In this casethere is an interesting question of a child who not only rejects the
teacher’s statementby not producing an explicit acceptance(Pomerantz, 1984),
152 CANDELA

but who also openly expresses his doubts about its correctness, even when the
teacher provides an account for it with the majority opinion’s argument. The stu-
dent asks for a criterion to validate or refuse the teacher’s version, implicitly
questioning the teacher’s position as the one who knows and therefore as the one
who is in control of the academic content of the lesson. indirectly he is also ques-
tioning the criterion of majority of opinions, which the teacher has used as a justifi-
cation of the legitimacy of his version. With this question, the boy also sets himself
up as one who can request accounts, a position that is generally reserved for the
teacher. This interesting question casts doubts on Cazden’s (1986) claim that stu-
dents only ask questions on procedures.* The teacher in this example does not give
any attention to this intervention and thus constructs the child’s intervention as
inconvenient or inadequate. The teacher’s turn (lines 58-59) is also a manifestation
of a refusal to give the control of the next turn to the student (SacksJ992).
The question on line 57 seems to be another example of the existence of cer-
tain moments when the students show, by their ways of intervening, that they do
not necessarily accept the teacher’s control and the implied role of being igno-
rants. They present themselves as having knowledge of the topic and a right to
defend a different position by not accepting the teacher’s version.
The following example, taken from the first class on gravity in another 5th
grade group, illustrates the relevant collective evaluative participation of the stu-
dents in classroom discourse and the importance they attach to the opinion of
their peers. This sequence starts with the teacher’s questions and the students’
answers, and then proceeds to reading the textbook.

Extract 4:
1 T: OKAY (.) do you knowwho investigatedall this
2 aboutavity? or who gaveusall
3 thisof whatgravity is?
4 B: [no::
5 G: [whenChristopher[Colombu:::straveled
6 Ch: [Bu:::::
7 ((lots of children shout makingfin of her))
8 T: let’s see,tell us,we aregoingto seeif it
9 is right (2) whenChristopherColombus
10 traveled(.) whatelse? (7)
11 ((the girl doesn ‘t say anything))
12 T: gravity , or the termgravity (.) wasproposedby
13 (4) ((she takes the textbook and reads it
14 silently for some seconds))
1.5 T: he wasan Englishman ca:lle:d(4)
16 ((she writes Isaac on the blackboard))
17 G: 1saa::::c ((reading from the blackboard))
18 ‘I? Isaac Newton (2) they tell (2) who knows if
19 it’s true (.) that mister Newton was in the
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 153

20 countryside (3) ({children at the back of the

21 toom can be heard talking))
22 T: do you already know the story?
23 G,,: he said that the Earth [was round
24 => Ch: [Bu:::::: ((makingfun))
25 => B: [Norma does know the sto::ry
26 G: [Norma
27 T: Norma (.) tell us
28 ((Norma doesn ‘t says anything))
29 Ch: she says that an apple fell down on him
30 ((children adjacent to Norma))
31 T: while in the countryside Newton saw an apple
32 fall down from a tree (3) he asks himself
33 why when the apple is separated from the tree it
34 falls down to the ground instead of flying oft?
35 (children laugh))
36 T: (2) he found in his research, that it was
37 because a force acting at a distance, that is called
38 gravity attracts everything to the Earth’s
39 center ((teacher asks children to take out their textbook to read about
gravity)).

Extract0 4:
1 Ma: BUENO (.) y saben ustedes quien investig6 todo eso
2 de la graveda::d ?, o quien nos di6 Csto de lo
3 que es la gravedad?
4 Ao: [no:::
5 Aa: [cuando viajo Cristobal Col6:::n
6 => As: Oa::::h!
7 ((muchos niiios y niiias comentan en tono de but-la))
8 Ma: a ver, cuentanos, a ver si esta bien (2)
9 cuando viaj6 Cristobal Colon (.) qut? (7)
10 Aa: ((se queda callada))
11 Ma: la gravedad, o el termino gravedad, lo expuso
12 (4) ((toma el Libro de Text0 y lee unos segundos en silencio))
13 Ma: era un ingles que se 1la:ma:ba: (4)
14 ((escribe Issac en el pizarrdn))
15 Aa: 1ssa::::c ((leyendo en el pizarrdn))
16 Ma: Issac Newton (2) c&tan (2)
17 quien sabe si sea cierto (.)
18 que el seiior Newton estaba en el campo (3)
19 ((Se oye hablar a varios alumnos en la parte de at&))
20 Ma: ya saben la historia?
21 Aa,,: Cl decia que la Tierra era redonda...
22 => As: Oa::::::h!
23 => Ao: [Norma si sabe la histo::ria
154 CANDELA

24 Aa: [Norma
2.5 Ma: Norma (Au,,) cuentanos
26 Aa,,:((Se quedu cullada))
27 > As: ella dijo que se le cay6 una manzana
28 ((dicen ins vecinos de Aa23))
29 Ma: Newton estaba en el campo y vio que una manzana
30 caia de un arbol...se pregunto ipor quC al
31 desprenderse la manzana cae el suelo y no se va
32 volando?
33 ((algunos Aos se rien))
34 Ma: ...en su investigation Cl sac6 que eso era por una
3.5 fuerza a distancia que se llama fuerza de gravedad
36 y que va a estar atrayendo todas las cosas hacia
37 el centro de la Tierra.

The teacher’s first question (lines 1, 2, and 3) has two overlapping answers.
One is a “no” and the other is a comment from a girl about the voyage of Christo-
pher Columbus (line 5). But in line 6, several studentsinterrupt the girl with a
joking chorus of “Bu::::::.” This gibe at the girl’s answer, clearly evaluative,
results in the girl’s stopping what she was going to say. The students’ chorus
functioned interactionally asa negative evaluation, as a refusal.
Nonetheless,the teacher’sfollowing turn is a positive evaluation, revoicing the
girl intervention, trying to encourage her to continue and even making it clear
that shewill be evaluated when shefinishesher version (Let’s see,tell us, we are
going to seeif it is right (2) when Christopher Colombus traveled (.) what
else? (7)). This intervention by the teacher also rejects the comments from the
rest of the group that made the girl interrupt herself. That is to say, the teacher
also takes the childish joking comment as a denial, and works to counteract it
with a positive evaluation and encouragement.It is interesting to note then that in
this casethere are two evaluations on the girl’s intervention, and that thesecom-
pete becausethey have opposite orientations.
Nevertheless,in spite of the encouragementfrom the teacher for her to com-
plete her unfinished sentence, and a long pause of 7 seconds, the girl refuses to
continue her intervention. In this casesilence also seemsto be a way for the girl
to reject the teacher’sinsistenceon her participating. Between the negative evalu-
ation of her peersand the positive encouragementfrom the teacher,the girl seems
to act discursively by giving more power to her peers.That is to say, the collec-
tive responseof her peershasmore interactional potency than the teacher’sopin-
ion. So it seemsthat there is an asymmetry in favor of the social consensus
amongstpupils, whose influence on the discursive dynamic seemsto be stronger,
at least in this case,than the teacher’sorientation.
In line 24 the studentsagain collectively evaluate the intervention of another
girl by mocking her.
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 155

22 T: do you alreadyknow the story?

23 G,,: he saidthat theEarth [wasround
24 => Ch: [Bu:::::: ((makingfun))

This interactionally negative evaluation also leads this other girl to interrupt
herself. But also at this point the studentsnot only refuse the intervention of G,,,
but immediately after, in line 25, they proposea different girl’s (Norma’s) answer
as adequate.

24 => Ch: [Bu:::::: ((making fun))

25 => B: [Normadoesknow the sto::ry
26 G: [Norma
27 T: Norma(.) tell us
28 ((Norma doesn’t says anything))
29 Ch: shesaysthat anapplefell downon him
30 ((children adjacent to Norma))

That is, the children, as a group, may reject (interactionally) an answer and
propose another, with no intervention by the teacher. The students ask for
Norma’s private comment to be socially and publicly legitimized. Faced with
Norma’s refusal to participate, the children socially revoice the girl’s private
comment, and say out loud what shesays asa whisper. The teacher also picks up
on the students’orientation and invites Norma to openly participate.
Theseinterventions by the children in lines 25, 26, and 29 correspondto a dis-
cursive phenomenon studied by Shiffrin (1993), that of speaking for another.
Shiffrin finds that this interactive move may have a negative meaning, as occurs
in butting in, or denying someonetheir proper place. But it may alsohave a posi-
tive influence asa reinforcement for the other person,by indicating that his or her
position is shared.In this casethe students,in addition to sharing Norma’s posi-
tion, keep Norma in the main interactional slot, respecting her rights asthe origi-
nal source of the idea by mentioning her in each intervention. Shiffrin finds that
this move of speakingfor another producesrealignmentsin the way participants
relate to eachother. In this case,it seemsthat the students,by promoting Norma’s
private comment to the public arena,jointly endorsethat version as though say-
ing that they know “the stories” as well.
In this section I have shown that studentsparticipate by evaluating their peers
and the teacher’sversions (by displaying approvalsas well asdenials). Repeated
negative evaluationsby the studentscan force the teacher to justify her idea or to
develop better argumentsto convince the students.This situation placesthe stu-
dents in control of turn-taking. But the children also evaluate themselvesand
their peers,sometimeseven in opposition to the teacher’sevaluations.Also it can
be seenin the analysis that theseinterventions sometimeshave even more influ-
ence on the next turn than the teacher’s orientation. When we examine the fine
156 CANDELA

detail of recorded interaction, we find that the students’ can influence the dis-
course content, and the person who may participate in next turn, and thus gain
some power over the process of classroom talk.

DISCUSSION
This study shows that students’ participation in classroom discourse is active and
complex and does not always follow the teacher’s attempts to control discourse
content. The analysis shows the importance of the students’ interventions, and
their influence on the discursive dynamics in the classroom. Some reflections can
be made about the construction of local power in the examples I have analyzed.
I have shown that students can break away from the teacher’s control even
when the discursive structure has the IRE form. They do this by denying the
teacher’s orientation, by refusing to participate, or by defending alternative ver-
sions of particular topics. In their responses, the children make use of their rela-
tive autonomy to decide whether or not they follow teacher’s orientation,
depending on the academic task and their opinion about the specific topic content
they are working on. When the answers to the teacher’s questions do not follow
the teacher’s orientation, the teacher maintains the position of the one that make
the questions in the IRE structure but he/she cannot control the content of the stu-
dents interventions.
There are also various examples of situations where the IRE form is main-
tained but the students take the role of asking evaluative questions and of evaluat-
ing others’ turns, thus reversing interactive roles. In the process, they appropriate
those functions through which the teachers develop their power to influence the
discourse of others. Children evaluate previous turns of the teacher and peers,
individual versions, and collective positions. They can do so either individually
or collectively. With these interventions, they are able to confront institutional
authority. Students’ evaluations create new conditions of relevance for the fol-
lowing turns. When their evaluations take the form of collective utterances,
which are presented as a social consensus, they can have an even greater influ-
ence on next turn than the teacher’s orientation. In these cases, the power asym-
metry shifts over to the students’ side, as they manage to alter the roles and local
relationships. Hence, it seems that with some of their interventions the students
influence, and even control, the dynamic of the classroom interaction.
Nevertheless, this discursive orientation of the children does not seem to be a
resistance to learning, as this has been defined by some authors (Alpert, 1991;
Erickson, 1986; Willis, 1976). Before the activity described in extract 2 the class
did an experiment to see the production of water during combustion. During this
sequence, the students followed the teacher’s instructions and content interpreta-
tions. Only later, when they are faced with the next activity (extract 2), was there
a general refusal to accept the observation that the teacher wanted them to
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 157

uphold. It can be inferred that the students’ resistance indicates a disagreement

with the teacher’s version of what is being seen in the experiment, not a resis-
tance to learning. This interpretation can only be arrived at by looking at the con-
text of the extract 2, that is, the rest of the interaction during the lesson. This is an
example of the importance of a bigger context than the extract to interpret the
participants interventions given by an ethnographic approach (Candela, 1997b).
The interventions of the students, and their silence, also act upon the accumu-
lating context of interaction, generating a more or a less argumentative dynamic
(Candela, 1997a) or constructing an alternative consensus, against the teacher’s
version (Candela, 1995). By these discursive actions they can redefine the local
power relations in classroom discourse .
Students, usually considered in a typically dominated role, use strategies to
contest, dispute and resist the role assigned to them. They are active and compe-
tent communicators who use the available resources of discourse. Some of the
devices that the students use to defend their positions are: (1) the ability to deal
with the functional or interactional ambiguity inherent in discourse; (2) the argu-
mentation in favour of their points of view; (3) the appropriation of the teacher’s
resources and arguments to reject non shared options; (4) the use of preference
structure mechanisms for indirectly rejecting versions they do not share; (5) the
refusal to express their points of view in public (murmuring, silence, or making pri-
vate side comments); (6) the direct expression of a content openly different from
what is asked for; and (7) the evaluation of other versions even speaking for others.
With these discursive actions, the students negotiate their social role. The chil-
dren indexically display themselves as having knowledge of the academic content
and as competent communicators because they can appropriate and use alternative
discursive devices to defend their points of view in the interaction with teachers.
They can even perform the pedagogic functions of rejecting some versions and
reinforcing others by speaking for others. Teachers sometimes accept and occa-
sionally even encourage this behavior.
These results also question the generality of the conclusions of many studies
that have established the prevalence of teacher’s power in the classroom by stat-
ing that: (a) the students do not know; (b) the teacher is the only one that has the
right to control the speech of the other participants; and (c) the teacher is the only
one that asks questions and evaluates responses. From the previous examples, it
can be seen that when the students get more engaged with the academic task,
their participation in knowledge construction is more active and they can manage
to make various discourse “moves” to use their power and wield it.
These results suggest the dependence of the social participation structure on
the relevance that for the participants have the content of the academic task.
Erickson (1982, p. 156) stated the importance of combining aspects of social and
academic organization in the study of lessons. My work in this paper shows that
the social participation dynamics do not only depend on the different interac-
158 CANDELA

tional signals (as discourse timing, rhythm, intensity tone, emphasis, or sequen-
cial positioning) and on the various contextualizing cues (Gumpertz, 1977). I
have shown an important influence of the content significance for the partici-
pants, over the social structure of participation. This relation has not been well
studied, thus this work tries to make a contribution in this point.
The fact that students influence discourse does not mean that comments by
teachers are equivalent in status to those of students. It can be seen, for example,
that the teachers’ refusals make some students correct their position in the fol-
lowing turn, while student refusals do not generally modify the teacher’s version.
Nevertheless, on occasions, pupils comments do make teachers justify them-
selves, or lead them to use alternative devices in order to be convincing. How-
ever, teachers usually maintain the initiative in stating discourse topics, setting
the structure for the task, and evaluating the interventions of the children. Only in
some cases do students act on their own initiative, and only occasionally do they
evaluate the teachers’ interventions, although they evaluate the positions of their
peers more frequently. Teachers almost always ask questions, and frequently
‘know’ the answers, while when students ask questions they do not usually know
the answers.9
An asymmetry exists, but this asymmetry is continuously being negotiated,
reinforced, manipulated or even inverted rather than merely being imposed or
denied. Even when the teacher guides the classroom discourse the children are
not subordinated to him/her. I have assumed that power is not only coercion, but
is rather the competence to make other participants accept one’s own version and
to orient the discourse dynamics. This local power can be based on teachers’
interventions or on students’ turns, even when the students do not answer.
In the examples I analyzed, there is no struggle to displace the main power,
but there is a negotiation between different versions of knowledge that empowers
to those participants who manage to influence in the next turns and eventually
to construct a consensual position in the class. So, I found that local power is
constructed around a real interest in knowledge, a collective commitment to try
to understand. Students do not show a resistance to learning. They resist to
accept some versions that they do not share or those orientations that are not
convincing for them.
The appropriation that students make of the terminology of scientific knowledge
and of discursive resources while arguing in favor of their own versions casts doubt
upon the statement made by Wertsch (1991, p. 138) that scientific language, official
science in the classroom, leads to the use of forms of speech that imply patterns of
privilege and of reproduction of cultural capital, in a Bernstenian sense. This did not
happen with these children even though they were from a disadvantaged environ-
ment, where it can be assumed that there was little familiarity with scientific culture.
From the analyses carried out it can be said that the asymmetry of power in the
classroom seems to appear on two levels:
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 159

1. On the one hand, there is a pre-defined institutional asymmetry because the

teacher has, in principle, legitimate knowledge, and has to transmit it. This
institutional power has an influence such that teachers have the role of guid-
ing, organizing, and orienting school tasks. This almost fixed power is recog-
nized and attended to by the students themselves, who may insist it be held to
when teachers themselves depart from it (Candela, 1995). Institutional power
is not sufficient to explain the social relations within the classroom because it
does not take into account the dynamic features of the interaction.
2. On the other hand, there is an asymmetry that is built up and defined in
the turn-by-turn detail of classroom talk, in which the power to influence
next turns is an endemic feature of any turn at talk, such that both dis-
course dynamics and context are modified and negotiated between teacher
and students. Hence, the students can make use of this sort of local power
in some interactional settings.

Both asymmetries are displayed in discursive interaction. In the discursive

dynamic, the local power is constantly renegotiated and rebuilt in terms of the
relationship of the participants to the shared academic task. The participants’
role is also renegotiated in classroom interaction. It can be said that, for the
participants in classroom interaction, the control and asymmetries of power
seem to be a matter of constant redefinition. Learners sometimes wield local
power, although this does not necessarily occur in all situations, nor in the
interaction with all students.
I can conclude, with Diamond (1996, p. 12), that there is an ethical and socio-
politic importance of studies that focus on the “dominated” participants in interaction
because they reveal their communicative competence and their discursive creativity
and ability to influence next turns. Just Labov discovered the richness and creativ-
ity of Black English, previously considered as deficient, careful discourse analysis
from the children’s perspective can show that students, previously considered subor-
dinated, are communicatively competent to defend their own version even against
the teacher’s position. They are able to influence other interventions and even deter-
mine their own roles in the discursive interactional dynamics of the classroom.
Following the ideas express by Erickson (1982, p. 165), the examples analyzed
in this paper casts doubt upon the social or psychological determinism that leave
no room for human choice out of the determinism of social, cultural, and psycho-
logical theories. In these cases, I have shown the significant place students have
to decide the orientation of their participation. On the other hand, the students’
participation cannot be either understood by the position of radical contextualism
where the inmediately local circumstances of production (as previous turns) can
completely determine their orientation. The students manage to find alternatives
to teacher’s orientation, even following the turn-taking rules, when they have dif-
ferent opinions on the academic topics.
100 CANDELA

Looking at the methodological and theoretical reflections, this study also sug-
gest that question rules (Sacks, 1992), preference structure, and adjacency pairs
(Pomerantz, 1984; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) operate in a more gen-
eral way in the classroom than the IRE structure, as well as subsuming patterns
such as the IRE structure to more familiar patterns of everyday talk. This could
be an evidence that claims about differences between school and everyday dis-
course have been exaggerated (Bernstein, 1981; Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Coul-
thard, 1975). From the analyses I can also say that the discourse structure (IRE in
this case) does not define who is in control of classroom interaction.
A point can be raised about the differences between results such as these that
show significant student participation in classroom discourse, and those of the
previous studies (Cazden, 1986). Some researchers claim that the more active and
powerful participation of children in classroom discourse is a consequence of
changes in teachers’ style of instruction (Erickson, 1996). Another explanation
may be that students’ active interventions have always been part of normal inter-
action, but that only now can we appreciate them, given the maturity of the
research field and the Vygotskian theoretical approach (Erickson, 1996). Another
hypothesis is that differences may come from cultural influences on the everyday
practices of teachers. I also want to emphasize the importance of the theoretical
and methodological approach to be able to appreciate the complex processes that
take place in the interaction. The potentiality of the conversational analytical
tools, as the preference structure, combined with the ethnographic perspective
that allows to have a bigger context than the extract, for the interpretation of the
participants’ interventions and the careful analysis of the academic content, dis-
play detail information about the classroom discourse that is not always taken
into account. Whatever the cause, I believe that this study has shown that it is
important to take the students’ perspective in studying classroom discourse and
also has shown the potentiality of the theoretical approach I have used.

NOTES
1. An earlier version of this paper was presented with the title “Discursive construction of power
in school practice” at the session “Discourse and school practices: Some issues and perspectives”
organized by Ana Luiza Smolka at the Fourth Congress of the International Society for Cultural
Research and Activity Theory held in Denmark, June 7-l 1, 1998. Important parts of the ideas and the
analysis are taken from research that I did in 1995 under the supervision of Derek Edwards entitled
“Rhetoric and discourse of students: Classroom science.” I thank him for his instructive and important
orientations. I thank my colleagues Ruth Mercado and Rupert Wegerif for their comments and spe-
cially Elsie Rockwell for her relevant observations. I also thank the anonymous reviewers for their
critical comments and their helpful opinions and orientations.
2. The IRE structure was described by Mehan (1979), and by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) in
the form of Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF). This postulation has had enormous influence on
later works in analysis of school discourse.
3. For Edwards and Mercer (1987), the teachers’ questions for which they already know the
answer is one of the characteristic ground rules of classroom discourse.
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLAS!%OOM DISCOURSE 161

4. Wells (1993) uses the IBP structure instead of the IBE to emphasize the feedback or follow
up function of the teacher’s intervention after an answer, instead of looking at it as an evaluation.
5. Some special transcript notation:
T: teacher
B: boy
G: girl
Ch: several children at the same time
A Marks rising shifts in intonation
/ Marks falling shifts in intonation
> Indicates significant utterance for the analysis
’ ’ Indicates a passage of talk quieter than the surrounding talk
CAPS Indicates a passage of talk louder than the surrounding talk
* Indicates background noise of children murmuring or talking to each other
** Indicates higher background noise
< > Indicates a passage of talk quicker than the surrounding talk
> < Indicates a passage of talk slower than the surrounding talk
(3) Indicates a silence pause of more or less 3 seconds
(.) Indicates a short untimed silence
[ Indicates the beginning of overlapping talk
:: Indicates elongated syllable
= Equal signs are latching symbols
Underlining shows vocal stress or syllable emphasis
(z Double parentheses enclose transcriber comments
,?. Indicates pitch level rather than sentence type
6. Schegloff (1984, p. 51) analyzes the problem of ambiguity proposing that “the finding that
the ‘same sentence’ or ‘same component’ can have ‘different meanings’ across the imagined range of
scenarios is the kernel of the problem of ambiguity.” He adds that “it is because actual participants in
actual conversations do not encounter utterances as isolated sentences, and because they do not
encounter them in a range of scenarios most theoretically or heuristically depictable ambiguities
do not ever arise.” The multi-party talk of a classroom allows the ambiguity to appear with excep-
tional clarity, where different functional meanings may be given to a certain phrase through its uptake
by different participants.
7. Each time the teacher says on this side, he is showing one glass and later he shows the other
glass trying to make visible the differences between the lime water of the two glasses.
8. Cazden (1986) summarizes children’s interventions is classroom discourse thus: ‘“The chil-
dren never give instructions to the teacher and seldom ask questions that do not refer to procedures or
authorizations. The only context in which they can switch interactive roles with the same intellectual
content, giving instructions as well as obeying them, and asking questions and answering them, is the
context of their classmates” (p. 670, emphasis added).
9. With the exception of those situations in which the students’ questions are used as a way of
refusing a version or a previous turn position, as I have shown some examples in this paper.

REFERENCES
Alpert, B. (1991). Students’ resistance in the classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22(4),
350-366.
Bernstein, B. (1981). Codes, modalities, and the process of cultural reproduction: A model. Language
in Society, 10,327-363.
Candela, A. (1993). La construction discursiva de la ciencia en el aula [The discursive construction of
classroom science]. Znvestigacidn en la Escuela, 21,31-39.
162 CANDELA

Candela, A. (1995). Consensus construction as a collective task in Mexican science classes. Anthro-
pology & Education Quarterly, 26(4), l-l I.
Candela, A. (1997a). The discursive construction of argumentative context in science classes. In C.
Coil & D. Edwards (Eds.), Teaching, learning and classroom discourse: Approaches to the
study ofeducational discourse. Madrid: Fundacion Infancia y Aprendizaje.
Candela, A. (1997b). Demonstrations and problem-solving exercises in school science: Their trans-
formation within the Mexican elementary school classroom. Science Education, 8I(5), 497-
515.
Candela. A. (1999). Ciencia on el aula: Los alumnos entre la argumentation y el consenso. [Class-
room science: The students, between argumentation and consensus] Mexico, Buenos Aires,
Barcelona: Paid&.
Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. E. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching.
New York: Macmillan.
Diamond, J. (1996). Status andpower in verbal interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (I 992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, A. D., & Furlong, V. J. (1978). The language of teachng. London: Heinemann.
Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the
classroom. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task
structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L. Ch. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communicar-
ing in the classroom. New York: Academic Press.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods of educational research. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.
Erickson, F. (1996). Going to the zone. In D. Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, [earning and schooling. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Green, J., & Dixon, C. (Ed.). (1993). T:;!lking knowledge into being: Discursive and social practices in
classroom. Special Issue: Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. Linguistics and Educa-
tion, 5(34), 231418.
Grimshaw, A. (Ed.). (1990). ConJict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversa-
tions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1977). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In M. Savilletroike (Ed.),
Linguistics nnd anthropology, Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Gutierrez, C. (1993). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: A cross-case compari-
son of journal sharing. Special Issue: Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. Linguistics
and Education, 5(34), 335-367.
Hicks, D. (Ed.). (1996). Discourse, learning and schooling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heras, A. 1. (1993). The construction of understanding in a sixth-grade bilingual classroom. Special
Issue: Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. Linguistics and Education, 5(34). 275-301.
Holt, J. (1969). Why children fail. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Leith, D., & Myerson, G. (1989). The power of address: Explorations on rhetoric. London: Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Markova, I., & Foppa, K. (Eds.). (1991). Asymmetries in dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. London: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Mercado, R. (1991). Saberes docentes en el trabajo cotidiano de 10s maestros. Infancia p Aprendizaje,
55,59-72.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispre-
ferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures ofsocial action, Mel-
bourn: Cambridge University Press.
 STUDENTS’ POWER IN CLASSROOM DISCOURSE 163

Rockwell, E. (1987). Reproduction y resistencia en el aula: La interpretation de la evidencia sociol-

ingtlistica [Reproduction and resistance in classroom: The interpretation of sociolinguistics
evidence]. Paper presented in the I Coloquio Mauricio Swadesh, Instituto de Investigaciones
Antropologicas UNAM.
Sacks, H. (1973). The preference for agreement in natural conversation. Paper presented at the Lin-
guistic Institute, Ann Arbor, MI.
Sacks, H. (1992). On questions. In G. Jefferson, (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation. Vol I. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of
turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50.596-735.
Schegloff, E. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson & .I.
Heritage, (Eds.), Srrucrures of Social Action. Melbourn: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk ar
work; Inreraction in instirurional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shiffrin, D. (1993). “Speaking for another” in sociolinguistic interviews: Alignments, identities and
frames. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis ofdiscourse: The English used by
teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activ-
ity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom. Linguisfics and
Education, 5, 1-37.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Willis, P. (1976). The class significance of counter school culture. In P. Woods & M. Hammersley
(Eds.), The process of schooling. London: The Open University Press.