Abstract
This study examined the nature of power manifestations in a specific online learning setting. The two online classes selected for this study were Master’s level courses in a professional school at a large state university in the United States. A total of 1340 postings were made in the two classes over the span of the semester. To test the research question, frequency analysis and the Mann-Whitney U test were conducted, using gender and race as the independent variables. The results of the study suggest the possibility that the online discussion environment attenuates the power of gender-based privilege and perhaps undercuts race privilege, even though there was an element of inequality based on power between the racial groups in an indication of power manifestations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brookfield, S. D. (2001). A political analysis of discussion groups: Can the circle be unbroken? In R. M. Cervero., A. L. Wilson., & Associates,Power in practice: The struggle for knowledge and power in society (pp. 206- 225). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (2000). The concept of critically reflective practice. In A. L. Wilson, & E. R. Hayes (Eds.),Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 33- 53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carli, L. L. (1990). Interpersonal relations and group processes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 941–951.
Cunningham, P. M. (2000). A sociology of adult education. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.),Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 573–591). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dellinger, B. (1995).Critical discourse analysis. Retrieved August 11, 2002, from http://users.utu.fi/bredelli/ cda.html
Dovidio, J. F., Ellyson, S. L., Keating, C. F., Heltman, K., & Brown, C. (1988). The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 233–242.
Fahy, P. J. (2002). Use of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers in a computer conference.The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(1), 5–22.
Fairclough, N. (1995).Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London/New York: Longman.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.),Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.
Grob, L. M., Meyers, R. A., & Schuh, R. (1997). Powerful/powerless language use in group interactions: Sex differences or similarities?Communication Quarterly, 45(3), 282–303.
Hart, M. (2001). Transforming boundaries of power in the classroom: Learning fromLa Mestiza. In R. M. Cervero., A. L. Wilson., & Associates,Power in practice: The struggle for knowledge and power in society (pp. 164–183). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jeris, L. (2001).Comparison of power relations within electronic and face-to-face classroom discussions: A case study. Paper presented at the 42th annual Adult Education Research Conference. East Lansing, MI. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://www. edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/2001/2001wilson.htm
Joyce, S. (2001). The creation of bent knowledge: How lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth negotiate and reconfigure homophobic and heterosexist discourse.Information Research, 6(2). Retrieved from http:// InformationR.net/ir/6-2/ws4.html
Jun, J., & Park, J. (2003). Power relations within online discussion context: Based on adult international students’ perspective and their participation in the learning context. In D. Flowers, A. Jalipa, M. Lee, E. Lopez, A. Schelstrate, & V. Sheared (Eds.),Proceedings of the 44th annual Adult Education Research Conference (AERC) (pp. 193–198). San Francisco: San Francisco State University.
Kollock, P., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1985). Sex and power in interaction: Conventional privilege and duties.American Sociological Review, 50, 34–46.
McAllister, C., & Ting, E. (2001).Analysis of discussion items by males and females in online college courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED458237).
Tisdell, E. J. (1993). Interlocking systems of power, privilege, and oppression in adult higher education classes.Adult Education Quarterly, 43(4), 204–226.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998).Critical discourse analysis. Retrieved October 11, 2002, from http://www. let.uva.nl/~teun/cda.htm
van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Discourse, power and access. In C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.),Text and practices (pp. 84–104). London: Routledge.
vanDijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis.Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283.
Williams, S. W., Watkins, K., Daley, B., Courtenay, B., Davis, M., & Dymock, D. (2001).Facilitating cross cultural online discussion groups: Issues and challenges. Paper presented at the 42th annual Adult Education Research Conference. East Lansing, Michigan. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/2001/2001wilson.htm
Wilson, A. L., & Cervero, R. M. (2001).Adult education and the struggle for knowledge and power: Practical action in a critical tradition. Paper presented at the 42nd annual Adult Education Research Conference. East Lansing, MI. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/2001/2001wilson.htm
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jun, J. Empirical manifestations of power among adult learners in online discussions. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 8, 374–385 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03026467
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03026467