The Power Game: Power Dynamics between the Teacher and the Students in a Graduate Seminar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated power relations in a graduate seminar on Literacy learning and knowledge acquisition. Three categories were examined in relation to ideological assumptions: students’ expectations, institution’s expectations, and teachers’ perceptions of their roles as guided by their teaching perspectives. The study aimed at identifying how those aspects shaped by ideological perspectives influenced the interviewed teachers’ viewpoints about power dynamics. It also addressed the dominance of the mainstream norms over those of the minority students coming from different cultures. The issue of voice in relation to diversity was discussed as an important factor that shaped power relations in classroom discourse. A critical perspective was adopted throughout the paper with the purpose of advocating a pedagogical stance that would encourage the empowerment of students and build upon their diversity. Through the study of field notes and audio tapes of interviews and classroom interactions, three main factors seemed to have contributed to teachers’ perceptions of power relations within classroom settings. The factors were: students’ expectations, institutions’ expectations, and teachers’ perceptions of their roles. Regarding issues of voice, participants seemed to have come to a consensus concerning reasons that might have led to persistence on teachers’ part to students’ conformity to mainstream norms, which they explained in terms of limitations in most teachers training in dealing with diversity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".