college students with learning disabilities (swld) and their responses to teacher power

This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 10 October 2014, At: 22:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

College Students with LearningDisabilities (SWLD) and Their Responsesto Teacher PowerDavid W. Worley & Myrna M. Cornett-DeVitoPublished online: 22 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: David W. Worley & Myrna M. Cornett-DeVito (2007) College Students withLearning Disabilities (SWLD) and Their Responses to Teacher Power, Communication Studies, 58:1,17-33, DOI: 10.1080/10510970601168665

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970601168665

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10510970601168665

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970601168665

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

College Students with LearningDisabilities (SWLD) and TheirResponses to Teacher PowerDavid W. Worley & Myrna M. Cornett-DeVito

The negotiation of classroom power continues to engage scholars given its considerable

impact upon pedagogical practice in the college=university classroom. As Sprague (1994)

points out, the issues surrounding classroom power are complex and important because

they impact the life of the classroom for both students and teachers. The complexity

and importance of this topic become even more profound when we include additional

variables such as learning disabilities. Prior research has focused on how students with

learning disabilities (SWLD) perceive competent and incompetent communication (see

Cornett-DeVito & Worley, 2005); these perceptions are likely, in large part, related to

how teachers of SWLD negotiate power.

While extant literature reports many challenges in communication between college

instructors and students (see Worley, 2000), and while persons with disabilities have

been traditionally perceived as citizens with less power and in need of protection, research

has yet to consider the specific issue of classroom power and SWLD. This article offers a

first step in consideration of this important issue by providing a review of power in the

classroom literature, a theoretic orientation for conceptualizing this research, as well as

a phenomenological investigation of student perceptions of teacher power.

Keywords: Learning Disabilities; Student Perceptions; Teacher Power

Introduction

Researchers have given considerable attention to the role of power in the classroom.

Specifically, since power is the potential or ability to influence the behavior of others

This manuscript was accepted by the previous editor, Professor Jim L. Query.

Paper presented at the 89th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, Miami, FL, November

22, 2003. Correspondence to: David W. Worley, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Communication, Department of

Communication, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809, U.S.A. Email: [email protected]

Communication Studies

Vol. 58, No. 1, March 2007, pp. 17–33

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2007 Central States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/10510970601168665

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

(Barraclough & Stewart 1992), researchers have considered both teachers and students use

of influence in the classroom. Our literature review centers, then, on these two foci. First,

we consider the seven germinal studies of power in the classroom. Thereafter, we review

studies related to this series and finally review the literature regarding student power.

Teacher Power

Power in the Classroom Studies

McCroskey, Richmond, and colleagues (1983) began a series of studies focused on

teacher and student perceptions of power and how these perceptions impact learning.

These studies (McCroskey & Richmond, 1983; Richmond & McCroskey, 1984)

employed the work of French and Raven’s (1968) typology of power and linked

power with cognitive and affective learning. Other studies (Kearney, Plax, Richmond

& McCroskey, 1984; McCroskey, Richmond, Plax & Kearney, 1985; Plax, Kearney,

McCroskey, & Richmond, 1986; Richmond, McCroskey, Kearney, & Plax, 1987)

focused on the development and use of behavior alteration techniques (BATs) and

behavior alternation messages (BAMs).

Other Related Studies: Critique and Extension

Critique

This series of studies spawned other studies, including Sprague’s (1990, 1992a, 1992b,

1993) critical critique of the epistemology and methodology represented in instruc-

tional communication literature, in general, and the ‘‘power studies’’, in particular,

along with Rodriquez and Cai’s (1994) subsequent response to Sprague. A series of

other authors also engaged this debate (see Burleson, Wilson, Waltman, Goering,

Ely, & Whaley, 1988; Kearney & Plax, 1997; Plax, Kearney, & Sorensen, 1990;

Sorensen, Plax, & Kearney, 1989; Waltman & Burleson, 1997a, 1997b).

Additionally, Simonds (1995, 1997) suggested a transactional, negotiated model of

classroom power. She argued that any challenge behavior served as an opportunity to

communicate expectations more clearly, rather than engage in conflict.

Extension

These seven studies then generated additional research focused on a variety of issues

related to power in the classroom, which cluster around two different themes. First,

Plax, Kearney, and Tucker (1986) and Roach (1991) focused on the level of teacher

experience and power. Second, a series of studies looked at other variables and tea-

cher power including teacher satisfaction (Plax, Kearney, & Downs, 1986), evaluators’

perceptions of the teachers’ use of power (Allen & Edwards, 1988), the use of power

at given points in a semester (Roach, 1994), and culture and power (Lu, 1997).

Student Power

To this point, we have reviewed literature that focuses on the teacher’s use of power.

However, students also possess and employ power, often thought of as student

18 D. W. Worley & M. M. Cornett-DeVito

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

resistance, which Burroughs, Kearney, and Plax (1989) note can be either construc-

tive or destructive.

Kearney and Plax (1992) summarize the student power literature very well by

noting ‘‘three major propositions’’ (p. 87):

(1) College students do resist. (2) Students rely on a diversity of techniques to resistteacher influence attempts. (3) Both the decision to resist and the strategiesstudents select depend on the attributions they make. (p. 87)

However, additional studies have added insight related to these three propositions,

which focus on students as active agents of persuasion who seek compliance, as well

as resist compliance.

Student Compliance-Resistance

First, students do, indeed, resist. This resistance results in different types of messages

(Burroughs et al.,1989) and is related to teacher immediacy (Kearney, Plax, Smith, &

Sorensen, 1988; Kearney, Plax, & Burroughs, 1991; Kearney, Plax, Hays, & Ivey,

1991).

Culture also impacts student compliance as Lee, Levine, and Cambra (1997)

report. Cooper and Simonds (2003) explain, ‘‘the power research reflects the assump-

tions of individualism’’ (p .237).

Student Compliance-Gaining

Although most of the literature regarding student power has focused on student resist-

ance, recent research has focused on students as agents of power. Golish (1999) and

Golish and Olson (2000) confirmed that although students did not typically attempt

to gain compliance from their teachers, they rely on specific strategies when doing so.

Although this review of literature provides important insights into the conceptual

and operational investigation of teacher and student power, in general, the signifi-

cance of teacher power with SWLD requires further investigation, given the distinc-

tive dynamics of this relationship (Field, Sarver, & Shaw, 2003; Heiman & Precel,

2003). Moreover, given that Braithwaite and Braithwaite (1997) argue that com-

munication of able-bodied persons and people with disabilities (PWD) is intercul-

tural communication, Orbe’s (1998) co-cultural theory provides an appropriate

framework for investigating power and PWD. The following section addresses this

framework.

Theoretic Framework

Orbe’s (1998) co-cultural theory provides an appropriate theoretic frame for inves-

tigating power as it relates specifically to SWLD particularly given that disabled iden-

tity likely stems ‘‘from the negative status imposed upon people’’ who are labeled

‘‘disabled’’ (Galvin, 2003, p.1). In other words, SWLD, as all PWD, inescapably face

social constructions of power, as Del Casino (2001) and Hayes and Black (2003)

SWLD and Their Responses 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

argue. Co-cultural theory provides a means of understanding the complex interaction

of culture, power, and communication within intergroup relationships by helping us

understand ways people who are traditionally marginalized in dominant societal

structures communicate in their everyday lives. Orbe (1998, 2000) acknowledges that

co-cultural theory is grounded in muted-group and standpoint theories and is

derived from the lived experience of a variety of nondominant groups, including

PWD. This theory is based on the assumption that co-cultural group members share

similar positioning that renders them marginalized within society (Orbe & Spellers,

2005). Consequently, they have to negotiate oppressive dominant cultural forces to

achieve any measure of ‘‘success’’ by adopting different communication orientations

in their everyday interactions. Co-cultural theory lends insight into how the co-

cultural persons negotiate their ‘‘differentness’’ and come to select how they are going

to interact with others; it is, thus, grounded in the lived experiences of the persons it

seeks to describe.

Co-cultural theory posits that co-cultural groups assume a particular stance or

communication orientation during their interactions with dominant societal struc-

tures. Ultimately, nine communication orientations result from the convergence of

six influence factors. As these factors converge, they give rise to three central

preferred outcomes: assimilation, accommodation, and separation, as well as nine

communication orientations.

SWLD are co-cultural persons faced with unique power dimensions as they inter-

act with their professors. Prior studies establish the difficulties SWLD face in

obtaining accommodation (Frymier & Wanzer, 2003; West, Kregel, Getzel, Zhu,

Ipsen, & Martin, 1993) as well as the fear, discomfort, and assertiveness required

to obtain accommodation (Hartman-Hall & Haaga, 2002; Lambeth, Heller, Boden,

& Markham, 2003; Norton, 1997; Thompson, 1982). In short, not only do SWLD

face the already existing power differential found in student-teacher relationships,

they face the additional challenges of negotiating the request for accommodation

that heightens and complicates this power differential.

Given the literature review, the theoretic framework, and the links with SWLD we

have provided, we seek to clarify and to build on previous research by asking the

following questions:

RQ1: How do SWLD perceive teachers’ use of power?RQ2: How do SWLD respond to teachers’ use of power?

Method

This study adopts a phenomenological method to research the lived experiences of

college students with learning disabilities, which is consistent with the method

employed in the development of Orbe’s co-cultural theory. Recently, scholars have

applied this method as an interpretive, descriptive approach to study communication

issues related to teaching and the intercultural communication dynamics associated

with countering dominant-based ideologies in the study of co-cultural communi-

cation (e.g., Orbe, 1994, 1998, 2000; van Manen, 1990).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Data Collection

Twenty-one undergraduate SWLD participated in a pilot study at one midsized and

one large Midwestern university. The students were selected according to a purpose-

ful maximum variation sampling method (see Patton, 2002, p. 235). Students came

from a diverse set of circumstances but were all undergraduates: 10 were traditional

(18–24 years old) and 11 were nontraditional (25 and older) students; 12 were

female, 9 were male, 18 were Anglo, 2 were Latino, and 1 was African American.

The sample size was based on maximizing information, and consequently, sampling

ended when ‘‘redundancy’’ was reached and no new information was surfacing

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). These students were contacted through the disability service

offices at both campuses and through faculty referral at one campus and were asked

to participate in a study that addressed the perceptions of competent and incom-

petent instructional communication and their responses to that communication.

They were also asked to meet with a researcher for a private, confidential interview

that would last approximately one hour. Subsequent to the individual interviews,

we invited a group of students to participate in a focus group in order to gather

additional data and to confirm our initial conclusions drawn from the individual

interviews.

The student narratives, which were collected over 15 months through in-depth

interviews and a focus group, allowed students to tell their stories in their own words

and to serve as capta for this study. This approach harmonizes well with Slota and

Martin’s (2003) call for a methodology that is sensitive to narratives of PWD. After

students signed informed consent forms, the investigating researcher employed a

topical protocol consisting of general, open-ended questions, which encouraged

participants to recount salient issues from their own experiences in a conversational

interview (see Patton, 2002; van Manen’s 1990).

In the conversations, we asked students to describe their earliest memories as they

became conscious that ‘‘something was different,’’ including when and if they were

formally diagnosed with a learning disability (LD), how their learning disability

impacted their educational experience, and the coping strategies they used (e.g.,

learning strategies). Our open-ended questions included the key component of

instructional critical incidents. Students were asked to describe from their own per-

spective self-selected past communication events of significance with college instruc-

tors. We finally asked students if they had any suggestions for training that would

improve instructor communication, or if there was anything else they would like

to add. In most cases these general open-ended questions evoked free-flowing

responses from the coresearchers, while we occasionally posed follow-up questions

to encourage greater detail or to clarify a response. The actual interviews lasted from

60–120 minutes and were conducted in either a private area of the student union or

in a classroom. All interviews were audio taped and transcribed and resulted in

251 pages of narrative capta. The primary researcher also maintained field notes.

We were especially interested in the critical incidents SWLD described of perceived

instructional communication competence or incompetence and their responses to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

those incidents. These interviews included clear references to teachers’ use of power,

as well as the students’ responses to the varied uses of power. These narratives

provide the data for this study.

Data Analysis

We analyzed the narratives of SWLD using analytic induction to derive emergent

themes. These themes reveal students’ perceptions of the prosocial and antisocial

use of teacher power, which we relate to Orbe’s co-cultural communication orienta-

tions and practices, as well as to the prior power research we outlined in the literature

review. In this section, we discuss the results in terms of Orbe’s theory, and then we

discuss the links with the prior power research.

Orbe’s Co-Cultural Communication Theory

As we analyzed the data, we noted that the experiences of SWLD parallel Orbe’s

influence factors. As mentioned earlier, co-cultural theory posits that co-cultural

members assume a particular stance or communication orientation during their

interactions with dominant societal structure. Ultimately, nine communication

orientations result from the convergences of three influence factors: communication

approach, preferred outcome, and perceived costs and rewards. The other three fac-

tors, including field of experience, the situational context, and individual abilities,

also affect this decision.

The situational context in this case refers to undergraduate college education and

the SWLD-faculty relationship, which includes student perception of power. Within

this context, SWLD are potentially driven by one of three preferred outcomes: sep-

aration, accommodation, or assimilation. Eighteen of 21 SWLD preferred accommo-

dation, although three SWLD wished not to reveal their learning disability and

preferred assimilation. Further, based on their fields of experience, which included

lifelong use of communication approaches and assessment of the consequences,

SWLD evaluated the anticipated costs and rewards resulting from their communi-

cation practices. The field of experience for these SWLD was very diverse given the

range of demographics described earlier, the early or late diagnoses of their learning

disability, their positive and negative experiences with K–12 education polices and

instructors, their self-esteem levels, their college experiences with instructors, and

their personal support systems. Finally, individual differences in student abilities to

engage in these co-cultural communication practices may vary according to personal

and situational characteristics (e.g., three nontraditional students indicated that they

would not have been as assertive when they were younger; four nontraditional stu-

dents would not have been able to manage their emotions as well as they do now

in order to make communication practice choices). Consequently, the appropriate-

ness and effectiveness of the selected communication approach utilized by SWLD

depends on how they negotiate all other influence factors.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Results

Instructor Power

First, we examine SWLD’s perceptions of instructor power as a situational context

influence factor combining both French and Raven’s typology of power employed in

previous studies and SWLD’s assessments of competent (prosocial) and incompetent

(antisocial) instructional communication. Second, we describe SWLD responses to

perceived competent and incompetent instructional communication using Orbe’s

co-cultural theory and the resultant communication orientation and practices frame-

work. Third, we link the power dimension associated with SWLD’s perceptions of

competent (prosocial) and incompetent (antisocial) instructional communication to

subsequent SWLD responses.

SWLD provided 59 critical incidents of competent and incompetent instructional

communication. Three types of instructor power were identified from 30 descriptions

of power inherent in the competent instructional communication critical incident

descriptions. SWLD provided 23 descriptions of referent power including showing

respect, active listening including empathy, supportiveness, being accessible, being

friendly, and relaxed, and being trustworthy. Specific comments such as having a

‘‘we feeling,’’ being ‘‘treated as though I’m normal,’’ and ‘‘being interested in my

LD’’ capture the essence of referent power.

SWLD provided six descriptions that combined referent and expert power. Along

with references to referent power, students also recognized that instructors possessed

a degree of expert power related to their learning disability (e.g., the instructor had a

learning disability, had a child with a learning disability, or had an academic back-

ground in the area).

Finally, a SWLD perceived an example of legitimate power in a positive way;

namely, he explained that he knew it was difficult for his instructor who had a very

organized and formal way of teaching to accommodate him, but she did so without

complaint as a part of her duties.

SWLD also identified examples of incompetent instructional communication.

Specifically, two types of instructor power were identified from 29 descriptions of

power. SWLD provided 15 descriptions of coercive power exemplified by instructors

revealing a ‘‘lack of respect,’’ ‘‘looking down’’ on SWLD, resisting accommodations,

or making comments like ‘‘You shouldn’t be in college if you can’t read and write.’’

Students noted that negative nonverbal messages from instructors including facial

expressions such as ‘‘eye rolling’’ seemed to indicate ‘‘you’re one of those’’ and con-

veyed a lack of respect. Further, students viewed the instructor speaking with them

after class about their LD without regard for their privacy as punitive (e.g., a SWLD

being asked if he was retarded in front of his peers).

Eleven descriptions of legitimate power were provided. These descriptions fell into

two different categories. First, some instructors asserted their positions and sub-

sequent power, but they were inexperienced and not particularly helpful to any stu-

dent. Secondly, other instructors performed within the strict requirements of their


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

positions as defined by the dominant societal structure (e.g., ‘‘He seemed to be doing

it because of the law—forced to accommodate me’’).

Finally, there were three student reports of instructors combining coercive and

legitimate power during their interaction (e.g., a SWLD perceiving the instructor

as wielding his authority and embarrassing students by having them pick up the test

in the classroom and take it to the testing facility).

SWLD responses: Instructional communication competence

Co-cultural theory can also be useful in describing SWLD responses to perceived

competent (prosocial) and incompetent (antisocial) instructional communication

using the communication orientations and communicative practices framework. This

section summarizes SWLD responses to competent instructional communication.

For perceived competent instructional communication, SWLD used primarily two

(assertive accommodation and assertive assimilation) of the nine orientations for a

total of six different communicative practices. SWLD employed ‘‘communicating

self,’’ one of the assertive accommodation orientations, 18 times. ‘‘Communicating

self’’ refers to being oneself and striving to be viewed as a multidimensional person

with positive self-esteem without regard to stereotypes. Examples of this include stu-

dents feeling that they had a relationship with the instructor (e.g., ‘‘It’s more of a

relationship than an accommodation.’’) and that the instructor made them feel

comfortable so that they could ask questions and focus (e.g., ‘‘I was more conscien-

tious about checking my progress’’; ‘‘I did most of her suggestions’’; ‘‘I felt very

comfortable and more able to explain things to her’’; ‘‘I felt more comfortable to seek

help and participate in class.’’).

SWLD employed two other assertive accommodation communicative practices,

namely ‘‘using liaisons’’ and ‘‘educating others’’ and combined these responses with

‘‘communicating self.’’ ‘‘Using liaisons’’ refers to relying on dominant group mem-

bers for support, while ‘‘educating others’’ refers to enlightening others by providing

the co-cultural perspective. Although SWLD mentioned liaisons such as disability

service staff and tutors who provided support, they also mentioned educating

instructors who were receptive to information and suggestions about how to provide

instructional assistance to them.

SWLD also employed two assertive assimilation communicative practices. In two

cases, SWLD ‘‘overcompensated’’ because they feared discrimination and wanted

to be perceived as students who work hard. However, these students struggled

between ‘‘overcompensating’’ and ‘‘communicating self’’ (e.g., demonstrating to a

receptive instructor that he knew the material through a series of instructor questions

after flunking a test).

The other assertive assimilation communicative practice involved ‘‘extensive prep-

aration’’ in which a student went to great pains to plan how to approach an instruc-

tor while attempting to be true to self (e.g., agreed to a plan with the instructor that

would meet his academic needs by asking his questions after class so he wouldn’t feel

like an ‘‘oddball’’).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Finally, one SWLD with dyslexia chose an assertive separation orientation when he

realized the instructor’s son had a learning disability and the instructor was, there-

fore, accessible, truly understanding, and helpful. In response, this student

‘‘embraced stereotypes’’ while he also ‘‘communicated self’’ because he felt secured

and valued for his efforts to achieve. As a result, he was able to express himself fully

not only with his professor but also with the disability service personnel on his cam-

pus (e.g., he embraced his LD and compared this acceptance to race or ethnicity).

SWLD responses: Instructional communication incompetence

SWLD responded to perceived incompetent instructional communication by employ-

ing seven of the nine orientations found in Orbe’s theory including nonassertive

assimilation, assertive assimilation, aggressive assimilation, nonassertive accommodation,

assertive accommodation, aggressive accommodation, and nonassertive separation, for a

total of 11 communicative practices in response to teachers’ use of power. Although

assertive accommodation and nonassertive assimilation were used the most frequently,

SWLD defaulted to several other communicative practices when the initial practice

was not successful.

SWLD reported that they used the assertive accommodation orientation of ‘‘edu-

cating others’’ on six occasions in order to educate instructors about their right to

accommodations, the nature of their learning disabilities, and their capacity to do

college-level work. For example, one SWLD reported that a professor approached

her toward the end of the semester and remarked that he had expected her to be

the worst student in the class when she presented her accommodation letter during

the first class period. When she asked ‘‘Why?’’ he explained that every SWLD he had

taught in the past had used their LD as an excuse. She responded, ‘‘Have I done

that?’’ The professor noted that she was the exception, and that she was a good stu-

dent. The student replied that not only she but ‘‘a lot of people’’ don’t use their LD as

an excuse, and she didn’t appreciate his ‘‘saying that I’m an exception to some kind

of rule, when there really isn’t a rule . . . I’m an exception to what they think in their

minds, but not the rule.’’

Another student combined ‘‘educating others’’ and ‘‘using liaisons,’’ (e.g., recruit-

ing the assistance of the departmental chair as arbitrator), which is also an assertive

accommodation strategy. However, in two cases when ‘‘educating others’’ was not

successful, two SWLD tried ‘‘using liaisons,’’ and ultimately when this practice didn’t

advance their goals and they felt provoked, one resorted to ‘‘gaining advantage’’ and

the other used ‘‘confronting.’’ These two practices qualify as aggressive accommo-

dation. ‘‘Gaining advantage’’ refers to making the dominant member, in this case

the teacher, feel self-conscious by pointing out discriminatory practices. For example,

a student with dyslexia argued with a professor about taking a test in a different

location by stressing that he was bound by law to provide her such accommodation.

In response, he told her if she couldn’t handle the pressure of the classroom, she

would not be able to handle the ‘‘real world.’’ On the other hand, ‘‘confronting’’

refers to questioning the dominant practices vigorously (e.g., a SWLD challenged a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

professor who said she did not know why he had to take the test outside of class).

Additionally, in one other case a SWLD augmented his initial strategy of ‘‘educating

others’’ with ‘‘censoring self,’’ while the other student defaulted from ‘‘educating

others’’ to ‘‘censoring self.’’

Five SWLD initially employed ‘‘communicating self,’’ although most defaulted to

other strategies when they deemed their initial communicative practice ineffective.

While one of the five students employed ‘‘communicating self’’ consistently through-

out, two other students who began with this practice, resorted, respectively, to ‘‘using

liaisons’’ and ‘‘avoiding.’’ For example, a student with dyslexia who, at the suggestion

of his professor, dropped a course because he was not doing well illustrated an

‘‘avoiding’’ response. Of the remaining two students initially using ‘‘communicating

self,’’ one defaulted to ‘‘educating others,’’ while the other opted for ‘‘censoring self.’’

In ‘‘censoring self’’ one disengaged from conversation, as did a student who chose to

‘‘cool off’’ and figure out another way to ask a question when she didn’t receive the

type of help she was pursuing with a professor.

Additionally, in seven instances SWLD employed ‘‘using liaison,’’ yet another

assertive accommodation strategy in responding to perceived incompetent instruc-

tional communication. For example, two SWLD selected ‘‘using liaisons’’ first when

seeking learning accommodations, which was sufficient in one case; however, in the

other case the student shifted from this practice to ‘‘overcompensating’’ and ulti-

mately ‘‘avoiding.’’ In this instance, a student with dyslexia sought tutorial help

and although he went the extra mile to do well in class, when the instructor suggested

he drop the class for poor test performance, he did so.

SWLD reported ‘‘censoring self’’ as an initial response nine times, and in three of

those cases, ‘‘avoiding’’ was a fallback position. Specifically, SWLD censored self

when they didn’t want to annoy an instructor with requests for more assistance,

which required extra time, or when the instructor was not being fully cooperative

regarding accommodations. One SWLD described his professor as maintaining a

‘‘my way or the highway’’ mentality to the point that he resisted asking for an in-class

volunteer note taker for the student. The student opted for censoring himself after

that occurred rather than ‘‘making him mad.’’ Typically, a SWLD who employs this

practice monitors the consequences of speaking freely, and often resorts to ‘‘avoid-

ing’’ as three students in our sample did when they lost hope in dealing with lack

of accommodations.

SWLD also employed three assimilation outcome-based practices. Two students

tried the assertive assimilation practice of ‘‘overcompensation’’ by being hard workers

in order to deal with the fear of possible discrimination. One student combined this

practice with ‘‘increased visibility,’’ by being strategically present, and the second

student combined the practice with ‘‘using liaison,’’ and when neither worked, the

student resorted to ‘‘avoiding.’’ Two other students used the aggressive assimilation

practice of ‘‘mirroring’’ that refers to adopting the behavior or appearance of the

dominant culture; in this case SWLD attempted to pass as students without disabil-

ities (SWOLD). When this practice failed, these students switched to ‘‘avoiding.’’ One

SWLD, for example, told of an instructor who in an attempt to manage a large class


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

expected all students to use the web for help rather than asking questions in class.

When this student realized that she would receive only minimal help from the

instructor, she avoided him and chose not to reveal she had attention deficit disorder

(ADD). Still another student mentioned ‘‘developing positive face,’’ another non-

assertive assimilation practice, which refers to being more polite and attentive to gain

favor from the dominant culture member.

From these students’ experiences, we conclude that SWLD tend to respond to their

instructors they perceive as competent by primarily using the assertive accommo-

dation orientation, especially ‘‘communicating self.’’ In contrast, SWLD tended to

respond to instructors they perceive as incompetent with a broader range of orienta-

tions and communicative practices. In fact, they often rely on back-up communi-

cation practices when their initial strategies are not successful. In particular, we

note that SWLD frequently employ ‘‘censoring,’’ a nonassertive assimilation, and

‘‘avoiding,’’ a nonassertive separation orientation, as either their initial or back-up

communicative practice. These responses are likely associated with the perceived

costs and rewards that students must measure as they navigate the power structures

of their educational institutions and classrooms.

Instructor Power and SWLD Response Linkage

In this section we link the power dimension associated with SWLD perceptions of

competent (prosocial) and incompetent (antisocial) instructional communication

This section, therefore, outlines the links between prior teacher power research and

our extension of that research with SWLD.

Competent (prosocial) power sources identified in earlier teacher power studies

appear to be reinforced in this study. Specifically, referent power and a combination

of referent and expert power comprised all but one case. In this single case, the SWLD

perceived the instructor’s use of legitimate power as prosocial. Eighteen out of the 23

times SWLD greeted the use of referent instructor power with an assertive accommo-

dation practice, ‘‘communicating self.’’ In the five other incidents of referent power

use, SWLD responded by combining ‘‘communicating self ’’ with other communicat-

ive practices that included two incidents of ‘‘overcompensating’’ and one incident

each of ‘‘using liaisons,’’ ‘‘educating others,’’ and extensive preparation.’’ Five times

SWLD responded to six other incidents in which instructors used both referent and

expert power with ‘‘communicating self.’’ In the sixth remaining case the SWLD first

employed a ‘‘communicating self’’ along with ‘‘embracing stereotypes.’’ In one final

incident a SWLD responded to a teacher’s use of legitimate teacher power by

‘‘communicating self.’’

The results of this study also support the findings of earlier teacher power studies

regarding incompetent (antisocial) power use. Out of 29 incidents, SWLD perceived

15 as coercive, 11 as a negative application of legitimate power, and 3 as a combi-

nation of coercive and negative legitimate power. The most frequent SWLD response

to coercive power was ‘‘censoring self,’’ a nonassertive assimilation practice. Three stu-

dents adopted this response whereas two others initially responded by ‘‘censoring


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

self ’’ and then, when this strategy was not successful, avoided the instructor. Three

students responded with a variation of ‘‘educating others,’’ an assertive accommo-

dation response. One student used this practice in conjunction with ‘‘using liaisons,’’

while another tried these two strategies in succession and defaulted to ‘‘gaining

advantage’’ an aggressive accommodation orientation in the end. Yet another student

used both ‘‘educating others’’ and ‘‘censoring self.’’ On the other hand, two SWLD

responded by ‘‘communicating self’’ at first, and then they reverted eventually to

‘‘avoiding,’’ a nonassertive separation orientation. Five other incidents led to SWLD

eventually responding by ‘‘avoiding.’’

Eleven incidents involved instructors using legitimate power in a negative way.

Three students responded by ‘‘communicating self,’’ however, two of those three

defaulted to either ‘‘educating others’’ or ‘‘censoring self.’’ Three students responded

by ‘‘censoring self’’ with one using ‘‘avoiding’’ as a back-up response. Two students

tried ‘‘using liaisons’’ and one of those students eventually resorted to ‘‘overcompen-

sation.’’ ‘‘Overcompensation’’ was used by another student in conjunction with

‘‘increased visibility.’’ Two other students used either ‘‘educating others’’ or ‘‘devel-

oping positive face.’’

Finally, of the three incidents in which instructors used a combination of coercive

and negative legitimate power, two students responded initially by ‘‘educating

others,’’ with one student eventually switching to ‘‘using liaisons’’ and ultimately

to ‘‘confronting’’ when his first strategy was unsuccessful. One other student

employed ‘‘censoring self’’ as a primary response.

Overall, this study reveals that SWLD responded with a greater variety and num-

ber of communication practices to perceived antisocial use of instructor power as

compared to their responses to the prosocial use of instructor power. Of 29 incidents

involving antisocial use of power, 11 responses included ‘‘censoring self,’’ a nonasser-

tive assimilation orientation and 10 responses included ‘‘avoiding,’’ a nonassertive

separation orientation. And whereas 18 of 30 SWLD responses to prosocial uses of

instructor power were ‘‘communicating self,’’ only one student used this response

alone in incidents of antisocial use of instructor power.

Discussion and Conclusion

Although we recognize that future study is necessary in order to confirm and to

extend our initial insights, this study also offers some valuable insights. First, we sug-

gest that the use of prior theory, especially French and Raven’s typology of power and

Orbe’s co-cultural theory is especially applicable in this present study, As we noted in

the data analysis, these theories help frame as well as explain the results of this inves-

tigation. Orbe asserts that marginalized co-cultural members like SWLD must find

ways to negotiate dominant forces through their communicative responses that

may vary in their appropriateness and effectiveness based on a variety of situational

factors. We suggest, therefore, that using Orbe’s theory may help address some of the

criticisms regarding current teacher power research (Burleson et al., 1988) that assert

BATs fail to consider situational uniqueness.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Second, we also note that this study resonates with the finding of the previous

power studies. Clearly, this study suggests that SWLD share similar perceptions about

power use with SWOLD in terms of identifying the same power sources associated

with either competent (prosocial) or incompetent (antisocial) instructional com-

munication. This study supports McCroskey and Richmond’s (1983) conclusions

that students respond to their teachers based on their own perceptions rather than

the teacher’s perceptions. For example, some instructors may believe they are being

fair to all students in not providing SWLD appropriate accommodations, while

SWLD view this behavior as using antisocial power arising from incompetent instruc-

tional communication. Our study also supports the conclusions of Richmond and

McCroskey’s 1984 study as well as Richmond et al.’s 1987 study that teachers’ use

of power and related BATs impacts student learning.

Burroughs et al. (1989), Golish (1999), and Golish and Olson (2000) note that stu-

dents rely primarily on prosocial or positive techniques, rarely use negative techni-

ques unless pressed, and that students use face-saving, prosocial message strategies.

This study confirms these prior observations in that we found that the majority of

SWLD initially respond to teacher power with prosocial, positive, face-saving strate-

gies, although they default to more aggressive or separation strategies when faced

with teacher resistance. In short, as Kearney and Plax (1992) note, SWLD, like

SWOLD, resist power and use a variety of strategies to do so.

Although this study confirms prior research, it also extends this research. Specifi-

cally, rather than using the student compliance-resistance and compliance-gaining

strategies used in previous student power research, this study applied Orbe’s co-cul-

tural theory response categories, which acknowledges the challenges of marginalized

groups who are coping with the power of dominant structures, including SWLD in

the college classroom. Therefore, this study offers an alternative way to understand

student responses to teacher power, especially as experienced by students from vari-

ous co-cultural groups.

Further, this study suggests, that when teachers use prosocial forms of power,

SWLD respond as genuine, multidimensional persons within the assertive accommo-

dative orientation, which most prefer. This result stresses one of the persistent themes

in the disability studies literature, people with disabilities are people first; they are not

defined by their disability but by their humanity. Moreover, we note that SWLD

either initially or eventually respond with more nonassertive assimilation and non-

assertive separation strategies when teachers use antisocial forms of power. This set

of circumstances, in turn, as prior research demonstrates, hinders both cognitive

and affective learning. Given that SWLD already face learning challenges, it strikes

us that it is especially critical that teachers are sensitive and responsive to SWLD

learning needs in order to help them achieve, rather than complicate, hinder, or block

their learning. We also note that SWLD, with the support of disability service offices

and personnel, must learn how to respond appropriately and effectively in order to

obtain the services and accommodations to which they are entitled.

Pragmatically, this study emphasizes that, as Field, Sarver, and Shaw (2003) point

out, SWLD must receive supportive communication from faculty that, in turn,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

encourages a sense of self-determination, in order to succeed academically. While the

legal accommodation that is already in place remains essential in order to protect the

rights and opportunities of SWLD, this study points out that faculty and offices of

disability service also need to adopt an ‘‘ethic of care’’ if SWLD are to receive not only

appropriate accommodation but also the supportive communication, which is

critical to their academic survival and progress.

The results of this study, together with future studies, should help us understand

and respond to the needs of all learners, as well as SWLD, inorder to provide stronger

learning opportunities for all students.

References

Allen, T. & Edwards, R. (1988). Evaluators’ perceptions of teachers’ use of behavior alteration

techniques. Communication Education, 37, 188–197.

Barraclough, R. A. & Stewart, R. A. (1992). Power and control: Social science perspectives. In

V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom: Communication, control,

and concern (pp. 1–18). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Braithwaite, D. O. & Braithwaite, C. A. (1997). Understanding communication of persons with dis-

abilities as cultural communication. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural

communication: A reader (pp. 154–163). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Burleson, B. R., Wilson, S. R., Waltman, M. S., Goering, E. M., Ely, T. K., & Whaley, B. B. (1988).

Item desirability effects in compliance-gaining research: Seven studies documenting artifacts

in the strategy selection procedure. Human Communication Research, 14, 429–486.

Burroughs, N. F., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1989). Compliance-resistance in the college classroom.

Communication Education, 38, 214–229.

Cooper, P. J. & Simonds, C. J. (2003). Communication for the classroom teacher. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Cornett-DeVito, M. & Worley, D. W. (2005). A front row seat: A phenomenological investigation

of learning disabilities. Communication Education, 54, 312–333.

Del Casino, Jr. V. J. (2001). Enabling geographies? Non-governmental organizations and the

empowerment of people living with HIV and AIDS. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21, 19–29.

Retrieved June 28, 2005 from htpp://www.dsq-sds.org/ articles pdf 2001/Fall/dsq 2001

Fall 04.pdf

Field, S., Sarver, M. D., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). A key to success in postsecondary education for

students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 339–349.

French, Jr. J. R. P. & Raven, B. (1968). The bases for social power. In D. Cartright (Ed.), Studies in

social power. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Frymier, A. B. & Wanzer, M. B. (2003). Examining differences in perceptions of students’

communication with professors: A comparison of students with and without disabilities.

Communication Quarterly, 51, 174–191.

Galvin, R. (2003). The making of the disabled identity: A linguistic analysis of marginalization. Dis-

ability Studies Quarterly, 23, 149–178. Retrieved June 28, 2005 from http://www.dsq-sds.org/

articles pdf/2003/Spring/dsq 2003 Spring 04.pdf

Golish, T. D. (1999). Students’ use of compliance gaining strategies with graduate teaching assis-

tants: Examining the other end of the power spectrum. Communication Quarterly, 47, 12–32.

Golish, T. D. & Olson, L. N. (2000). Students’ use of power in the classroom: An investigation of stu-

dent power, teacher power, and teacher immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 48, 293–310.

Hartman-Hall, H. & Haaga, D. A. F. (2002). College students’ willingness to seek help for their

learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 263–274.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hayes, M. T. & Black, R. S. (2003). Troubling signs: Disability, Hollywood movies and the con-

struction of a discourse of pity. Disability Studies Quarterly, 23, 114–132. Retrieved June

28, 2005 from http://www.dsq-sds.org/ articles pdf/2003/Spring/dsq 2003 Spring 12.pdf

Heiman, T. & Precel, K. (2003). Students with learning disabilities in higher education: Academic

strategies profile. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 248–258.

Kearney, P. & Plax, T. G. (1992). Student resistance to control. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey

(Eds.), Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern (pp. 85–100). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kearney, P. & Plax, T. G. (1997). Item desirability bias and the BAT checklist: A reply to Waltman

and Burleson. Communication Education, 46, 95–99.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Burroughs, N. F. (1991). An attributional analysis of college students’

resistance-decisions. Communication Education, 40, 325–342.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hays, E. R., & Ivey, M. J. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What stu-

dents don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39, 309–324.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom IV:

Teacher communication techniques as alternatives to discipline. In R. Bostrom (Ed.),

Communication yearbook, 8. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1985). Power in the classroom III:

Teacher communication techniques and messages. Communication Education, 34, 19–28.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Smith, V. R., & Sorensen, G. (1988). Effects of teacher immediacy and

strategy type on college student resistance to on-task demands. Communication Education,

37, 54–67.

Lambeth, G., Heller, W., Boden, M., & Markham, J. (2003). Learning disabled students often reluc-

tant to accept accommodations. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 8, 3.

Lee, C. R., Levine, T. R., & Cambra, R. (1997). Resisting compliance in the multicultural classroom.


Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lu, S. (1997). Culture and compliance gaining in the classroom: A preliminary investigation of

Chinese college teachers’ use of behavior alteration techniques. Communication Education,

46, 10–28.

McCroskey, J. C. & Richmond, V. P. (1983). Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student percep-

tions. Communication Education, 32, 175–184.

McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1985). Power in the classroom V:

Behavior alteration techniques, communication training, and learning. Communication Edu-

cation, 34, 214–226.

Norton, S. M. (1997). Examination of accommodations for community college students with learn-

ing disabilities: How are they reviewed by faculty and students? Community College Journal

of Research and Practice, 21, 57–69.

Orbe, M. (2000). Centralizing diverse, racial, ethnic voices in scholarly research: The value of

phenomenological inquiry. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 603–621.

Orbe, M. P. (1994). ‘‘Remember, it’s always whites’ ball’’: Descriptions of African American male

communication. Communication Quarterly, 42, 287–300.

Orbe, M. P. (1998). Constructing co-cultural theory: An explication of culture, power, and communi-

cation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Orbe, M. P. & Spellers, R. E. (2005). From the margins to the center: Utilizing Co-cultural Theory

in diverse contexts. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication

(pp. 173–191). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Plax, T. G. & Kearney, P. (1992). Teacher power in the classroom: Defining and advancing a pro-

gram of research. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power in the classroom: Com-

munication, control, and concern (pp. 67–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., & Downs, T. M. (1986). Communicating control and satisfaction with

teaching and students. Communication Education, 35, 379–388.

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1986). Power in the classroom VI:

Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning. Communication

Education, 35, 43–55.

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., & Sorensen, G. (1990). The strategy selection-construction controversy II:

Comparing pre- and experienced teachers’ compliance-gaining message constructions.


Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., & Tucker, L. K. (1986). Prospective teachers’ use of behavior alteration

techniques on common student misbehaviors. Communication Education, 35, 32–42.

Richmond, V. P. & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom II: Power and learning.


Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1987). Power in the classroom VII:

Linking behavior alteration techniques to cognitive learning. Communication Education, 36,

1–12.

Roach, D. K. (1991). Graduate teaching assistants’ use of behavior alteration techniques in the uni-

versity classroom. Communication Quarterly, 39, 178–188.

Roach, D. K. (1994). Temporal patterns and effects of perceived instructor compliance-gaining use.


Rodriquez, J. I. & Cai, D. A. (1994). When your epistemology gets in the way: A response to

Sprague. Communication Education, 43, 263–271.

Simonds, C. J. (1995). Have I made myself clear: The effects of teacher clarity on challenge behavior in

the college classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oklahoma, Norman,

OK.

Simonds, C. J. (1997). Challenge behavior in the college classroom. Communication Research

Reports, 14, 481–492.

Slota, N. E. P. & Martin, D. (2003). Methodological considerations in life course theory research.

Disability Studies Quarterly, 23, 19–29. Retrieved June 28, 2005 from http://www.dsq-sds.org/

_articles_pdf/2003/Spring/dsq_2003_Spring_04.pdf

Sorensen, G., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1989). The strategy selection-construction controversy: A

coding scheme for analyzing teacher compliance-gaining message constructions. Communi-

cation Education, 38, 102–118.

Sprague, J. (1990, February). Problematizing power in the classroom: Applying the critical perspective

to a significant issue in instructional communication. Paper presented at the meeting of the

Western States Communication Association, Sacramento, CA.

Sprague, J. (1992a). Expanding the research agenda for instructional communication: Raising some

unanswered questions. Communication Education, 41, 1–25.

Sprague, J. (1992b). Critical perspectives on teacher empowerment. Communication Education, 41,

181–203.

Sprague, J. (1993). Why teaching works: The transformative power of pedagogical communication.


Sprague, J. (1994). Ontology, politics, and instructional communication research: Why we can’t

just ‘‘agree to disagree’’ about power. Communication Education, 43, 273–290.

Thompson, T. (1982). Disclosure as a disability-management strategy: A review and conclusions.

Communication Quarterly, 30, 196–202.

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy.

London, Ontario, Canada: State University of New York Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Waltman, M. S. & Burleson, B. R. (1997a). Explaining the bias in teacher ratings of behavior alter-

ation techniques: An experimental test of the heuristic processing account. Communication

Education, 46, 75–94.

Waltman, M. S. & Burleson, B. R. (1997b). The reality of item desirability and heuristic processing

in the BAT ratings: Respecting the data. Communication Education, 46, 100–103.

West, M., Kregel, J., Getzel, E., Zhu, M., Ipsen, S., & Martin, E. D. (1993). Beyond Section 504:

Satisfaction and empowerment of students with disabilities in higher education. Exceptional

Children, 59, 456–467.

Worley, D. W. (2000). Communication and students with disabilities on college campuses. In

D. O. Braithwaite & T. L. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and people with

disabilities: Research and application (pp. 125–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

22:

00 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

college students with learning disabilities (swld) and their responses to teacher power

Documents