You are here:

Critical Discourse Analysis of Moderated Discussion Board of Virtual University of Pakistan

, Virtual University of Pakistan

Open Praxis Volume 7, Number 3, ISSN 1369-9997 e-ISSN 1369-9997 Publisher: International Council for Open and Distance Education


The paper critically evaluated the discursive practices on the Moderated Discussion Board (MDB) of Virtual University of Pakistan (VUP). The paramount objective of the study was to conduct a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the MDB on the Learning Management System (LMS) of VUP. For this purpose, the academic power relations of the students and instructors were evaluated by analyzing whose discourse was dominant in communication with each other on MDB. The researcher devised a model based on the blended theoretical framework of Norman Fairclough and Teun van Dijk to critically analyze the linguistics, ideological, semiotic and socio cognitive-cultural undercurrents in the production and reception processes of MDB discourse. The primary data of the MDB of English Comprehension (ENG101) course was randomly selected to be qualitatively analyzed for this research study. The findings demonstrated that the learners were at a disadvantage because of their lack of command of the English language. However, quick and pertinent replies from instructors revealed students’ empowerment in an educational discursive practice. The results indicated a balance of power relations amongst instructors, students and the University. However, the need to improve the critical thinking of the students to further empower them was strongly felt.


Perveen, A. (2015). Critical Discourse Analysis of Moderated Discussion Board of Virtual University of Pakistan. Open Praxis, 7(3), 243-262. International Council for Open and Distance Education. Retrieved December 13, 2018 from .

This record was imported from OpenPraxis on August 2, 2015. [Original Record]


View References & Citations Map


  1. Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.). Theory and Practice of Online Learning (pp. 45–74). Athabasca: AU Press.
  2. Annetta, L.A., Cheng, M.T., & Holmes, S. (2010). Assessing twenty-first century skills through a teacher created videogame for high school biology students. Research in Science& Technological Education, 28(2), 101–114. Http://,H.,Greer,B., & Hughes, E. (1995). Making the grade: The academic side of college life. New York: Wiley.
  3. Bender, T. (2003). Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: Theory, practice, and assessment. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
  4. Chege, M. (2009). Literacy and Hegemony: Critical Pedagogy Vis-a-vis Contending Paradigms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 228–238. Retrieved from Chen, G., & Chiu, M.M. (2008). Online discussion processes: Effects of earlier messages’ evaluations, knowledge content, social cues and personal information on later messages. Computers& Education, 50(3), 678–692. Http://
  5. Dahlberg, L. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication& Society, 4(4), 615–633. Http://,N.(1992).Discourseand Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  6. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse& Society, 4(2), 133–168.
  7. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
  8. Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T.A. Van Dijk (ed.). Introduction to Discourse Analysis (pp. 258–284). London.
  9. Fowler, C.J.H., & Mayes, J.T. (1999). Learning relationships from theory to design. Research in Learning Technology, 7(3), 6–16.
  10. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon.
  11. Garrison, D.R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.
  12. Habermas, J. (1990). A review of Gadamer ’s Truth and Method. In G.L. Omiston & A.D. Schrift. (Eds.). The hermeneutic tradition: From Ast to Ricoeur (pp. 213–244). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  13. Hara, N., Bonk, C.J., & Angeli, C. (2000). Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educational psychology course. Instructional science, 28(2), 115–152.
  14. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T.W. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments. Stanford University Press.
  15. García-Carbonell, A., Rising, B., Montero, B., & Watts, F. (2001). Simulation/gaming and the acquisition of communicative competence in another language. Simulation& Gaming, 32(4), 481–491. Http://,D.R.& Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
  16. Gee, J.P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Routledge.
  17. Kern, R.G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern language journal, 79(4), 457–476.
  18. Laurillard, D. (2002). New technologies, students and the curriculum: the impact of communications and information technology on higher education: Higher education re-formed. London: Palmer Press.
  19. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers& Education, 40(3), 237–253.
  20. McLaren, P. (2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. Baltadona, & R. Torres (Eds.). A critical pedagogy reader (pp. 69–96). New York: Routledge.
  21. Montero, B., Watts, F., & García-Carbonell, A. (2007). Discussion forum interactions: Text and context. System, 35(4), 566–582. Http://,Z.(2004).Democracyonline: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media& Society, 6(2), 259–283.
  22. Philipson, R.H.L. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  23. Poole, D.M. (2000). Student participation in a discussion-oriented online course: a case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 162–177.
  24. Rambe, P. (2012). Critical discourse analysis of collaborative engagement in Facebook postings. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (2), 295–314.
  25. Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance education, 22(2), 306–331. Http://
  27. Swan, K., & Shih, L.F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136.
  28. Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse& Society, 4(2), 249–283.
  29. Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
  30. Van Dijk, T.A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse& Society, 17(3), 359–383. Http://,A.L.,Andriessen,J.E., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers& Education, 34(3), 269–290. Http://
  31. White, C. (2003). Language Learning in Distance Education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Williams, J.B., & Goldberg, M. (2005). The evolution of e-learning. In Balance, fidelity, mobility: Maintaining the momentum? Proceedings ascilite Brisbane 2005. Retrieved from
  33. Wilson, M.S. (2001). Cultural considerations in online instruction and learning. Distance Education, 22(1), 52–64. Http://,R.(1987).“AndWhere Is the Lebanon?” A Socio-Psycholinguistic Investigation of Comprehension and Intelligibility of News. Text 7(4), 377–410.
  34. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about—a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (eds.). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact