In
In order to share and understand the codes and language of academic literacy, it is crucial to deal with the concept of discourse community. The central belief is to consider this issue from the perspective of a social viewpoint with the importance of communicating practices culturally built up.
This paper aims at analyzing the most relevant aspects of discourse communities under the light of Swales’ (1990) basic criteria as regards certain discourse community requirements in four articles in the education field. Under Swales’ (1990) criteria, a group of people who share certain goals, exchange ideas about a specific matter resorting to a particular genre and lexis while evidencing a high level of expertise correspond to the main characteristics of discourse communities. Considering Swales’ (1990) list of requirements, any group of people may be analyzed considering the six basic criteria: common goals, participatory mechanism, information exchange, community-specific-genres, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise (as cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2009, p. 13 ).
Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) developes their work about teachers’ needs and classroom practices. In their article, various discourse community requirements appear to be present. It is claimed that “the purpose of the study was to examine the nature of teacher learning in a cohort-based, masters’ degree program…” (para.2). In other words, it could be assumed that this community does not only share certain beliefs but also a high level of expertise seems to be present. With regard to participatory mechanisms, teachers are described as members of a “collaborative culture” (para.2) in which its members learn through the interchange of ideas and practices.
Kelly-Kleese (2001) also associates the value of language to meet goals related to “community college as a discourse community” (para.2). The importance of information exchange as well as sharing common goals are considered key factors under the author’s perspective. Since this community members are expected to share basic assumptions as regards the approach about communicating knowledge (Kelly-Kleese, 2001), a community specific genre is to be addressed. Participatory mechanisms are favoured by this community as community colleagues are “open to all who want access to post secondary education”
( Kelly-Kleese, 2001, para.6).
Special attention is drawn to teacher reflection as a learning course instance in the paper developed by Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and López-Torres (2003). A basic requirement is fulfilled as the researchers use abbreviations such as Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) to refer to a particular discourse community. The role of interaction is pointed out by Hoffman-Kipp et al. (2003) since through reflection teachers are believed to interact with colleagues who share and participate in “goal-directed activities that require communication and the exchange of ideas” (para.13). A high level of expertise could be related to the idea that “teachers education and professional development programs ought to authorize more complex discourses about reflection and teacher learning” ( Hoffman-Kipp et al. 2003, para.14).
Kellly-Kleese (2004) continues describing the basic criteria for being members of a discourse community. In this sense, Kelly-Kleese (2004) claims that “its members have, over time; developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships and similar attitudes and values” ( Kelly-Kleese, 2004, para. 6). It may be concluded that this sentence matches the majority of Swales’ (1990) list of requirements. First, as a common discourse is developed, the members of a community should share a specific- genre. Second, for knowledge to be shared, participatory mechanisms and information exchange ought to be present. Then, common purposes or goals are part of the requirements mentioned in the previous statement.
All in all, it can be affirmed that it is possible to find evidence of Swales (1990) basic criteria as regards discourse community requirements in the four articles. The basic criterion has been an efficient tool not only to analyze correspondence between what the theory postulates but also to go deep into text-analysis.
References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s Choice: An Open Memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from
Pintos, V. & Crimi, Y. (2009) Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires , Argentina
Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers To Grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405
I
No comments:
Post a Comment