Paper 1

On discourse communities recognition

In his approach to discourse communities, six are the recognition features suggested by Swales (1990).  The following paper searches for validating evidence that support his viewpoints.

To define discourse community, also known as knowledge community, one should be immersed in a social-constructionist view.  This assumption is based on several authors´ attempts to a definition: “a means of maintaining and extending a group’s knowledge (…)” (Hezberg 1986, as cited in Bizzel, 1992, p. 223; and Swales, 1990, p. 21) “Therefore this group is bound together by their acquisition of specific lexis and is regulated by stylistic and canonical conventions.”(?Pintos, 2008 p.12) whose members make use of “social-class-based or ethnically based discursive practices” (Bizzel 1992).   Such broad characterizations might lead into misinterpretations since one could consider that any group of people with an interesting in learning serves as an example of a discourse community.

To have a narrower scope, Swales (1990) has produced a series of indicators to delineate what a knowledge community is considered to be:

1. Common goals.

2. Participatory mechanisms

3. Information exchange

4. Community-specific genres

5. Highly specialized terminology

6 High general level of expertise

Four articles on case studies of educational groups will be scrutinized in order to notice in what aspects they depict Swales´ (1990) requirements.  A study by  Kelly-Kleese (2001) addresses to college members , posing the need of seeing themselves as a discourse community,  and that challenges them to utilize their communicative competence to project a proper role in the  larger knowledge community they are immerse in, which in their case is high education.   It is worth noting the manner in which a goal is stated within a group who gathers knowledgeable and proficient individuals.

Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres  (2003) regarding the role of reflection in teaching practice, not only support the idea that discourse communities exhibit expertise in a certain area of knowledge, but also show that in a community of this kind, a highly specialised lexicon is employed.  For instance, acronyms such as CHAT Cultural Historical Activity Theory (Engestrom, Miettinen, & Punamaki, 1999) and ZPD Zone of Proximal Development Vigotsky (1978) are widely used, whereas their full meaning is given only when first mentioned.  In addition, the following extract adheres to the trait of having a specific genre:

     For example, within the community college, the term nontraditional is widely used to describe the students. Students who are deemed "nontraditional" at the university are, on the contrary, traditional students in the community college setting. But within the community college discourse, the term nontraditional is used to describe the students.

(Kelly-Kleese 2001 p. 2)

Blanton, Simmons, and Warner ( 2001) sustain that “…journals or virtual systems of communication can be used to mediate teacher learning so they can recall, share, and respond to one another's experiences…”, it is coincident with Swale’s belief that, akin to any other human group, a discourse community requires its individuals to be intercommunicated, in a constant flow of feedback.

To conclude, this search for a relation between theory and reality reveals that it is a prevailing phenomenon among educational groups.  Brufee (1986) puts it straightforward when expressing “(…)entities we normally call reality, knowledge, thought, facts, selves, and so on are constructs generated by communities of like-minded peers” (p. 774).  This definition widens the concept of a discourse community, by making it more tangible and meaningful.

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 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers need teachers to grow. “Teacher eucation quarterly “

Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. ”Community college review”

Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541  

Pintos, V. revised with Crimi, Y. (2008).  Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers.