Requirements for discourse communities
On account of a discourse community is a knowledge community where its members are hold together and develop as well as use systems of speech and writing specific to a particular community’s needs and goals, it is possible to identify specific characteristics based on Swales’ (1990) basic criteria (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). According to Swales’ (1990) requirements for testing and checking any community membership, an academic organization should present patterns of common goal, participatory mechanisms, information exchanges, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high level of expertise to be reached by the group of individuals who are able to give testimony of such membership (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). Consequently, this work aims to illustrate those discursive features which have been approached through different perspectives by the development of specific studies.
Regarding the group objectives and interests, Kelly-Kleese makes reference to the notion that language can help meet the goals by considering the community college as a discourse community which is also a concept that borrows from speech community (2001, p. 1). Besides, the notion of common goals is stressed throughout the following statement:
The beliefs that teachers hold about themselves influence their motivation to learn and act in different ways. How a person learns a particular set of knowledge and skills, the nature of peer interactions, and organizational supports as well as physical and social contexts become fundamental parts of what teachers learn.
(Ponticell, 1995; Putman & Borko, 2000; as cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004, p. 1)
With reference to participatory mechanisms, it is possible to declare that in situated discourse community teachers interact with colleagues, exchange ideas as well as reflecting throughout goal-directed activities. These professionals are able to share sign systems and artifacts that are part of the social activity of the school community. Through team teaching and collaborative planning teachers are capable of discussing about their beliefs and daily practices by applying different artifacts (cited in Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles & Lopez-Torres, 2003). In addition, “teachers need opportunities to participate in professional communities that discuss learning theories and various teacher materials and pedagogy” (as cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004, para.5), since interactions in professional knowledge communities are considered a major factor for teachers to grow.
On condition that information exchange is necessary for the group to survive, a discourse community –as Bizzell (1992) states- “[…] is a group of people who share certain language-using practices… [that] can be seen as conventionalized by social interactions within the group and by its dealings with outsiders” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, para. 2). Similarly, the Soltis’ (1981) sociocentric view of knowledge and learning explains that the knowledge we take and the way we think and express are the result of people interactions over time (cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004). Furthermore, Wenzlaff and Wieseman affirm that “interactions with the people in one’s environment are major determinants of both what is learned and how learning takes place” (2004, para. 4). According to Putnam and Borko (2000) changes appear when members enter discourse communities bringing with them new ideas and ways of thinking (cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004). Therefore, Hoffman-Kipp et al. emphasize that reflection and learning emerge in social practice and that “reflection without participation is as impossible as thought without language” (2003, para.16).
Another important characteristic related to Swales’ (1990) basic criteria is concerned with the use of at least one genre that defines the discourse community. Identifying community-specific genres allows us to comprehend a discourse community. Thus, Kutz’ (1997) assumes that:
Its members have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, similar attitudes and values, shared understandings about how to communicate their knowledge and achieved their shared purposes, and a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style.
(as cited in Kelly & Kleese, 2001, para. 4)
Throughout these words, Kutz develops the concept of discourse community which borrows from that of a speech community in terms of those words that are used and pronounced, those subjects that are dealt with, those ones in charge of asking and answering questions as well as its explicitly implications (cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004). As an example of a discourse community, “[the community college] members have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, and similar attitudes and values” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, para. 6).
Providing that highly specialized terminology makes reference to the use of abbreviations and acronyms as one of discourse components, it is necessary to posses the knowledge to cope with specific notions and terms. For instance, “teachers also mediate their labour through cognitive mechanisms as they learn scientific concepts (i.e., systems of interconnected constructs that explain a domain of study)” (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, as cited in Hoffman-Kipp et al., 2003, para. 19). In addition, Kelly-Kleese establishes that the community college makes use of language which is shared and understood within the higher education community (2001, para 6). By the same token, high general level of expertise is “[…] legitimated by academic credentials, professional associations, and the division of knowledge within the academy” (Zito, 1984, as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, para. 11). Zito (1984) also explains that only qualified professionals who possess some socially institutionalized agency are considered to be apt to demonstrate the knowledge in such discourse communities (cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001).
As a conclusion, Swales’ (1990) basic criteria contribute not only to evaluate any discourse community to be recognized as such, but also to highlight the idea of membership awareness (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). Consequently, evidence of Swales’ (1990) theory has been considered and developed by different authors in the field of discourse community as it has been stated along this work. Throughout these researchers’ words, features of discursive practices according to Swales’ requirements have been approached from varied perspectives reinforcing the author’s assumptions.
References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez-Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved November 2010, from
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s choice: An open memo to community college faculty and administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved November 2010, from
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved November 2010, from
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. Universidad CAECE, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved November 2010, from
Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C., (2007). Teachers need teachers to grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved November 2010, from
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario