Swales (1990) establishes some basic criteria for a discourse community to be recognized as such (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.13). Requirements such as common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 13). According to Swales (1990), if a community contains these requeriments, it is considered an academic discourse community (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.13).
The idea of different discourse communities is expressed by Ovens (2002) when he explains that several discourse communities in teacher reflection have arisen around the critical technical reflection (Ovens, 2002; cited in Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez Torres, 2003). Discourse communities in teacher reflection stand out “how teacher reflection itself is mobilised in particular contexts for particular political, pedagogical, and phenomenological purposes” (Ovens, 2002; as cited in Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez Torres, 2003, p. 2). Ovens (2002) states that the main feature of the Phenomenological discourse community is its focus on the individual and her or his experiences as the source for reflection, because teachers craft their own knowledge through reflection upon their prior experiences (cited in Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez Torres, 2003).
The critical discourse community is still focused on the individual and his or her quest for emancipation. This community utilizes the personal narratives of oppressed members of society as well as other artifacts (e.g., statistics, arguments) to modify teacher beliefs mainly through a critical analysis of content as the source for change. Artifact usage in reflection is an important contribution from this community; however, as it is focused on individual emancipation, little attention is given to the situated nature of teacher reflective practices.
The situated learning discouse community emphasizes the shared nature of reflection through three concepts: situated activity, reflection as a social endeavor, and reflection as a distributed process with distributed content (i.e., the situation, the group, and the artifacts utilized in reflection that permeate this discourse).
Common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise (Swales, 1990; cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010) are implied at situated learning discourse community. Teachers interact with colleagues in goal-directed activities that require communication and the exchange of ideas where reflection itself is not contained wholly in the mind of the individual but is “distributed” through sign systems and artifacts that are embedded in the social activity of the school community.
For Bizzell (1992), a community college can be seen as a discourse community. Moreover, as Kutz (1997) explains, its members have 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 achieve their shared purposes, and a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p 1).
As Giroux (1983) puts it, “language is a social event that is defined, shaped, and constrained by the culture of the setting in which it is used” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p 2). Furthermore, everybody should aknowledge communicative competence to explore the language properly in specific discourse communities (Kutz, 1997; cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p 2) . The above characteristics for language by Giroux (1983) and Kutz (1997) are those which Swales (1990) refers to for belonging to a discourse community (cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001).
Kelly-Kleese (2004) discusses the concept of the two-year college as a separate discourse community within higher education. She argues that by redefining community college scholarship to include the knowledge gained and shared in the classroom, community college professionals will be better able to assert their knowledge and power within higher education.
In conclusion, there are many points or requirements that Swales (1990) refers to as basic criteria to belonging to a discourse community, which are shared by the above authors mentioned among others. These requirements or characteristics are shared by a group of people, they interact within the group and deal with the outside. By doing this, they are recognized as a discourse community.
References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved October 2010, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mONQM/is_3_42/ai/ai_108442653
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s Choice: An Open Memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2010, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOHCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college
scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2010, from
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. Retrieved October 2010, from
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario