Reflecting on a discourse community scope

What a discourse community entails

                   

What criteria are to be followed to categorize a discourse community? What is it implied to tell discourse communities apart? According to Swales (1990), a discourse community is “a means of maintaining and extending a group’s knowledge and of initiating new members into a group (…)” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 13). Swales (1990) continues to add that a discourse community complies with certain standards which comprise common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, specialized terminology and high general knowledge of expertise (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010).

Within a discourse community, members pursue specific objectives and have specific interests (Swales, 1990). An illustration is a cohort-based graduated program personalized and responsive to teachers’ needs. Wenzlaff and Wiesemen (2004) aptly put the matter “forty three per cent of the cohort entered the program to improve their skills as teachers” (p. 3). Moreover, Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) hold that several discourse communities in teacher reflection have arisen, but each of them oriented to different goals and interests. Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) give the example of “phenomenological discourse communities” (p. 2), whose main aim is to focus on the individual and his/her experiences as the source for reflection.

Second to specific goals, Swales (1990) mentions participatory mechanisms as another standard to limit a discourse community. The flow of communication and feedback by the members in a discourse community is necessary. Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003), for example, explain that a cohort structure is formed by “inquiry groups of teachers” (p. 4). In addition, interaction is said to be the primary means of communication in the cohort. They expose “roles that people are expected to play in the inquiry group are established through negotiation and configuration of routines” (p. 4). Thus, the previous trait relates directly to information exchange and interrelatedness in the discourse community.

A discourse community, as referred to by Swales (1990), should deal with genre that defines the group’s association. Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) suggest a “critical discourse community” (p. 3) who validates reflective practices through personal narratives of oppressed members of society. They propose a “situated learning discourse community” whose work is based on three concepts that are interrelated: situated activity, social endeavor and distributed process with content (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres, 2003, p. 3). Likewise, a cohort of teachers oriented to reflection supports collaborative learning and a cohort approach towards a sense of empowerment (Wenzlaff and Wieseman, 2004).

Not only does a community consider genre discourse, but also specialized terms. Therefore, a community college may fit this criterion as considered by Kleese (2001). She clarifies that “the community college can be seen as adopting language that has been given particular meaning within the larger education community” (p. 2). In the same line of thought, Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2004) agree on the fact that a situated learning community talks via a “social language” which is to be transformed by teachers (p.7). Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) seem to distinguish this feature in a cohort group. They express with clarity that “teachers need opportunities in professional communities that discuss learning theories and various teacher materials and pedagogy” (p. 2).

What knowledge a discourse community uses is a final standard to consider. Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) assert that “cohort communities” are built up on the professors’ assumptions and experiences (p. 6). The relation knowledge holders-receivers is set by Kleese (2001) who phrases “community college faculty members are seen as the receivers of knowledge not the producers” (p. 4). Hoffman, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003), over and above that, assess that for a reflective community of teachers, there is a level of expertise underlying the organization of activities. They contend that”scholars such as Dewey, Van Manen and Schon laid the groundwork for this discourse” (p. 3).

In conclusion, the requirements presented by Swales (1990) shed light in the principles to classify and limit a discourse community as such. From the different articles and authors mentioned, there is enough evidence that supports those features. Consequently, it is possible to distinguish a community of teachers with a reflective vision to learning and teaching; a cohort community of teachers who privilege collaborative and social practices; and a community college discourse community overridden by a university community. It appears the case that a discourse community to be defined as one needs to follow Swales (1990) considerations.

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 Education Quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405