Discourse community: Basic principles to define it

Broadly speaking a discourse community can be described “as knowledge community, social mechanism that hold people together and generates values, aims and language practices” (Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.13).In this line of thought, Swales (1990, as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.14) describes a discourse community as having certain characteristics such as “common goals, participatory mechanisms, community specific genres, information exchange, specialized terminology and a high general level of expertise”.

Showing evidence on this issue, Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) provide an example of a masters’ degree program in curriculum and pedagogy. Regarding information exchange, this program worked as a partnership between an urban and a rural institution. Although at the beginning members of these communities had different goals as they wanted to improve their skills as teachers, their salary schedule or institutional reputation, then, they developed the common goal of modifying their practices.

Provided the content of the course was to connect theory and practice, members should manage a high level of terminology and expertise “to perform an advanced practicum based on psychology and pedagogy issues” (Wenzlaff and Wieseman, 2004, para.10). Their participatory mechanisms were portfolios assessed by teachers, workshops and discussions.

It is worth to mention Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003) who analyze teacher learning based on praxis and reflection .They view reflection as an element that may make teachers belong to a discourse community. The common goal would be to make a critical reflection on the socio historical and institutional contexts in which students are educated, as well as on pedagogical and curricular concerns. To reach this aim, teachers use personal narratives, statistics and arguments, journals or virtual systems of communication which constitute specific genres.

 Concerning participatory mechanisms, teachers share reflections with their colleagues in goal oriented activities, for example team teaching and collaborative planning. As stated previously, a discourse community may be expected to manage specific terminology. This is the case of teachers’ reflection on theories of learning, pedagogical models  as well as personal experiences .Therefore, “the movement between action and reflection builds cycles of critical praxis” as Hoffman-Kipp et al. (2003, para.4) have stated.

A third example that illustrates the characteristics of a discourse community is community college, which according to what Kelly- Kleese (2001) describes in her article,  it may be seen as an educational institution that holds several of the elements stated by Swales. Firstly, members have developed a common discourse that refers to shared knowledge, common purposes, similar values and attitudes and a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style.

In addition, community colleges manage a specific language that gets meaning within its context s well as within the larger higher education community. In the same fashion, community college and university have got different purposes. When participatory mechanisms are referred to, the author claims that community college forms part of secondary discourse community, as its members perform the role of readers, while members of universities are the ones that create knowledge by searching and writing.

 According to Kutz (2004, cited in Kelly-Kleese, The Community College as a Discourse Community, para.6) communicative competence may be defined as “individuals or groups with greater skill in manipulating language to exercise the power over another discourse community” and scholarship “a commitment to inquiry to provide quality education”. Both concepts may not appear as community college characteristics. However, Kelly-Kleese (2004) contends that when being encouraged to do so, members of community college may discover, integrate, share and apply knowledge. In fact, a “scholarship of teaching” turns out as a redefined issue.  

 On the basis of what has been analyzed above, the three authors appear to show evidence of Swales´ criteria to define a discourse community. In other words, they provide elements in their articles that refer to characteristics of a discourse community as such. Teachers’ reflection, community college and its scholarship seem to share common goals, manage specific vocabulary with a high degree of expertise through different participatory mechanisms, using certain genres to develop as a discourse community.

References

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Articles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003) Beyond Reflection: Teacher Learning

     as Praxis Theory into Practice Retrieved September 2010, 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 September 2010, from

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

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA Community College Review: Community College Scholarship and

     Discourse. Community College Review Retrieved September 2010, from

     http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

Pintos, V. & Crimi, Y Building up a Community of Teachers and Prospective Researchers Retrieved

    September 2010 from http//caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mode/resource/view.php.? id = 6856 

Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C (2004) Teachers Need Teachers To Grow. Teacher Education

     Quarterly Retrieved September 2010, from

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