Discourse community is composed by those people who are interested
in language practices and they share the same aims, values, expectations and
specific lexis.
Swales (1990) states
six characteristics to define the discourse
community. They are described below with supportive evidence from other
sources and theorists.
Common Goals: these are the objectives and interests shared by the members.
According to Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles
and Lopez-Torres (2003), teachers interact in activities that are goal-directed
through communication and exchange of their own ideas. “Teachers reflection in
social context occurs as teachers engage in and share their reflections in
diverse ways” (Hoffman-Kipp et al, 2003,
p. 4). Thus, in this goal-directed
context teachers collaborate and strategize solutions, rely on their colleagues
and other more experienced members.
Participatory Mechanism: information and feedback
Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) state that
reflection is present in goal-oriented activities in school cultures through
the interaction among colleagues that enables the exchange of ideas (p. 3).
Wenzlaff (2004) claims that research
design consists on data collection, field notes, observation, data organization,
memo writing and re-presentation of the data.
Vaugham’s (1988) study found the following:
Scholarship is the
umbrella under which research falls(…) Scholarship results in a product that is shared with others and that is
subject to the criticism of individuals qualified
to judge the product (cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p.4).
Other authors such as Hutchings
and Schulman (1999) observe three outstanding characteristics of scholarship:
“(1) It is public …; (2) it is open to critique and evaluation; and (3) it is
relayed in a form on which others can build.” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004,
p.7)
Information Exchange: members of the group stay intercommunicated.
Wenzlaff (2004)
suggests that teachers immersed in a collaborative culture are bound to learn
from one another as colleagues. Therefore, this is not a unidirectional
phenomenon as “interaction with people in one’s environment are major
determinants of both what is learned and how learning takes place” (p. 1).
Group work enables promoting positive change and accomplishing tasks. While
performing a collaborative planning in their daily work, teachers discuss
beliefs and practices (Hoffman-Kipp et al, 2003, p. 3).
Community-Specific Genres: the group uses a common genre.
Kelly-Kleese (2004) states that within a
discourse community people share language practices and develops discourse
involving knowledge, common purposes and values (p. 2).
According to
Kelly-Kleese (2001), the community college construct meanings, generate a
community language and style (p. 1). From the perspective of developing a
collective identity, teachers strive to
acquire and transform a social language, a discourse peculiar to a professional
group at a given time (Hoffman–Kipp, 2003, p. 7).
Highly Specialized Terminology:
As Kelly-Kleese (2001)
explains the discourse community members share understandings about how to
communicate and a discourse with a particular style (p. 1). This community
adopts language with a specific meaning that does not seem to be applicable to
the broader context.
High General Level of
Expertise: level of knowledge shared by the group.
Teachers guide and
assist each other while building new ideas and therefore inquiry and deep
reflection characterizes their meetings (Hoffman-Kipp et al, 2003, p. 5). “Understanding the community college as a
discourse community would (…) move community college professionals into a
position of legitimate power (…) while increasing their esteem within that
community” (Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p.4 ).
Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles
and Lopez-Torres (2003) suggest that the shift from assisted to independent use
of tools, Vygotsky`s (1978) concept of Zone of Proximal Development, enlist
novices to perform the desired practices through writing, speaking or listening
as peripheral members, before they become competent in the use of those
practices.
In the light of this characterization of a discourse community,
collaborative learning might support teachers to apply this learning in their
respective classrooms and therefore improve their practices. This collaborative
culture can possibly enhance tolerance of differences, thinking outside the
box, rapport, risk-taking and reflection.
References
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
