Discourse Community Characterization

            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

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

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: Community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

            Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers need teachers to grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, fromhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405