Evidence Supporting Swales (1990) ´ View on Discourse Communities

            In academic fields, the notion Discourse Communities has been object of numerous contributions from the most varied views.  Swales (1990) and Johns (1990)  stated: ¨A discourse community is composed of a minimum number of expert members and a  frequently larger number of apprentice members who operate on the basis of implicit and explicit public goals…their members develop and use systems of speech and writing that are sometimes quite specific to a particular community´s needs and goals. We often find participatory mechanisms used by community members to transmit information and feedback (e.g.meetings, publications, etc.)” (Swales (1990) and Johns (1990); in Teaching ESL Composition defines a discourse community)

            This paper will attempt to support Swales ´views through the analysis of articles which refer to Swales´ basic criteria for the existence of a discourse community.

            Swales (1990) states that a discourse community should achieve certain objectives and have specific interests. Kelly-Kleese (2001) points out “through community college scholarship, we can enhance the college´s reputation, to bring prestige to the campus and its faculty, and to reshape the image of the institution in the eyes of both the public and the educational community” (para. 1). These common goals will give the members a sense of belonging to a greater corpus where group work will result in better quality of education.

            Swales (1990) determined it was of vital importance to design participatory mechanisms to provide members with information and feedback. As Wenslaff and Weiseman (2004) state “The findings of this study suggest that a cohort-based graduate program that is personalized and responsive to teachers´ needs promotes meaningful learning and a sense of empowerment.” (para. 52) This exchange among teachers (members of the discourse community) will favour transmition of information. “For the learning to have long-standing impact, teachers need teachers to grow within a discourse community. A discourse community cannot exist in the absence of a collaborative culture and an environment that supports risk-taking and reflection.” Wenslaff and Weiseman (2004, para. 53).

            Through the participation in discourse communities, teachers develop a higher level of expertise, as Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torrres (2003) mention: ”Teacher reflection is an important contribution to the scholarship on teacher education and development.” (para. 26)  “ This kind of inquiry can lead to a more thoughtful , qualitative understanding of the community college. It may also provide faculty and administrators with a greater understanding of the need for scholarship that has been generated from within the community college discourse community”, states  Kelly-Kleese (2001, para 15).

            By means of exchanging knowledge, either by writing or speaking, and conducting research, members of the discourse communities employ highly specialized terminology through the use of abbreviations and acronyms. Wenslaff and Wieseman (2004) use NCATE to refer to university education standards and Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) describe types of schools as K-12.

            The members of these communities use specific genres to communicate information through articles, published in journals, either online or paper format.

            In conclusion, the members of discourse communities benefit from the exchange with other members, increase their levels of expertise and share a clear common goal that will result in a sense of belonging to a group bound by professional and personal  connections.

References

Wenslaff, T., Weiseman, K. (Spring 2004).  Teachers need teachers to grow. Teacher education quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, from http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A., Lopez-Torres, L. (Summer 2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrivied  October 2007,from http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653

Kelly-Kleese, C. (Summer 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. (Summer 2004). UCLA community college review: community

college scholarship and discourse. Community College review. Retrieved on October 2007, from http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mHCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541