Discourse Communities in English Language Teaching: Requirements

Discourse communities are described as groups that share a given written or spoken discourse within a field of study. According to Swales (as cited in Pintos, 2010) they must fulfill certain requirements, among them common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange channels, highly specialized terminology and a high general level of expertise. There are sound evidences of these characteristics in the writings by Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003), Kelly-Kleese (2001, 2004), Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004)

Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003) analyze teacher reflection and the different views and links between discourse communities. Reflective teachers take part in this community whose common goals aim at reflecting upon their own practice. Participatory mechanisms are implemented through inquiring on teachers’ daily practice. According to the cultural historical approach to teacher reflection, suggested by these authors, the vehicles through teachers can share their experiences are referred as “artifacts”. Those artifacts which can be divided in three types, are at a primary level curriculum materials, at a secondary level beliefs and norms, and at a tertiary level inquiry groups where participants make different social and critical analysis. As it can be seen, this group has distinctive characteristics that make it being part of a distinctive discourse community.

Kelly-Kleese (2001) argues about the status of community college faculty discourse within the higher education discourse community. For this group common goals are to become prestigious and improve the image they have in the larger education community. The vehicle to reach that status is language. Participatory mechanisms should be enhanced to promote that desired prestige which can only be achieved through becoming skilled writers, thus not holding only the position of mere readers and recipients of academic and scientific information. As stated by Kelly-Kleese (2001), becoming a discourse community on its own depends on improving communicative competence and becoming producers of knowledge. This particular view gives light to a new born discourse community.

Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) describe an experience carried out in a graduate program for teachers in-service. The aim of this program was to provide teachers the opportunity to participate in professional communities through reflection of learning theories, materials and pedagogy. Participatory mechanisms were provided through study and collaborative work, electronic bulletin boards and electronic chat sessions where teachers were able to exchange information and opinions. As regards the style they had to use in their discussions, it had to be a professional discourse. Professors in charge of this program tried to create the proper environment to make teachers feel part of a community of learners and of reflective and collaborative teachers.

Kelly-Kleese (2004) retakes the issue of community colleges, and discusses a new approach to redefine scholarship, and providing guidelines for community college professionals to assert their knowledge within higher education. Kelly-Kleese (2004) maintains that discourse communities overlap and do not have defined boundaries, power is exercised through academic prestigious writers, and the necessity of opportunities for college professionals to become scholars. Kelly-Kleese’s insights (2004) enlighten the role that college discourse communities should play in a larger discourse community, in order to enrich student learning views.

In conclusion, it should be said that discourse communities constitute an important part of the education field and to be part of them, participation and development of a required level of communicative competence are required. These key elements will empower participants and make them take active part in discourse communities.

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

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective teachers. Retrieved August 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=7214

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

Discourse communities in ELT

 I didn't know the concept of discourse communities until I started to delve into the topics of the subject:EAP. I realised that it is important to participate and acquire the necessary competences to do it appropiately. I entirely agree with this quotation: "..... individuals and groups with greater skill in using (and manipulating) the language system will exercise power in naming and thus controlling how others view social reality"(Bowers,1987 quoted in Wenzlaf & Wieseman 2004,p.3)