Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Edgar Orozco

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

September 27, 2018

Abstract

This paper has no abstract.

Discourse Community Ethnography

Swales had no real good definition about the discourse community field. Swales then sets

out to find what the true definition of what a discourse community is. Using swales

characteristics, this RWS 1301 class is a discourse community. While looking at the different

topics that make up discourse communities in detail as well as the views and meaning behind

some of the characteristics.

Literature Review

Swales (1988) claims that the discourse community is important enough to create an

argument, defining a discourse community as 6 different types of categories. Swales describes

his six reasons for what he claims. Swales believes that as people join what seems to be groups

where thoughts are shared and discussed it will be easier to lean towards the side that was not as

credible to believe the definitions behind discourse communities.

According to Porter, the Discourse Community is said to be defined as a group of

individuals discussing thoughts and ideas on a topic. (34-47). Porter believes that when it

comes to classifying a discourse community, look for characteristics that include certain groups

or areas that revolve around the same ideas which lead them to the same believes and

understandings (p. 547). Porter mentions the community of engineers at the University of

Michigan as it is explained on how all the ideas and thoughts of the engineers are brought

together to form one project. (p. 548). He introduces the term "forums" and how this is a sub

term to the community of engineers that allows them to show their own history and culture to

what classifies each and every member or engineer in the community.

Kain and Wardle (2004) “Activity theory” has a claim that says, there are many ways to

create and further the knowledge and process that is put into writing (p. #113). It is the claim
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

that the Activity theory are the little bits and pieces that influence and create the tools that are

used to create writing as well as change the way people write. Due to this theory the many

factors that determine how someone wrote a certain piece of work, can also be used to

understand the many difficulties and ideas that are being put into the piece as if you were the one

that composed the piece of writing. This explanation being the claim that This explanation being

the claim that Kain and Wardle have made in this essay.

According to Servon (2001). It is also very evident that the author of this article is

explaining the way a “Discourse Community” works through his/her own personal perspective.

The author explains what the little bits and pieces that make up a Discourse Community are. The

example being the Town Hall meeting can serve as a viewing point since it shows how people

come together and share similar and different ideas to come to the most positive conclusion that

will benefit them the most.

Methods

The primary research method we come to the conclusion that the more official and

legit that they are the more credible that they are. Having interviewed our sources they really

inform us of the topic that they are explaining and really help us get the point trying to get

across.

In class we made only a handful of surveys. One example being a scavenger hunt that we

did that had us researching for pictures dealing with our vocabulary for the week.

Many observations were made in this class. For example, our class can observe the

professor teaching and making claims. The class has learned many topics visually and not just

straight out of the book or power point. Pictures were shown to us to really learn what the topic

is about. Some of the pictures that we saw were of the ways of how the environment we are at
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

relates to a discourse community. They are pictures of little artifacts here and there that in a way

help us stay connected and social making us become the true definition of a discourse

community.

Discussion

The RWS 1301 class exhibits common public goals. According to Swales, a common

public goal would be something the community has in common. For example, in this class the

common public goal would be trying to pass the class to earn a college diploma. This is not the

only part of Swales characteristics that this class matches making it a discourse community. For

instance, there can also be the way or artifacts such as blackboard and our weekly reflections that

help discuss and learn about new interests in the same subject within your community. Due to

these artifacts, everyone in the class uses them to learn and adapt to new thoughts and ideas. As

we may know it everyone in the class has a very different mindset and are entitled to their own

ideas and thoughts. This would be when the artifacts that we embark on help shape the class and

how they think while having the artifacts to think back on as they start to make choices and

influence each other among class discussions.

Hierarchy is a new a different way that defines this class a discourse community.

According to Swales, Hierarchy is defined as a form of learning or acquiring knowledge .The

class is put in this spot due to our professor and the way he reflects his thoughts and puts them

out into the open forming a class discussion. This then forms another example of being a

discourse community as we are influenced by what the professor said that suddenly everyone’s

mind is changed and is now in a whole new perspective.

Inter Communication, being one of Swales characteristics, can also be an example of this

class working up its way to what is defined to be discourse community according to Swales
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

(p.27). In this class we use a system online called blackboard. This allows us to converse and talk

to each other online when we are not able to meet up or talk in person. This college program

allows students to write their own reflections on a certain question or topic and really give out

what they believe it may mean. At the same time while writing this reflection they can go back

and read other students' comments and feedback even their own personal reflections and possibly

be influenced but what another person might have said or thought differently. This could happen

most of the time as you find and discover new and even better ways to see your viewpoint than

before when you had no input from anyone or anything.

Info and feedback are a similar way of communication, but the only difference is that the

persons interact and really get let known of what you must do or what you need to do. According

to Swales, it’s a form of gaining information by conversating and sharing ideas. (p. 27). In this

class we use like mentioned before the blackboard UTEP program. In this program a section is

created where not only the professor of the class can put some constructive advice to help better

your writing works, but you can also get some advice from others as you can share whatever it is

that you want and start some sort of discussion about what can be fixed or how the work is

overall.

Genre can be a very important part to what has been said through all these ideas by

swales characteristics. According to Swales it’s the book material or compositions that help find

material for conversations and reflections. (p. 27). Another better way to create these little group

discussions can be through your journal ,where you can go about writing the ideas that you may

have been hearing and you find to be important to the ideas that you just may find interesting and

could be implemented in some way or form later on in the discussion, would be your

composition notebook. Just like the composition notebook there is also our FYC Handbook
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

which can be accessed by the whole class and help them read and find certain topics that would

help them understand subjects in class a lot easier. The notes and the handbook are basically

acting as your feedback but instead of electronically it’s on paper and physically there.

Conclusion

The RWS 1301 class is a discourse community, as defined by Swales' characteristics. As

characteristics were shown and explained, it is evident that the reasons explained by Swales, can

really be important and significant to society. It differs significantly from speech communities,

especially by the existence of common public goals. This which states the number of identified

groups of people that have common interests and together want to accomplish the same task and

make the environment better as a whole. This provides the opportunity to examine other groups

as to their contributions to society. How will discourse communities help us soon? Community

groups might just end up enhancing our education and environment. Swale’s characteristics can

be a valuable tool for examining how communication works within groups. Not only said but has

been proven by many sources on why discourse communities are important.

References

Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Kim, B. (2008). What makes teachers use technology in the classroom?

Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample.

PUBLICATION. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.05.002

Concannon, F., Flynn, A., & Campbell, M. (2005). What campus-based students think about the

quality and benefits of e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (3),

501-512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005. 00482.x

Fabry, D. L., & Higgs, J. R. (1997). Barriers to the effective use of technology in education:

Current status. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17 (4), 385-395.

doi:10.2190/C770-AWA1-CMQR-YTYV

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology

into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and

answers. Review of Educational Research, 77 (4), 575-614.

doi:10.3102/0034654307309921

Lee, H., & Templeton, R. (2008). Ensuring equal access to technology: Providing assistive

technology for students with disabilities. Theory into Practice, 47 (3), 212-219.

doi:10.1080/00405840802153874

Servon, L. J., & Nelson, M. K. (2001). Community technology centers: Narrowing the digital

divide in low-income, urban communities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 23 (3), 279-290.

doi:10.1111/0735-2166.00089

Swales, J. (1988). Discourse communities, genres and English as an international language.

World Englishes, 7 (2), 211-220. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1988.tb00232.x

Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises

and challenges. Educational Technology, 42(1), 5-13. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/44428716

Shim, J. P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J. F., Power, D. J., Sharda, R., & Carlsson, C. (2002). Past,

present, and future of decision support technology doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-

9236(01)00139-7

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing

evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1),

179-225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791