Unit1.Task1.Draft.
Providing a single definition for discourse community might be an arduous task since this would derive in as many definitions as there are theorists to make them due to the fact that both concepts, Discourse and Community, are intricate in themselves. However, one can find in Swales’ (1990) theory[U3] basic but still far-reaching criteria to analyse Discourse Community[YAC4] - common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise.
These [YAC5] six standards allow members of a discourse community to build their own identity and to establish the parameters to decide whether a person belongs to that community or not. It is frequently the case that these standards are not formally fixed categories but they are implicit in the existence of the community itself.
Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003) allow us to peruse an exhaustive description of reflective teachers who would classify as a Discourse Community:
¨ Critiquing technical reflection (van Manen, 1977) has helped to widen the definition, content, and purposes of teacher reflection beyond more efficient implementation of professional practice. Several discourse communities in teacher reflection have arisen around this critique--phenomenological, critical, and situated learning (Ovens, 2002). They highlight how teacher reflection itself is "mobilised in particular contexts for particular political, pedagogical, and phenomenological purposes" (Ovens, 2002, p. 507; as cited in Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres, 2003, p.2[YAC6] ).
It is interesting [YAC7] to highlight the fact that there may be subdivisions in what could be considered a single discourse community. In the former quotation, the idea of common purpose or goal is mentioned. Furthermore, if a reflexive teacher is due to record his experiences[U8] , knowledge and thoughts, certain genres, such as journals, are expected to be mastered.
The authors refer to the ideas of participatory mechanisms, information exchange and high general level of expertise: ¨ Further, we argue that a new vision of critical, situated reflection must include both technical and political content and be based on a dialogic approach¨ (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez Torres, 2003, p.1). (only authors’ surnames).
It is worth noticing that apart from describing a Discourse Community, the article has been written for a Discourse Community itself- education professionals who read about education professionals. To mention another [YAC9] Swales’ (1990) standards, highly specialized terminology, the authors of the article [YAC10] use the acronym for Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) what can be interpreted only if the Discourse member manages the jargon (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez Torres, 2003)
Students, professionals, artists, religious, politicians, ghettos, ethnic groups, tribes, we all share the same basic needs, and among them communication and sense of belonging have deep relevance. Being essential to bare in mind the complexity these two concepts – discourse and community- imply, it is possible to state that discourse is inherent to a community as a community provides discourse its existence. A theorist like[U11] Swale ([YAC12] 1990) leads our analysis and reflexion upon basic elements which underlie all discourse communities to later question ourselves: Are these six basic aspects causes or consequences of the discourse communities[U13] ?
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[YAC15]
Where is Swales? You mentioned him so many times…
Page numbers are missing.
Paper | |||||
Name and Surname: | Topic: | ||||
Title: | |||||
Dimension | Criteria | Points | |||
LAYOUT | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (5 to 20) |
Format | No headers, no page numbers, no clear margins. Spacing problems. Inappropriate font. | No Header included. Page numbers absence. Spacing problems. | Header and page numbers included. Spacing problems. Inappropriate font. | Clear paper’s presentation. There are page numbers. Respected margins. Correct spacing and type & size of font. 1.5 or double interlining. | 2 |
Header | Not included. | Included. Too much information. Or some info missing. | Included. Not well balanced. | Included. Precise info is given. Well balanced. | 1 |
Title | Not included. | Included. Not suitable. Underlined, highlighted or italicized. | Included. Appealing. Underlined, highlighted or italicized. | Included. Appealing. Centered. | 2 |
References | Not mentioned. Plagiarism. | Mentioned vaguely. Not on a new sheet of paper. Not clear use of references or erroneous sources acknowledgement | Not clear use of references or erroneous sources acknowledgement. | Sources cited clearly in a reference list at the end of the paper. APA style. | 2 |
In-text citations | Not included. Plagiarism. | Little use of in-text citations. Incorrect use of required style. | Included. Not well balanced. Repeated pattern. (e.g. too many quotes, only paraphrasing, etc). | Included. Well balanced. Different techniques applied. It is read smoothly. APA. | 2 |
CONTENT | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (10 to 40) |
Data analysis | Not clear analysis. Relationships & comparisons cannot be followed. | Brief. Not substantial. Some connections can be followed. | Clear. Good analysis. No evidence presented. Inversion. Hedging. Conditionals. | Very good. Clear analysis. Comparisons can be established. Evidence is provided. Inversion. Hedging & conditionals. | 3 |
Terminology/ Word choice | Difficult to follow. Not understandable. Imprecise language. No acronyms clarification. | Inappropriate terminology. Little clarification. Some terms are not academic. | Legible terminology. Clarification. More academic style. Effective. | Legible terminology. New terms clarification. Effective vocabulary. Good use of connectors. Academic style. | 3 |
Spelling | Full of errors. Unreadable. | Many errors. Some parts unreadable. | Few errors. Readable. | All words are spelled correctly. | 3 |
Sentence variety | Many sentence fragments. Same pattern and length. | Some sentence fragments. Same pattern & length. | Most sentences are complete and varied in pattern & length. | Complete sentences in a variety of patterns and lengths. | 3 |
Organization | Vague ideas. Long & confusing intro. Unrelated development. Blurred conclusion. | Some ideas connected to each other. Purpose established. No transitions. Main point presented. Two of the three parts are not clear or too long. | Connected ideas. Clear purpose. Marked transitions. One of the three parts is not clear or too long. | Connected ideas: supporting the main topic. Clear and concise introduction. Clear development: good clarification of major points. Clear conclusion. | 3 |
Punctuation | Frequent and major errors that obscure meaning. | Some frequent or major errors: Readers’ confusion. | A few errors. | No punctuation errors. | 3 |
Paragraph content & paragraph length | Not balanced: too long & too short paragraphs are presented. | Some paragraphs relate to the topic. Not balanced: too long or too short paragraphs are presented. | Most paragraphs are related to the topic. Well balanced. | Paragraph length has been respected & achieved. Smooth. Clear and precise. | 3 |
Grammar | Grammar choices are confusing. Mixture of tenses. | Some grammar mistakes. Grammar choices sometimes confuse the readers. | Appropriate grammar choice. No meaning interference. | Completely appropriate grammar choice: Help readers understand meaning. | 3 |
Details | No or little details (such as explanations, examples, etc) to support & explain the topic. | Some accurate details. Do not always support topic. | Accurate info that supports the topic. | Accurate and relevant info that fully support the topic. | 3 |
Tone & audience | Unclear & inappropriate tone. Audience not considered. | Inconsistent tone. Incomplete idea of audience. | Appropriate tone. Audience is considered. | Appropriate & consistent tone. Audience correctly identified. | 3 |
39/60 | |||||
Comments:
Good paper. There are some things to polish yet. But it looks very academic. You’ll see how much you will grow by the end of the term. Keep on working that hard!
Prepare your final version. Show it to your peer editor (or show him/her this version) to see whether he/she can help with some polishing. Then, upload that version to your blog.
Your mark is: 7 (seven)
[YAC1]This is not a header I’m afraid. Please, check the campus to see how to include one and what info is required.
[YAC2]Good title! But check APA format for titles.
[U3]Have you read the original source or have you read him in another source? If so, you need to acknowledge that source, as well.
[YAC4]Why highlighted and in italics? No capiutalization.
[YAC5]Careful: referente.
[YAC6]Great! It is a block quotation. But check APA for appropriate formar=t.
[YAC7]Not very academic.
[U8]Biased language…
[YAC9]Other? Another of?
[YAC10]Which one? Do not cite articles. Mention authors instead.
[U11]Such as is more formal.
[YAC12]Spelling.
[U13]Wow! What a reflective question. I loved it.
[YAC14]Check APA for placement.
[YAC15]You have cited Swales as well. So, he should be part of your reference list.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario