Discourse and defining terms. We started class with a discussion of some of the terms from Swales essay as they are set up in the discussion by Downs and Wardle to introduce the article, and in the glossary to the book this essay was "borrowed" from.
In our discussion of the terms discourse/Discourse, we noted that the term discourse is associated with language in use, and the term Discourse is associated with ways of saying/thinking/and doing things = and idenity that includes a characteristic way of saying things (discourse).
Rhetorical In our discussion of Downs & Wardle's discussion of the term rhetorical - we noted that they used a lot of hard, big words if they were defining this for students. We noted the different "rhetorical" advantages I had in creating a definition in person - with direct feedback (interaction) from you. We defined each of the terms situated, motivated, interactie, epistemic, and contingent, and talked about how, taken together = they characterize rhetorical communications. In our discussion of the term epistemic - ways of thinking about how we know things - I used an example where I "told" you about Stockholm, Sweden (some place none of you had been). I described it as a city built on an archipelago (though I didn't use that word because it is hard to pronounce) = a series of islands, with bridges connecting the different parts of the city, and how many of the buildings are made of stone with the big arched bridges and walkways connecting the different parts of the city. Then we talked about how each of you would have different images of "islands" the water between and "stone buildings" that were from your individual experiences. So that in a sense - I'd "told" each of you something different, and each of you "knew" about Stockholm in a different way so that what you, I, we know was an interactive creation => not a set of unchangeable "facts" out there to be discovered.
The object of this discussion was to set you up with some language & ideas to think about the "social constructionists" Swales references in his opening. The idea that knowledge is made/created through communications/interactions between people - as a social constructionist assumption.
Learning a new language. We also observed that this course was a lot about learning how to say/think/do things the way writing studies researchers say/think/do them. It is about learning a Discourse (and a discourse=way of using language).
Swales. We talked about Swales from two different perspectives. First we looked at how his essay was organized (we did a rhetorical analysis). And then we applied/tried out his "findings" to see how/whether they allowed us to talk about our class as a discourse community.
Organization of Swales essay. I asked you to notice the different moves the essay makes (as a way of identifying where the information you are going to need to put in your research essays will bes located).
Overall the essay was organized into:
1. an introductory section (about 20% of the essay's total length) where he states what other researchers have done and points out what he will add to this "conversation"
2. a long middle section (about 60%) where he makes his point (offers a criterial list of features of discourse communities and gives an example)
3.And a (surprisingly long) conclusion (about 20%) - where he sums up his findings, raises additional questions, and states further work/questions which might be addressed in additional research. i
Swales essay presents one pattern for writing studies research papers. Important consideration for you: does this essay include primary data? Where would you put your primary data if you used this form? How much "space" should primary data take?
We then spent the remainder of the class working in groups to see what Swales list said about how or whether our class was a discourse community. We didn't get to sum this up as thoroughly as we should have so I am going to ask you to post your findings on your blogs. You may post the "same" post by groups (one post/group) or on your own. I have sent an email to everyone in the class with names/emails so that you can be in touch if you want to work together.
Groups:
Brianna, Jessica, Brenda
Adrian, Sara, Ariana, Florie
Gigi, Melanie, John
Holly, David, Amanda
For next class:
Read: Emerson: Wrting Ethnographic Fieldnotes (with attention to the sample fieldnotes, and to the sample jottings.
Blog 4: Use Swales criteria to characterize our class as a discourse community (or not). Include some critical reflection on how teacher and student Discourse - and the power structures of school = affect the shape of our discourse community (or not). This does not need to be perfect - it is an opportunity to use some of the new vocabulary + practice analysis. Go for it!
No comments:
Post a Comment