- After reviewing the Writing Process PowerPoint, what aspects of the writing process stood out to you the most and why? What are some things you will try to utilize when working on writing assignments for this class?
- Based on the information provided in the Syllabus for Contract Grading, what are some pros and cons of this kind of grading system. What specific comments or questions do you have that you’d like to have me address in class?
- Both John Swales and Schmidt & Koppel discuss some traits or characteristics that help define discourse communities. List the traits/characteristics from each article for how they define a DC. What are some similarities and differences between how they discuss and define discourse communities?
- Next, share what your major is (this is your academic discourse community) and list some of things that makes your major unique. Be sure to provide some specific examples and connect them back to at least 3 of the traits/characteristics from the Swales article.
1. One of the aspects that was most prominent to me was the theme of being deliberate with the drafting process. In the past, I tend to write my essays from start to finish, clean up grammatical errors once, and then submit my paper. In this class, deliberately seperating drafts and being precise with what is being corrected and addressed in each revision will be helpful in producing better works.
2. Some pros of this system is that it rewards hard work and effort from students, as well as providing an equitable grading system to students. Another pro is that the clear rubrics make grading and admistrating the class simpler for instructors.
A potential con to this system is that it does not appear to grade based on the content of writings produced, instead opting to target completion of prompts. This seems like it could be vulnerable to being 'gamed' by students.
3. (DC is used as shorthand for discourse communities)
Swales originally defines DCs by six defining characteristics (as well as two more that he appends onto his first definition). These are: common goals, member intercommunication mechanisms, mechanisms to provide information and feedback, coopting genres for communication, specific lexis, threshold of familiarity for membership, sense of 'silential relations', and horizons of expectations. On top of this, he offers three different categories of DCs according to the influences that they are influenced by: local, focal and 'folocal'.
Schmidt and Kopple define it generally as "it is a group of people who share ways to claim, organize, communicate, and evaluate meaning". Through their writing, they hone in on specific traits of DCs and how they define and distinguish discourse communicties. For example, he expands on how the field of study, methods of presenting and substantiating claims, goals of the community influence its identity.
Comparing these two works, they share similarities in how they conceptualize DCs. For instance, they both seem to recognize settings where information is cultivated and exchanged to be DCs. On top of this, both works recognize the importanec of DCs in helping to cultivate information.
However, they are also very distinct in how they discuss and define DCs. One big difference is the tone between them, and he apparent target audience of each. Swales seems more interested in communicating with academics in his line of work. This is seen in his more complex lexicon and willingness to use acronyms with little explanation (like referenceing GERAS and TESOL with no clarification, assuming them to be knwon to his target audience). Schmidt and Kopple are less (targeted?), seeming to target undergraduate students broadly (as established by the introduction where they speak to readers presumed to be at a stage where they have to pick a major).
4. I am a computer science and cognitive science major. Focusing on the cognitive science major, some things that make it unique are its efforts to characterize human cognition. As this is a very difficult thing to study in isolation, experimental setups are scrutinized intensely for confounds and results are often taken in a limited capacity. This cognitive science discourse community has: 1) a broadly agreed set of goals (furthering understanding of human cognition) 2) mechanisms of intercomunication among members (conferences, local newsletters, research papers, etc.) and 3) specific lexis (anterior cingulate gyrus, P-300, oddball paradigm, etc.) among other characteristics it also shares.
Swales:
Def
Swales presents six defining characteristics:
A discourse community:
- has a broadly agreed set of common public goals;
- has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members;
- uses its participatory mechanisms to provide information and feedback;
- utilizes and possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims;
- In addition to owning genres, it has acquired some specific lexis;
- has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise
and - A DC develops a sense of “silential relations” (Becker 1995)
- A DC develops horizons of expectation
3 types of DCs:
local, focal, and “folocal”
Commentary
Outdated, his old definition
Schmidt and Kopple
Def
Seemed to define DCs mostly as how people exchange information.
Commentary
Very different target audience, for example didnt use the word DC once.