"Discourse Communities and Communication of Practice"

In the introduction to “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice it is touched upon that this particular article is an extension of an ongoing conversation between John Swales and James Gee. In Summary this conversation is made up of Swales commenting that just because you are involved with a discourse community, doesn’t necessarily mean that you belong to that particular community. Gee on the other hand discusses that a person “from non-dominant home discourses can only join dominant ones through mushfake.”

            Ann M. Johns adds much to this conversation in this article. While both Gee and Swales failed to mention the conflict within the discourse communities. John brings up the notion that perhaps discourse communities is not the best term for describing the community, but Communities of Practice is better suitable. She claims this title is better equip for the term because” it refers to genres and lexis that hold communities together or separate them from one another.” A point that John touches on again and again is that students must be introduced to a wide range of  their own genres in the classroom. She says that is important to draw from our students own experiences and to have the students learn from each others different Communities of Practice.

 I found the most interesting part of John’s article was when she discusses the community conflicts. She lists the cost of affiliation, issues of authority, conventions and anticonventionalism, and dialogue and critique as some of the conflicts that can arise within a community. These conflicts are mostly affiliated with the academic communities and how students adjust to the academic Communities of Practice.  But Johns talks about more then just academic communities in the article. She discusses professional communities, which are discourse communities within the work force. She also discusses Social, Political, and Recreational Communties, which are communities that are developed within a certain group of interest. An example of a recreational community would be a cycling group. All of these groups are very different and Johns says that it is important for students to be familiar with because they must understand the importance of group practices.

"Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics"

In the article “Literacy, Discourse and Linguistics” James Paul Gee discusses the constant “tests” of discourse communities. In these tests members of the community test a person to see if the person is a “native” or “non-native” to the community. This can cause strain between primary and secondary discourse communities. But in many cases a primary discourse community has been influenced by a secondary discourse community. I can attest to this being true in my life when looking at my discourse community of my house here at Ohio University as my primary discourse community, but it is influenced by my secondary discourse community, twitter. Much of the language my 6 room mates I pick up on is funny stuff we pick up on twitter. We all have a twitter account and follow each other so twitter talk is often discussed within the house. This influences the way we communicate with each other via text message or even face to face.

            Another point I think Gee is making is that to be accepting and kept in the discourse community, you have to be shown that you are in the loop. On page 487 Gee states, “Social Groups will not, usually, give their social goods to those who are not native.” This emphasizing that these tests are the “gates”, as Gee calls them to getting in and staying in the discourse community you belong to. Gee discusses how superficial language can be and I agree. I think the point he is trying to make is discourse communities can go back to economic class, which can seem superficial indeed.

"The Concept of the Discourse Community"

1.     A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.

- In other words Swales is saying that each discourse community has a known agenda; that each person in the community is well aware of what the discourse community intends to achieve or do. This agenda could be written or just known. An example in my life would be the discourse community of my soccer team in high school. We had common goals that we all wanted to achieve, winning. This necessarily didn’t need to be said, although it was.

2.     A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.

- Swales means that each discourse community has its on different way of communicating depending on the discourse community. For example within the discourse community of my roommates we use a language and way of communicating just with each other that other people may find offensive or not understand, but to us it seems normal. For example calling each other words that are usually insulting is in our discourse community humorous; yet we would never say them to someone outside the community.

3.     A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback.

- To me Swales is saying that because a person is a member of the discourse community the way they interact with other people, members or nonmembers is in a way to possess feedback. For example when working at Bagel Street Deli to better the service or quality of the food, I may ask someone how they enjoy their bagel. The next day another member of the community may do the same thing. It is a tactic we use to advance the success of the store.

4.     A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.

- I believe Swales is touching on how within a discourse community there are many different functions when it comes to communicating and because of this the discourse community is always expanding and changing. For example my extended family discourse community is always growing. People are getting married and having children and consequently roles are changing. My Aunts are now becoming grandparents, while my cousins are now becoming parents.

5.     In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis.

- Swales is commenting on the discourse community having a very specific way of communicating. I think he also touches on how technology can be brought into this aspect of discourse communities as well.  In the work place this is very common. At Bagel Street Deli I know there are words that we say that if a normal customer heard they wouldn’t know what we were talking about.

6.     A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.

- I think Swales is talking about the variety of people that are in the discourse community and how they are all on different levels as far as hierarchy and importance goes. For example at my Dad’s company where I work over the summer there is a clear “food chain.” My Dad is the boss at the top, then the other reps who work for him, then the secretaries, then his assistant, and then me.  All of the people above me know more then I do about the community.

"From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies"

  I do agree that in Dennis Baron’s article “From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies” that he is shrugging at technology. In the conclusion Baron comments on the pencils being “…a natural way to write because they are old.” True this is a part of technology but I don’t understand how it is not a natural way of writing. How do you write without technology? Even in the days of the cavemen they had to come up with some sort of technology to be able to write. So I believe that writing and technology go hand in hand. Writing is technology so there is no need to shrug it because if you shrug technology, you shrug writing. Then Baron questions, “Whether the computer will one day be as taken for granted as the pencil is an intriguing question.” This to me is extremely interesting because I know that when I draft a paper I usually even outline my ideas on a word document instead of on paper. I think it is easier and I can type faster then I can write so it saves me time. As the future approaches it is hard to imagine what will come of the computer and Baron touches on that in the article. It is hard for a student of this time to even imagine writing without technology.

"The Future of Literacy"

The case study in which I felt that related to my own personal experiences involving literacy was Danielle DeVoss. Not only is a she from a middle class, Midwestern family like I am but like Danielle I also grew up with reading being an avid part of my life. I have home videos of me dating back to when I was three years old reading small story books. Also my mom would take us to the library at least once a week to pick out a book to read for the week. Every night we had an hour dedicated to reading. Whether it was a novel from school and an educational magazine, my Dad would make us read for an hour every night. Danielle’s parents push to go to summer reading programs and their large support for reading in general reminds me of the way my parents treated reading growing up. Every night still in my parents house my Dad and Mom read on the couch. I can also relate to Danielle’s scenario because she received a computer around the age of 10 and that is very close to the age that my parents brought one home. She is said to be extremely web literate and because I have grown up a computer being a part of my life, I would say I can be extremely web literate as well.

Malcom X and Sherman Alexie

Both articles were extremely similar in the fact that both writers taught themselves to read at different times in their life. They were not given spelling tests and workbooks to help them learn how to read and write in school. They both lived in a period of time in this country where treatment wasn’t exactly equal, and they didn’t have the opportunities that many of us so selfishly take for granted. In Malcolm X’s “Learning to Read” he taught himself how to read while he was in jail. This was at a relatively older age, considering most of us begin our study to read around the age of 5 or 6. Teaching yourself how to read from a prison is a completely different way of literacy. But he did teach himself how to read and write and became quite literate. Not only literate but he became hungry for more information and that should be admired.

            In “Superman and Me” by Sherman Alexie he taught himself how to read by reading whatever he could get his hands on since the time he was three. If it was a comic book, he would read it. A automobile manual, he would read it. Even the newspaper, which is impressive taking into consideration his age. Like Malcolm X Sherman taught himself how to read, but at a much younger age. These two situations just show that race/class/status all do play into literacy. It may be a little better today then it was in the past, but the amount of schooling and experience you get defiantly affects your literacy. If you are poor and do not get the chance to go to school, or go to a good school, your literacy will not be as good when compared to a white American who got to go to a private school all their life. This is an injustice to the citizens of this country.

"Sponsors of Literacy"

Having attended a catholic school from grades 1-12, I have to say that my literacy sponsors may to some seem bias. Having a roman catholic background ingrained into my abilities to read and write has created a certain stance that I have when analyzing readings and computing my own writing. These morals have been something I have grown up with, and since have been rooted into my mind; because of this I am subconsciously integrating what I have learned into my abilty to be a literate citizen. This particular sponsor gave me access to religious literacies Another sponsor that I would consider would be in a different genre of writing and reading, other then school/church, would be social networking cites, such as facebook and twitter. What I learned from these particular sponsors would never be used in my school literacies, but instead in my daily use of facebook, twitter, and text messaging. There is a different way of communication on these certain devices. It is a more lax way of reading and writing. The casual use of spelling, grammar, and punctuation has been created recently because of the increase in the ability of technological literacy. My generation in particular is much more tech literate then my parent’s generation. I think the social networking cites have taught me a certain type of social literacy. It may not be person-to-person social literacy, but a new type of social literacy involving technology.  

            I think the access I have from these sponsors is adequate because I have been able to present myself to the social and academic world as a literate person. If they had not done their job, I may be behind in the standings of literacy for someone of my age group and education level. As far as literacies being withheld from me that I wish to have; I would want to explore more into the scientific world. Being brought up by a catholic sponsor they tend to not to expand on the scientific facts, for example evolution. This is something I would have liked to been more educated about and more literate towards.

Wikipedia Reflective Essay

If I had a dollar for every time I heard “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” in high school and junior high, I’m pretty sure I’d be rich. As a student, even in college, I always thought Wikipedia was an unacceptable source, because anyone can create a page (not to mention it has been what I have been told over and over again). It wasn’t until this class that I saw the light, the light that shines on the potential and the extreme awesomeness of Wikipedia. When Matt first introduced the Wikiepedia page project, I have to admit I was extremely nervous. I knew Wikipedia pages were written in extremely dry and objective tones and that has never been my preferred type of writing. I always like to put my two-sense into my writing and I thought not being able to give my opinion or input, was going to be extremely limiting. However I actually thoroughly enjoyed creating a Wikipedia page. There is something exhilarating about knowing your writing, even if it is objective, is on the web for the world to see.

            The first day we were introduced to this assignment I immediately knew that I wanted to create a page about something I cared about. After all, if it was going to be an objective piece, I wanted it to at least mean something to me. Matt mentioned that doing something local, or in the Athens area would be a neat idea and my mind automatically jumped to Bagel Street Deli.  I thought this would be a great page to put on Wikipedia. It is a unique small business that everyone in Athens knows and loves. However, after I read the “Notability” page on WIkipedia, I soon found out that it wasn’t a suitable option. They recommend not creating pages about businesses because it ends up looking more like an advertisement then an informative page. So I pushed on in my hunt to find an article topic. Finally, I thought of my vacations spots. My family has a house on Norris Lake in Lafollette, Tennessee so I checked to see if there was a page about that lake and there was. Then I thought of my favorite place in the entire world, Northern Michigan. I typed into Wikipedia the name of the lake we stay at almost every year, Platte Lake, and there was nothing. I was relieved. I finally had my topic and could begin my research.

            Researching to find interesting and informative facts about Platte Lake was difficult.  Most of the information that came up in my search was about the many, many vacation home rentals available on the lake. This was extremely frustrating, because not only did these websites give me limited facts about the lake, they were filled with advertising language that was absolutely wrong for a Wikipedia page. Eventually after lots of research I found various sources that gave me a broad range of information that would be extremely useful for the page.

            Next I needed to find the layout for which I would organize my information. I typed into Wikipedia the name of a nearby lake, which I knew had a Wikipedia page. On this page there was only a paragraph of information and only one heading. I needed more. Next I thought of the great lakes. I looked at all five of the great lakes page layouts and thought Lake Erie’s would be the most suitable.

            Finally, it was time to write. I began to write and it was extremely hard not to say “I” or talk about my experiences on the lake but I knew, to make a page that was going to be kept on Wikipedia, I had to make the page as unbias as possible. In truth I am bias about the lake, I love it there. I got my first draft down and went off to class for our peer review session. Bobby reviewed mine as well as put it on the drawing board and I think the feedback I received made my page that much better. The editor who commented on the drawing board told me to make sure that I do not  use the word “I” and to keep the page objective. This was common sense to me and as I skimmed my paper I realized not once did I say “I” and I was using an objective tone. This, to me, was redundant advice that really didn’t help me too much. When I read Bobby’s advice I did in fact see a flaw in my paper. In one particular section I got a little too descriptive. I used adjectives that made Platte Lake seem like a haven of beautiful creatures and this wasn’t necessarily what needs to be accomplished on a Wikipedia page. Thanks to Bobby’s peer review I realized I needed to revise that section, which I did.

            After revising my paper I sent it for review and waited patiently. I was extremely nervous because people in class had been saying their articles had been denied by the reviewers. To my surprise, my article was immediately sent to ‘go live.’ I was extremely excited. I wanted to edit it more and I thought the editor would comment on how I didn’t have any inner text citations, but they didn’t seem to mind that and just made my article live.

            I learned a lot more then I thought I would during this project. It was a kind of “public” writing that as an undergrad student I was definitely not used to.  There is nothing “traditional” about Wikipedia page writing. There are many limitations, and or regulations that the Wikipedia editors seem to put on the pages, so adjusting to these standards was not easy. Like I said earlier Wikipedia pages are supposed to be extremely fact oriented and objective, this perhaps was difficult for me because I prefer to put pieces of me, or my life in my work. In “All Writing is Autobiography” Donald M. Murray suggests, “We become what we write. That is one of the greatest magic’s of writing.”(62) I agree completely with Murray and that is why I think I found it so hard to take my personal opinion out of the writing. This helped me learn that not all writing that I do in my life will be traditional, and a good writer can adapt to the task that is given to them.

            My traditional writing skills were enhanced because there is a lot of pressure when you know that more people then just your instructor are going to be reading it. I made sure to proof read as well as I could, and took my peer review seriously. The revision process was very important during this project. Wikipedia being a social writing outlet, you must take other people’s advice otherwise your work could be deleted. There was pressure to make sure your writing made sense and that you had a good structure and flow to it because it could be so dry and objective. There was also a lot of pressure about being sure to watch plagiarism; how very easy it would have been to copy and paste onto my page. Knowing that Wikipedia editors and reviewers are breathing down your neck, you must be sure to cite sources correctly and be a notable writer, to give credit to those sources that deserve it. “Intertextuality suggests that our goal should be to help students learn to write for the discourse communities they choose to join.” (Porter, 94) I relate this to Wikipedia overall because as a “social” writer, you must acknowledge and understand the discourse community of Wikipedia and how it works in order to be a successful writer on the site.

            I think as writing students, teachers make us so focused on how perfect our grammar and spelling should be that we forget about the reader. I think this is why Wikipedia is such a good source to use to expand your knowledge of writing. Not only do you have to obviously have good proper grammar and such, but you must think about how the reader is going to perceive it. Is it going to be deleted? Would someone edit this because it is incorrect? Will someone actually enjoy reading this? These are all items you consider when creating your page because knowing your piece will be available to the public can be nerve racking. How social Wikipedia can be makes you more aware of what you are actually putting into the article.

           

 Works Cited

Porter, James. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Writing About Writing. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St.Martin’s, 1986. 87-97. Print.

Murray, Donald. “All Writing is Autobiography.” Writing About Writing. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1991. 57-65. Print.

"Shitty First Drafts"

In the article “Shitty First Drafts” Anne Lamott uses humor and sarcasm to try to get us to reconsider the assumption that a writer’s first draft is supposed to be a wholesome piece of writing that should make sense and only need a few edits. She claims that the first draft of a piece of writing should be a childish explosion of whatever you want it to be. The first draft should be shitty.

            I think this assumption (of perfect first drafts) is so prevalent because in middle school and high school we were always told to have a “first draft” prepared for class. We couldn’t have “Well, so what Mr. Poopy Pants?” in this draft that our peers would be reviewing. I think because of the way schools ask you to turn in drafts a little at a time that many people assume the first draft should be complete and make complete sense.

            Lamott thinks that the first draft should be just getting something down on paper. The second draft should be fixing that up and the third draft should be making sure everything is as perfect as it can be. I think Lamott is trying to make the point that no one reads the first draft and you end up fixing it so its not worth getting so stressed out about. Everyone has shitty first drafts.

            Wikipedia allows us access to shitty first drafts because many pages on Wikiepedia are up there with only a few sentences on a topic and they are just waiting for our edits. Other people’s shitty first drafts need us to “fix them up” and to make them into final drafts. This is beneficial because to get other peoples input about your writing can help you become a better writer over time.