A book critique

A book critique on Linguistics

Widdowson (1996) defines his innovative work: Linguistics as “a succinct but lucid outline of the ways in which language has been defined, described and explored” (p.1). Indeed, this remarkable study stirs a sense of accomplishment by easing the reader into the daunting task of understanding complex ideas and intricate concepts. The reader is provided with academic initiation into a discipline that has always been approached by prolific and technical literature, appropriately so, given its purpose.

The book is divided into four sections – namely survey, readings, references and glossary – intended to cater for the varied interests of the readership. The survey section provides concise but comprehensive insight into the area of language study. Careful examination of the nature of language and its differentiation from animal communication, its scope and principles of analysis and its areas of enquiry, among other topics, are enlightened by clear explanations and enriching examples. Widdowson’s (1996) meticulous research is accessible to the nonprofessional reader. Under no circumstances, though, should it be considered simplistic since the complex intricacies of the discipline are at no point overlooked.

Especially noteworthy is the attachment of a readings section displaying a compendium of texts that expands the issues discussed in the previous section, allowing the reader to make cross-author connections. The introduction of some questions at the end of each text encourages exploration on specific notions the author aims to draw upon. Equally significant for linguistics students, teachers, and any reader who might be interested in the basic concerns of human language, is the inclusion of a glossary. Terms that appear in bold type in the survey analysis are referenced and clarified in this section.

All things considered, Widdowson (1996) thrives in his attempt to identify relevant concepts in the area of language study by putting forward brief expositions without confronting the essentially academic tone of his research. Specialized readers and teachers will inevitably profit from this insightful scrutiny. For the inexperienced student, however, Widdowson’s (1996) book would have been more convincing if the author had accompanied his survey explanations with inquiring exercises fostering reflection and furthering personal exploration. Had this been successfully accomplished, the resulting product would have been not only exceptionally practical but also irrefutable.

References

Widdowson, H. (1996). Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Basic concepts in EAP

An insight into academic terminology

A discourse community, understood as an assembly of participants joined by the pursuit of a common purpose and sharing a proficient command of language conventions, constitutes the best setting for the development of academic writing. In this sense, Swales (1990) states that

A discourse community is composed of a minimum number of expert members and a frequently larger number of apprentice members who operate on the basis of implicit and explicit public goals. (…) Their members develop and use systems of speech and writing that are sometimes quite specific to a particular community’s needs and goals. We often find participatory mechanisms used by community members to transmit information and feedback.

(as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.12)

Bizzell (1992) defines a discourse community as being “bound together primarily by its uses of language” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p.1). This notion is further illustrated by Kelly-Kleese’s (2004) assertion that members of a discourse community share an ability to transmit information and accomplish common goals by displaying “a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style” (p.1). As it can be seen, expert command of linguistic academic conventions – especially in writing – underpins the prosperity of any discourse community.

In this respect, Pintos and Crimi (2010) put forward a series of competence requirements that define academic writers - namely “proficiency in language use, style, register, and genre(s)” (p.9). They label these requirements as “awkward” since writing academically and critically certainly involves complex cognitive processes. They further state that the manipulation of appealing reading materials, together with the creation of appropriate contexts of interaction aimed at fostering thought construction rather than thought translation, are of utmost importance in seeking to enter a “discourse community of (. . .) teachers and (. . .) researchers” (p.10).  

Far from delving into the concepts mentioned above, both formal instruction in academic writing and knowledge of how a discourse community operates are altogether absent from Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) College syllabi. Turning to personal experience, I can claim that clear insight into these fields would have resulted in the awakening of curiosity as regards involvement in a study group and would have promoted my critical thinking abilities. Through the former, I would have been able to experience the collaboration and views exchange lying at the core of discourse community practices. Through the latter, I would have had the opportunity to indulge in “composing for knowledge transforming” (Grabe & Kaplan; as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.10).

References

Bizell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. Essex, UK: Addison Wesley/Longman.

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s choice: An open memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved September 2010, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. Retrieved September 2010, from

http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=6856

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: Academic writing. Retrieved October 2010 from

http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/,od/resource/view.php?id=7392

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Critical incident

Building up self-confidence in the learning process

It was February 2004 when the principal of the language school where I had been working for a year, summoned a beginning-of-year meeting. After outlining some general goals to be achieved that year, the headmistress mentioned the urgent need to strengthen and further develop students’ writing skills, especially at intermediate and upper-intermediate levels. The results of students’ written productions in the final exam of their preceding course of studies, had revealed serious gaps that demanded immediate action. Several students had had to re-take their exams because their pieces of writing were below standard. I was going to teach an eight-student upper-intermediate class that year and we were going to have lessons on Mondays from 5.30 to 7.00 in the afternoon.

When studying at Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) College, I had read about the use of journal writing as a technique by which students could express their feelings and thoughts without constraints and, as its entries were not always meant to be corrected, students could overcome their fears and use writing as a means of true-to-life communication. Therefore, I decided that the implementation of journals in the course might prove to be a priceless starting point from which to immerse students into the world of meaningful writing.

The first objective I set in this process was students’ recognition of their diaries as actually belonging to them, not to the teacher or to the language course. So I asked them to give each notebook a personal touch that would make them different from the rest. Great was my surprise when the following week students enthusiastically came up to me with their journals ornamented with personal pictures of friends and family; some students had even decided to give their journals a name!

I understood that at this point I had to diagnose problems and difficulties. This is why, as an opening entry, I asked students to write me a letter, which I was going to answer back, describing how they felt about writing. I wrote down some questions on the board to be used as a guide. What do you like/dislike the most about writing? How do you feel when you have to write something? What is your experience as regards writing in Spanish? are examples of this.

An analysis of students’ comments revealed that their main difficulties lay in not having enough ideas to express – phrases such as “I have no imagination” or “I never know what to write” being most frequent – and in not knowing how to organize their productions. Hopefully, the latter difficulty would be dealt with in class since the textbook we would use did teach how to write a report, an article or a letter of complaint. What I really needed to supplement, though, was the what to write stage of the process. And again, I found the solution in journal writing. However, this was no bed of roses. Students still complained extensively when asked to write. So I had to implement different strategies to motivate them and make them enjoy what they were doing. I used story-telling a lot and then asked them how the story would have been different if . . . Or I made them choose a character and write the story from his/her perspective. I sometimes used different mood musical extracts to foster creative writing on the basis of a given sentence.

Little by little, students started to achieve better results in productions and, in subsequent open letters I asked them to address to me, mentioned how their self-confidence and taste for writing had increased. Their final written performance that year improved substantially and they did very well in the final exam. But I also grew, I became a different teacher. I learnt that building up self-esteem and self-confidence is sometimes the only skill students need to become successful users of the language.

Focused journal entry

A continual process of growth

Is competence – understood as abstract knowledge – the only requirement for teaching? Are teachers just informers? Do teachers-to-be become instructors the moment they get their degree? Does learning stop at this point? Or does graduation mark the starting point for “professional learning”?

Teaching certainly demands much more than mere repetition of abstract concepts. It involves a continual process of growth, signaled by constant reflection and research. Tejada (2000) notes the importance of shaping professionals capable of observing classroom situations, reflecting upon them and applying intelligent and spontaneous decisions to the solution of conflicts (cited in Fernandez Gonzalez, Elórtegui Escartín, & Medina Pérez, 2003). In this sense, any unpleasant situation within the classroom environment can trigger off and serve as basis for analysis and learning.

Fernández and Fernández (1994) define the Critical Incident Technique as:

Una estrategia estructurada y en la cual se presenta a los profesores situaciones escritas de la enseñanza (…) y se les pide que tomen una decisión en función de la información que se les proporciona. Permite llevar a cabo análisis en situaciones específicas de seguridad y control. Son situaciones de laboratorio, sin riesgos y con posibilidad de repetir los análisis, lo que permite a los profesores acercarse a la realidad.

(as cited in Fernández González, Elórtegui Escartín, & Medina Pérez, 2003, p.104).

Far from getting deep insight, this invaluable method of reflection and analysis is altogether absent from Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) College syllabi. Turning to personal experience, I can state that a clear insight into this technique at an early stage in my career would have resulted in much more efficient action-taking strategies at the time of solving problems in the classroom.

I can recall a vast number of incidents which could have found immediate solution if I had been especially trained to face unexpected situations. Disruptive behavior is one of the issues I have always found most difficult to deal with. I remember that four or five years ago, a student stood up and left the classroom because I was constantly telling him off and, as he said, he could stand it no longer. Experience and teacher-teacher sharing can definitely aid decision-taking. However, a deep and systematic analysis of causes and possible solutions will undoubtedly allow the teacher to make use of professional resources, thus undermining irrational reactions.

Grounded in the analysis of concrete classroom conflict, the Critical Incident Technique emerges as a method of utmost importance for the continual growth and professional development of teachers. Only by “position[ing] teachers as insider researchers of their own practice” (Angelides, 2006; as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.8) will mere instruction give way to holistic teaching.

References

Angelides, P. (2006). Supporting the continued professional development of teachers through the use of vignettes. Teacher Education Quarterly. Fall, 2006. Retrieved September 2010, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200610/ai_n17197617/print

Fernández González, J., Elórtegui Escartín, N., & Medina Pérez, M. (2003). Los incidentes críticos en la formación y perfeccionamiento del profesorado de secundaria de ciencias de la naturaleza. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación de Profesorado, 17(1), 101-112. Zaragoza, España: Universidad de Zaragoza. Retrieved September 2010, from

http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/src/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=27417107

Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 2. Personal narratives in teaching. Universidad CAECE. Retrieved October 2010, from

http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=7214

Tejada, J. (2000). Profesionalidad docente. En: S. De La Torre y O. Barrios. (Coords.), Estrategias didácticas innovadoras (pp. 72-76.). Barcelona: Octaedro.

Discussion paper

Essentials of a discourse community

An investigation into the notion of discourse community should begin with the presentation of its definition. A discourse community, states Bizzell (1992), “is a group of people who share certain language-using practices … [that] can be seen as conventionalized” by social interactions within the group and in its dealings with outsiders. It is “bound together primarily by its uses of language, although bound perhaps by other ties as well, geographical, socioeconomic, ethnic, professional, and so on” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p.1). Considering Swales’ (1990) recognition of discourse community, six basic criteria should be analyzed, namely “common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology, and high level of expertise” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 13).

As far as the first criterion is concerned, Swales (1990) states that a discourse community “should achieve and have specific interests” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 13). In this sense, Kutz (1997), claims that members of a discourse community “have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, and similar attitudes and values”. He goes further to mention that they “share understandings about how to communicate knowledge and achieve shared purposes, and they exhibit a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p.1).

Participatory mechanisms, that Swales (1990) views as an essential characteristic of a discourse community, involve the “provi[sion] of information and feedback” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 13).  As Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) put it, “for teacher learning to occur, teachers need opportunities to participate in professional communities that discuss learning theories and various teacher materials and pedagogy” (p.1). Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) argue that these opportunities should “support the risk taking and struggle entailed in transforming practice” (as cited in McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993, p.15). In addition to this, he further notes that “this learning is not a unidirectional phenomenon. The community, too, changes through the ideas and ways of thinking that its new members bring to the discourse” (as cited in Putnam & Borko, 2000, p. 10).

Information exchange in Swales’ (1990) perspective refers to the fact that “the group will not survive unless its members are intercommunicated” (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.13). Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) illustrate this notion in their description of situated learning discourse community. “Reflection”, they claim, “is understood as a process […] situated in school cultures that are social in nature, where interactions with others are an important medium in which reflection occurs. Teachers interact with colleagues in goal directed activities that require communication and the exchange of ideas” (p.2). Likewise, in her reflections on community college scholarship, Kelly-Kleese (2004) states that “community college faculty have to cross boundaries in order to participate in traditional scholarship” (p.1).

In connection with Swales’ (1990) study of community-specific genres in a discourse community, Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) refer to “the development of a collective identity in which teachers strive to acquire and continually transform a social language” (p.5).  Social language is defined as “a discourse peculiar to a specific [societal group - - e.g., professional or ethnic group] at a given time” (Holquist & Emerson, as cited in Wertsch, 1991, p.57). In doing this, teachers “reveal the values and beliefs of the social group in which they are participating” (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez-Torres, 2003, p.5).

Swales (1990) indicates that the use of highly specialized terminology as the fifth criterion for a discourse community to be recognized as such. Kelly-Kleese (2001) illustrates this view when she states that “the power of university scholars to name “what is” comes largely from their ability to be prolific with their writing and publishing ventures” (p.2). She claims that “by focusing on sharing their knowledge, findings and interpretations, they [university scholars] create policy and redefine the language and reality of higher education; engaging in scholarship is a well developed aspect of the culture of this discourse community”.

According to Swales (1990), a high general level of expertise, understood as the achievement of a certain level of knowledge, constitutes the last criterion characterizing a discourse community. Kelly-Kleese (2004) defines communicative competence as “what one must know in order to use language appropriately in particular discourse communities”  (as cited in Kutz, 1997). This implies that “individuals and groups with greater skill in using (and manipulating) the language system will exercise power in naming and thus controlling how others will view social reality” (Bowers, 1987, p.28). As Zito (1984) explains, “only the ordained may employ the ritualistic speech of their discourse and expect to be taken seriously” (pp. 91-92).

By and large, the analysis above has aimed to enlighten the essentials of discourse community and to provide evidence to support Swales’ (1990) views as to its main characteristics. Since academic literacy cannot be understood simply as a system of pre-established criteria but has to be viewed within the framework of social practices, the above research has intended to outline the basic requirements for community interaction. In reflecting upon Swales’ (1990) theory, different authors have been quoted in order to illustrate the basic criteria underpinning the establishment of a discourse community.

References

Bizzell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Bowers, C.A. (1987). The promise of theory: Education and the politics of cultural change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A.J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved September 2010, from                                              http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s Choice: An Open Memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved September 2010, from                           http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved September 2010, from                                http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_6361541

Kutz, E. (1997). Language and literacy: Studying discourse in communities and classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

McLaughin, M., & Talbert, J.E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s educational goals. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching, Stanford University.

Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.

Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenzlaff, T.L., & Wieseman, K.C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers to Grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved September 2010, from                                                                             http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405

Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind. A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Zito, G.V. (1984). Systems of discourse. Structures and semiotics in the social sciences. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.