Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page 1123...next »
sources?
mila12345mila12345 28 Oct 2017 19:01
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Lucy Paper

great paper but I dont see a works cited page anywhere…

sources? by mila12345mila12345, 28 Oct 2017 19:01
(account deleted) 18 Apr 2013 17:56
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » How do Engineers view what they do?

This was my pitch. I removed it and posted it in the appropriate place.

by (account deleted), 18 Apr 2013 17:56
BrianWangBrianWang 22 Mar 2013 14:37
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Blog Post 4- BMES

Hi Liudi,

One of the first things I noticed is that your project proposal is very well organized both visually and content-wise. You bolded your headings, making the document easy to navigate and look for specific information. Also, in the first sentence of each of your sections, you clearly described what the section would be about, leaving no guesswork on my part.

I found interesting the way you chose to analyze your discourse community (BMES): bonding. You first decided to study a subsection of the BME community (BMES), and I like that decision because BMES seems to encompass a lot of what the BMES community stands for. Each of the aspects you mentioned you'll analyze connects to bonding - Facebook, meetings, trips, etc. For a tight-knit group like yours, it seems appropriate that bonding would play an important role in how the group functions.

I am interested in what you will find out about the BMES because I want to be a part of that group, but I've never attended a meeting (nor do I know much about the group), so I look forward to reading your post!

by BrianWangBrianWang, 22 Mar 2013 14:37

Hi Kenichi.

You project interests me a lot just because I had my Steam account since 2010. I am a relatively new PC gamer myself and I was only introduced to Steam by a friend of mine who told me to get Team Fortress 2 after it became a free-to-play game. I think it is ambitious on your part to look at Steam as a discourse community rather than looking at a smaller Steam community.

First off, it seems as if you are looking for one ultimate goal that connects all Steam players together. Because the definition of a discourse community involves people that have a common goal, I see why you would search for this. You plan to look at forums and observe the interaction between players that are using Steam to play. You also plan to join a Steam group so you can find out how those group members interact with each other. By doing this, it seems as if you will eventually connected to the entire Steam community in general.

I suggest that you look at the reason Steam exists today in order to conduct your research. From my own personal experience and some information that other people told me, Steam was created by Valve in order to allow online play for a game called Counter-Stike, a game which I believe was either modded from Quake or Half-Life. This might have some inaccuracies on my part, but I think looking at the history would give you a good sense of the purpose if you choose to look into it. Also, I would suggest looking at what makes an insider and an outsider. Steam is full of many players and some might know more than others. It would be hard to classify the insiders in contrast to the outsiders in this type of discourse community, but if you find a way to do this then this would be useful.

I think you will be able to do this project with Steam as your discourse community. You will have difficulties, like you said, but I think you will find enough information for the midterm.

by Nelsyda PerezNelsyda Perez, 22 Mar 2013 13:27

Hi Nelsyda,

The first thing I noticed that I enjoyed about your piece was that you formatted it like an official business letter or memo. You clearly specify the audience of this piece (Andrew) and make the purpose known (Blog Post 4). I was just confused a bit by your first paragraph when you wrote "According to John Swales…; however, Swales argued for the contrary." Maybe you meant to reference some other author in the second part of the sentence?

I liked how you kind of centered your proposal around language use in discourse community and tying becoming an insider to being able to effectively communicate in the discourse community. You started off by just observing how different people categorized and studied research discourse communities and noticed that everyone talked about language a lot and concluding with your proposal: looking at insiders and outsiders within the ASCE.

Your detailed research plan proposal and self-evaluation also really helped me understand each step of your process. I was able to see what you would be doing in each step of your research and that you understand that not being an insider will limit your research.

I enjoyed reading your proposal and look forward to reading your midterm piece!

by BrianWangBrianWang, 22 Mar 2013 13:22

Hi Chris!

I feel as if your project is somewhat unique. Even though Swales claims that academic discourses were the most obvious, you are the only one that plans to research a classroom setting. Granted, the English 210.07 class is unique in its own way.

I noticed that you plan to look at the classroom with the question of insider vs outsider in your mind. You also plan to evaluate this group using Swales' model of a discourse community. You also plan to interview students and overcome the challenges involved with distinguishing what makes and outsider and what makes an insider in this particular discourse community.

I remember you mentioning that along with observing the pages of this wiki as the documents you plan to analyze you also wanted to look at the comments that we ourselves write. You can look at the difference between a late procedral comment (this one) and the comments written voluntarily by others (i.e. the comment Sunny posted before me). You can also look at the old wiki pages since the freshman comp. course and the writing for engineers course have similar structures with a few minor differences. I also suggest looking at the feedback that Andrew and our peer review partners give towards improvement. Perhaps interviewing others about the peer review sessions.

I wish you the best of luck with your research project and I hope this comment was useful to you.

by Nelsyda PerezNelsyda Perez, 22 Mar 2013 12:56

Zeyad, you, once again, took on a unique look on this midterm project! When you first mention discourse communities, much analysis is presented in order to give the reader just like myself to understand the purpose of your choice of jazz! Your knowledge of this community will be good, but try to attain some extra/relevant details by conducting interviews with real jazz members (maybe in actual NYC concerts and etc). Such valuable claims would structure your blog post into being a lot more persuasive with your data (instead of FULLY recalling your experiences! Also, expanding on your challenges (i.e. the sources of information, variety of sources, etc) would not be such a bad idea since those would force you to work harder to gathering your data better and more efficiently! Your confidence in proving this discourse community is conveyed yet not supported well enough to persuade the reader. Therefore, really exploring these informational aspects might be key for your discourse analysis! Overall, though, this idea is great and has a variety of leads for the final product! Be sure to think these aspects through and your experiences with the jazz band community can be truly conveyed in a better manner!

Cool idea! :D by Sunny AggarwalSunny Aggarwal, 22 Mar 2013 03:41

Hey Chris! You indeed did take on a very unique standpoint on discourse communities (i.e. with its definition and its key objectives in society)! A classroom may seem to be a very obvious kind of community to other people as being typical. However, your study of it seems very interesting and enthralling as you do point out some some very detailed challenging aspects associated with them such as: a shared common goal (according to Swales viewpoint), the differences between an insider and an outsider (just as you mentioned—especially if there is a newcomer to the class versus a person who has been in the class for more than 1 semester/etc), and others. One good idea that may really strengthen your claims is if you included several interviews accompanying many people's different views on this such as: a teacher (any kind), a quiet person (to see his views of being an outsider or an insider), and any regular classmate! Also, some additional insight about these classrooms based on real English/scientific research can be really beneficial in forming your data! Overall, though, you have indeed a great and unique perspective on discourse communities as a whole especially by your exemplary topic!

Zeyad, I really enjoyed reading this blog post. You dive right into Swales’ analysis of a discourse community and you really go into detail to break down his definition of a discourse community. You bring in the example he mentions with the Hong Kong Study Circle. Moreover, you compares Swales’ example with football coaching and break down the coaching method to relate it to a discourse community. I like how you explicitly define the fact that in both cases, Swales and Brannick recognize that discourse communities share a common goal and language. You give a great comparison between the two examples of a discourse community, yet you end with the fact that you wouldn’t use either of them in writing your project. I think to carry the project into the midterm; you’d need to find at least one scholarly example to use as a model—not that I’m saying it has to be Swales or Brannick. Maybe you could use their definitions but you don’t have to write in the style that they wrote. Maybe you could, like you said, balance out both explaining and giving an example so that the reader feels that they are a part of the discourse community you’re writing about so they can get a good and clear understanding of the purpose, and definition of a true discourse community.

by George BasalyGeorge Basaly, 20 Mar 2013 01:11

Michael, I like how you explicitly define a discourse community as Swales did—by listing the 6 characteristics of a discourse community. Particularly, you mention how Swales is a member of his discourse community, which I find quite interesting considering the fact that you want to investigate your own discourse community as well, so Swales would be a great model for you. Moreover, you note that Swales was more concrete than Johns’ model, but you don’t quite delve into how this is so. To further your own project, you could not only relate it to Swales’ six characteristics of a discourse community, but you could also find one other method of analyzing a discourse community, such as Gee’s method since you were born into your community. Maybe that would help further develop your discourse community research project. Also, you could try two different discourse analyses and then compare and see which one your community fits better, and explain why.

by George BasalyGeorge Basaly, 20 Mar 2013 01:01

I like how you describe Swales' discourse community and Johns' discourse community. You use the information that is necessary to the connection of the the two pieces. The structure is broken down very nicely and logically. I think thought that there could have been more to the relating of the two pieces. Instead of spending most of the time summarizing the pieces, there seems to be interesting information within the short comparison paragraph. You could have worked off of that to explain more the comparison of the two.

by Eli HochEli Hoch, 17 Mar 2013 04:54

First allow me to say that your choice of format was very appropriate for this type of blog post; I too tried to use formatting to my advantage by listing the authors (and their works) that I chose to compare at the top of the page so as to avoid having to include those trivialities in the introduction. Suffice it to say you have made me look bad.

I too read Bucholtz's study of the "nerd girl" practice community and came away with similar conclusions. I agree she was not so much interested in proving that this particular group of nerd girls constituted a discourse community as she was in exposing the inadequacies of the speech community model. As a big sports fan, Branick's paper definitely appeals to me. I also hold the view that interviews are one of the most useful tools for examining a discourse community. Your insight on "mushfake-ing" during an interview was fresh and unexpected; I had almost forgotten the term existed.

I think you are on the right track when you say Branick's research method is more appropriate for your potential discourse community study. Our topics are similar in that they are both online communities, so sitting next to and recording members' conversations like Bucholtz did is out of the question. However, an interview is easier to arrange and can provide just as much information if conducted properly. Good luck with your project.

by James KasakyanJames Kasakyan, 16 Mar 2013 00:54

I like your analysis of Mary Bucholtz' paper. I agree that she is trying to disprove the usefulness of the speech community model and promote the community of practice model of research. She chooses an interesting way to support her claim, by analyzing a very nuanced and specific, gender related community, that is nonetheless, a discourse community. The prevalence of the use of dialogue as a resource is a very good point you made and it shows in Bucholtz's paper quite clearly as she uses each line to explain the observable aspects the of community of practice model. Interesting how you drew a connection between her approach and Mirabelli's approach. They both use dialogues and Mirabelli uses his own experiences as supports for his claim, that waiters have their own, complex aspects or their trade that do require a certain level of intelligence. How are the approaches of these two linguists going to reflect on your approach? You mentioned that dialogue seems to be a key resource, do you intend on using it, as well?

by F MamedovaF Mamedova, 15 Mar 2013 02:57

Hello Medwin. I really thought that your analysis of Swales' and Wardle's approach to explaining the topic of discourse communities was both accurate as well as interesting based on the fact that it evaluates each author's own style or method when it came to conveying the topic of discourse communties, rather than simply outright saying what its purpose was. This mirrors my own blog post, where I also focused on the structure of my author's arguments as well as the way they used them to further expand the concept of a discourse community. I believe that by focusing on the way the author explains his or her own views on the topic rather than just stating them, you can begin to develop a sense of their reasoning behind their outcomes and start to realize their overall intention and purpose for the piece, a vital step that can mean the difference between understanding what they say versus what they believe.

Also, what methods of approaching the topic does Wardle use to elaborate on her ideas? You seem to mention that Swales' piece "can be difficult to read at a glance, especially if the reader has no prior knowledge on discourse communities." Is that initial lack of comprehension the reason why Wardle's argument is stronger? And if so, what makes Wardle's piece easier to digest when compared to Swales? Are her examples a bit more well-defined and varied, or does she simply used a more common vocabulary?

All in all, I really enjoyed this blog post as I saw that many of the same points I thought were vital when it came to discussing the topic of a discourse community, such as the method of approach and the process of developing a clear understanding of a discourse community, were clearly presented and discussed in the blog post. Good work!

by Kenichi YamamotoKenichi Yamamoto, 15 Mar 2013 02:28

I like how you start off by talking about how Branick introduces his community. He loves football, and he can be compared to Swales's model of a discourse community. You talk about how Branick interviews coaches and sports psychologists, who helped him gather his information about the discourse community. What I like most about this post is how you came to the realization “From reading this piece I now know that discourse communities can be people that do not necessarily interact,” which is definitely something to think about. You note how Branick’s model differs from Swales in the sense that people do not have to know or interact with each other in order to be a part of the same discourse community.

Comments by George BasalyGeorge Basaly, 14 Mar 2013 13:47

Hi Stefanie! I really enjoyed reading your piece as I found it interesting and easy to follow. I like that in your first paragraph you use Swale's definitions not only to inform the reader but also as a method of research Swales uses. In my mind this comes off as, "Research these 6 points to start your project." It would be a great way for many of us in the class to begin our projects by just simply beginning to answer these questions. Another strong point I see in your writing is your paragraph about differenced and similarities and specifically, "A difference in their attempts at defining a discourse community is that Wardle puts a much heavier emphasis on individuality whereas Swales deals with how the community as a whole functions." This sentence provides a clear statement of your interpretation and can also hint that you might also choose to take one of these styles in your own project. Since I did not read the Wardle piece, your statement, "More importantly Wardle does not put a time stamp on these things. It could take somebody a couple of days to be comfortable in the community and be considered an insider, or it could take a couple of months, or it could never happen," interests me. I think this is something you can take into your own project, and expand this idea, telling us what your opinion is on the topic. I also liked that you picked something specific when bringing up something that caused confusion in he piece. Something else you might what to think about for your own project would be the examples in which the two authors gather there information as it could be interesting to pick a few to try for your project. ( as in interview, experience, other sources…).

by Christina MoawadChristina Moawad, 14 Mar 2013 13:15
Esme CribbEsme Cribb 14 Mar 2013 12:38
in discussion Hidden / Per page discussions » Two Worlds Apart

Bucholtz and Branick both lack your advantage in that you are already a member of the discourse communities you wish to study; while they seem to have been able to simulate insider knowledge to become a part of internal discourse, as opposed to merely observing it, they will still have missed certain affectations or references - regardless of whether they appear to have missed them; presumably, as false insiders, they were able to maintain a pretension of understanding - which inevitably leads to a shallower understanding of the dialogue as a whole. Of course, what they maintain by not completely submerging themselves in the community is a certain outside perspective.

I particularly liked your formatting, as well as the way you drew from previous readings, particularly with regard to Branick's research methods. Balancing outsider and insider knowledge, particularly in what appears to be a very close-knit community, seems like something important to keep in mind as you move forward, and something that I, as an outsider, am interested to read.

by Esme CribbEsme Cribb, 14 Mar 2013 12:38

Hey Nelsy,

While reading your piece, I noticed a lot of similarities between your comparison of Swales and Mirabelli and my comparison of Swales and Branick. Just as you note that Mirabelli and Swales both chose communities with which they were personally involved, I found that Branick (who studied football coaching as a discourse community) also chose this topic because he had been personally involved with it. In my essay, I also proposed looking a discourse community with which I was personally involved in order to have first hand experience with the genres and communicative mechanisms of the group. Although I realize that this might not always be 100% feasible, I would recommended considering this factor in the preliminary stages of planning out your midterm project.

I also noticed that throughout your writing you hint at the idea of using Swales's six points as a referenece when evaluating a discourse community. In your final paragraph you suggest using Mirabelli's approach and then backing it up by applying it to Swales's six points. I think that using the research methods of one author and then relating it all back to Swales could be a very productive way of going about this project. In fact, in the Branick article he does exactly this - he justifies his research by fulfilling the outline of a discourse community provided by Swales. I for one feel that I will most likely use this tactic as a way to structure my own midterm project.

Nice Work! by Christopher AebigChristopher Aebig, 14 Mar 2013 05:51

Hey Steve,

I enjoyed the simple way you laid out Swales and Mirabelli's analyses against each other, using Swales as base for Mirabelli. I think this seeing them like this probably helped you develop your conclusion. I agree that having prior experience in a discourse community will obviously help you understand that community, I think that this generalization can be extended to present tense also. Gee introduces the concept of "mushfake", and I think by purposefully utilizing "mushfake discourse" we can gain the same kind on insight into the community you discuss here.

by Choonghun LeeChoonghun Lee, 14 Mar 2013 04:57

hey,
i thought it was interesting how you really worked with the examples in order to prove that the specific writer's discourse community actually counted as one according to what we have read. the fact that you pointed out that both the examples given by these authors are not conventional discourse communities i thought was nice. A good question to think about is why don't people assume these communities to be discourse, why do we always assume it has to be a workplace? maybe there is something in the preconceived idea of a discourse community that right away makes us think— workplace. I think it is interesting that you chose these two pieces because i know that you wrote your initial blog post on your work at Adventure Land, which is also not your typical discourse community. therefore i think you will be able to pull a lot of information out of these pieces for your midterm project. I think something interesting to think about also is that the reason that these examples seem so thought out is because they authors were a part of the community and that gives them a different insight rather than just someone who is collecting data for a project. this is a point you brought up, but i think you could really use this in your piece to your advantage, it proves how much of an insider/outsider you are in a community. One last thing, is that i didn't find it very clear exactly what the authors described discourse community to be about. meaning, what specific things do they think the community needs to have go through in order to be considered a discourse community. really interesting job!

by Stefanie ReichmanStefanie Reichman, 14 Mar 2013 04:51
page 1123...next »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License