developingwritingskills_karina: noviembre 2011

Discourse community can be interpreted according to many experts’ contributions which focus on the key components of it (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles & Lopez Torres, 2003; Kelly-Kleese, 2001; Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004). For this reason, common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise will be the basis for determining the existence of such community.

Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003) state that “the goal-directed nature of human activity in cultural contexts supports learning environment (…)” (p.4); so this community can be assumed as an activity performed by a group of experts who share particular goals. Moreover, for this community’s survival, each member should promote information exchange since “learning is not a unidirectional phenomenon” and it is known that “the community, too, changes through the ideas and ways of thinking that its new members bring to the discourse” (Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004, p.1). Based on Blanton, Simmons and Warner’s (2001) research in which it is mentioned that “journal or virtual system of communication can be used to mediate teacher learning so they can recall, share, and respond to another’s experiences” (as cited in Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez Torres, 2003, p.5); Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003) argue that technological support facilitates communication process. In addition, Kutz (1997) claims that members “exhibit a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p.1); so each community develops its own jargon and conventionalized patterns for explaining their domain of study.

Not only could we distinguish between central and peripheral members but also we can infer empowerment plays an important role. As a consequence, “the power to name ‘what is’ comes also from one’s level of prestige within the community” (Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p.3). However, Clarks (1994) points out that “its members are more or less equal politically” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p.3), claiming that all members’ contributions are valued within the community.

To conclude, McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) highlight that “a discourse community cannot exist in the absence of a collaborative culture and an environment that supports risk-taking” (as cited in Wenzlaff, & Wieseman, 2004, p.9). All in all, teachers´ development is constructed on the basis of discourse community since reflecting upon their own teaching practices with others can provide them with an insightful and enriching perspective.