High-order Thinking Skills in Academic Writing

Academic writing at college and university level implies acquiring argumentative, analytical and critical thinking skills. Students undertaking academic writing may be required to write Research Papers (RPs). These papers can be analytical or argumentative. The former requires students to understand a topic by breaking it down and to interpret and discover relevant information to answer a research question. The latter involves supporting the writer´s thesis statement using information and evidence: “An argumentative research paper is analytical, but it uses information as evidence to support its point” (Copley, Greenberg, Handley & Oaks, 1996, ¶ 8). Students need to think critically in order to write their own RPs effectively.

While writing their introductions students will need to make use of their thinking skills to write General Specific (GS) texts- that is to move from the general topic to the particular situation they want to present. These texts are usually used for writing introductions, which according to Swales and Feak (1994), contain three moves:  Writers need to create a research space, establish a niche and occupy the niche. In order to do this, it will be necessary to analyze and critique previous research. In other words, college and university students will need to read and analyze critically many sources to include in their literature review in order to write their introductions.

 However, a RP is not just a collection of sources, as “your finished paper should present your own thinking backed up by others’ ideas and information” (Copley et al.  1996, ¶1). For this reason, students at college or university need to acquire analytical and critical thinking skills so as to read sources, analyze them, select the ones that are relevant to their study and use them to either answer research questions or support their thesis statements. Writing a rationale involves analyzing evidence from the corpus critically and selecting the relevant information to justify the need for the study.

Students conducting research may also need to make use of their analytical and critical thinking skills when analyzing and discussing the results of their research, since they may need to discuss problems and propose solutions, both of which will have to be evaluated as well. Then, when writing, students will make use of their critical and analytical thinking skills so as to write problem-solution texts that are both argumentative and evaluative. 

In order to write academic papers, it is essential to develop high-order thinking skills, since students need to resort to the existent literature not to duplicate other authors’ ideas but to express their own arguments and support them, making their own voices heard.

 

References

Copley, C., Greenberg, L., Handley, E., & Oaks, S. (1996). Developing a research         question. Retrieved May 2012, from      http://www.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/writerscomplex.nsf/0/f87fd7182f0ff21 c852569c2005a47b7

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential     tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

             Comparing Results, Discussions and Conclusion sections in two RAs

According to Swales and Feak (1994), Research Papers (RPs) usually follow a typical “organizational pattern (…), the IMRD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) or some variant of it” (p. 155). In this Paper we will focus on three sections: Results, Discussions and Conclusions. We will attempt to compare two RAs: Barrs's (2012) RA on education and Di Angelantonio et al.'s (2010) on medicine to find whether some common features in their design can be found as well as some differences, since they belong to different fields and are aimed at different audiences.

The Results section summarizes the data with text, tables and/or figures: “The findings are described, accompanied by variable amounts of commentary” (Swales & Feak, 1994, p.157). In this section authors refer to the results that are associated to their hypothesis, may summarize problems and attempt to find solutions.

Barr’s (2012) is an Action Research (AR) Report; this type of research is undertaken by teachers who seek to solve educational problems and improve practice (Sagor, 1992). Barrs’s (2012) AR reports the results of the research conducted in her class where she analyzed the behaviour of 28 students during 8 weeks: a small group sample during a short period of time.

In contrast, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) undertook a different type of research: a correlational study (Sampieri, Collado & Lucio, 1998) to measure the relationship between chronic kidney disease with major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality. This experimental design made it necessary to have a larger population sample and a longer period of testing.

Ogier (1998) describes qualitative research as one which involves collecting and analyzing “data concerned with meanings, attitudes and beliefs rather than data (…) from which statistical inferences can be drawn” (p.39). The latter, which focuses more on figures, is used in quantitative research. Di Angelantonio et al.'s (2010) analysis of the data was quantitative and statistic, due to the large number of participants and since the objective of the research was to "quantify associations of chronic kidney disease stages with major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality in the general adult population" (p. 1).

Barrs (2012) selected representative data and analyzed it both qualitative and quantitatively. Three tables presenting the results are included; they are followed by a text commenting on the results. The tables do not seem to adopt the American Psychological Association (APA) (2007) style completely. According to APA (2007), tables should be numbered, each should have an individual title, italicized and presented with major words capitalized; further, each table should be begin on a separate page, and should be double-spaced. Barrs (2012) complies with the some APA (2007) conventions for Tables; however, they appear one after the other, not on separate pages and the elements within them are not double-spaced. The tables seem to be easy to read and present the data collected quite clearly.

Di Angelantonio et al.’s (2010) Results section is descriptive, as it refers to the data that is illustrated in both tables and figures. There are four tables with a similar format but different amount of data. The tables are numbered and each has an individual title. However, they do not seem to follow APA (2007) style, as the titles are not in italics and major words are not capitalized. The figures are also numbered and the legends explain the data.

The results and discussion sections in Barrs’s (2012) research are blended together: The author compares the results and interprets their meanings. This is shown by the choice of words: “Disappointingly, the majority of interactions (93%) involved a simple one or two sentence initiation followed by a single reply, at which point the communication ended” (Barrs, 2012, p. 16). This problem of lack of sustained interaction led the researcher to conduct a survey to find the cause of the problem. The results are presented in tables 4 and 5. Barrs (2012) states that "As can be seen in Table 4 , the preliminary investigation revealed that the two distinct issues (a) a lack of time, and (b) a lack of interest in the discussion topic, contributed to the low amount of interaction on the site" (p.17).

Unlike Barrs (2012), Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) decided to write the Results, Discussion and Conclusions sections separately. These authors also encountered problems during the analysis of the results that required a solution. According to Swales and Feak (1994), problem-solution texts are not as descriptive but more evaluative. Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) evaluated that "the possibility existed of a weakly positive hazard ratio in people without chronic kidney disease who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 90 ml/min/1.73 m 2 or above" (pp. 3-4). This required further information and adjustments: "The incremental value of information on chronic kidney disease status was lower when added to more elaborate risk prediction models that used information on additional risk factors" (Di Angelantonio et al., 2010, p. 7).

In the Discussions section, the authors of both RPs evaluate whether or not a solution to their problem has been found. In this section, the readers are reminded of the questions, hypotheses and aims that gave rise to the investigation. Moreover, the authors present arguments to emphasize the importance of their research and the contributions it has made.

According to Swales and Feak (1994), researchers need to be cautious about the results yielded by the data. For this reason, they suggest writers should use distance to avoid strong (and perhaps) unjustified claims. In the conclusion, both Barrs (2012) and Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) avoid making generalizations, and also suggest that their research may lead to further investigations. For instance, Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) state: "Further studies are needed to investigate associations between chronic kidney disease and non-vascular mortality from causes other than cancer"(p.6).

Similarly, Barrs (2012) comes to this conclusion as regards Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC):

Although not investigated here, such CMC programmes could be of benefit to the students in possibly maintaining and even developing their L2 skills, despite the interruption of out-of-class periods. Indeed, this could be an area of further investigation in that a teacher may like to research whether or not there is a development in English ability through the use of such a programme (. . .). Further, the nature of the interactions themselves could become an area of value for extended investigation (p. 22).

The conclusion section in Barrs's (2012) R.A. summarizes the research, re-states the aim of the project, and shows the resolution of the problems. He suggests that the high level of participation and the large number of postings/replies, all conducted in the target language and from outside of the classroom, show that such a CMC platform was a useful and viable way of increasing the opportunity to engage students in target-language focused interactions. In addition, Barrs (2012) attempts to persuade his readers that the research and its conclusions are important: "This would suggest that CMC projects such as this one can be of value in increasing opportunities for L2 interaction and positively engaging students in target-language practice while out of the classroom"(p.22).

All in all, the R.As analysed seem to follow a similar format, and to adhere to the principles of clarity and honesty, since the authors describe the limitations of their research. Both RAs develop the three sections, although Barrs (2012) has chosen to blend Results and Discussions. In each case, despite differences in the scope of the research and amount of data, relevant information has been presented and analysed. In the conclusion the need for further investigation is stated. Both Barrs's (2012) and Di Angelantonio et al. (2010) indicate that the results should not be generalized, due to the fact that they were conditioned by the context.

 

                                                                      References

American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington, DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Barrs, K. (2012). Action Research. Fostering computer-mediated L2 interaction beyond the classsroom. Language Learning & Technology,16 (1), 10-25. Retrieved April 2012 from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/actionresearch.pdf

Di Angelantonio, E. ,Chowdhury, R., Sarwar, N., Aspelund, T., Danesh, J. & Gudnason, V. (2010). Chronic kidney disease and risk of major cardiovascular disease and non-vascular mortality: prospective population based cohort study. BMJ 2010. doi:10.1136/bmj.c4986

Ogier, M. (1998). Reading research. (2nd ed.). Bailliere Tindall: London, UK.

Sagor, R.(1992) How To Conduct Collaborative Action Research. [Abstract] Retrieved December 2012 from ERIC database (ED360257)

Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (1998). Metodología de la investigación. (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill: México.

Swales, J. M. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

 

Abstracts: an Essential Tool to Engage Readers.

According to Hubbuch (1996) abstracts are short summaries of the most important ideas developed in a book or article. Swales and Feak (1994) state that abstracts “consist of a single paragraph containing from about four to ten full sentences” (p.111). The goal of an abstract is to attract readers so that they read the whole article or book. Abstracts can be informative or indicative. The former describe what researchers did while the latter do not include specific results but look to the future, and they are mostly used for conference abstracts (Swales & Feak, 1994).

Some abstracts follow the Introductions Methods Results and Discussions (IMRAD) formula. Writers may present this information in an unstructured way, i.e. in one long unbroken paragraph or in a more structured way, using headings.  Bearing this information in mind, we will attempt to  write a comparative analysis about the  way abstracts are presented in four different Research Papers (RPs) and Research Articles (RAs): King's (2002) and Rammal's (2006) articles belong to the educational field, whereas Wjeysunderal et al.’s (2010) and Matinez et al.´s (2010) fall within the field of medicine.

King's (2002) abstract for her article is unstructured and informative.  She does not seem to follow the IMRAD model and she does not include Methods and Results headings in the abstract.   Her approach to abstract writing seems to follow Hubbuch's (1996) guidelines, since she presents the main ideas to be discussed and the importance of the topic, and then she outlines the organization of her paper.  

Rammal (2006) also uses a brief, unstructured abstract to present his RP.  He seems to be following the RP summary approach discussed by Swales and Feak (1994). However, his abstract is not divided into sections nor does it follow the IMRAD Model. The abstract, which provides basic information about the paper, does not present details of how the project was done. The purpose of the paper and the expected audience are included.

Wjeysunderal et al. (2010) appear to have used a result-driven approach (Swales & Feak, 1994) to writing their abstract as the results of their research are stated in the abstract as well as the conclusions. Their abstract seems to be informative, as it relies on the data collected, and structured since it follows the IMRAD formula: the objectives, participants, setting, results and discussions are included in their abstract, organized into headings. Martinez et al. (2010), like Wjeysunderal et al. (2010), use a structured, result-driven approach to write the abstract for their RP. They also follow the IMRAD formula, bolded headings are used to explain how the research was conducted, and the most important sections have been identified.

Swales and Feak (1994) suggest that the linguistic characteristics of abstracts are the use of full sentences and the past tense, as well as the use of the impersonal passive. They also consider that abstracts are characterized by the absence of negatives and the avoidance of abbreviations and jargon. Martinez et al. (2010) and Wjeysunderal et al. (2010) follow these features in their abstracts, whereas King (2002) and Rammal (2006) do not. Their abstracts are more unstructured, without headings and consisting of a single paragraph. King (2002) also uses the abbreviations DVD and VHS without clarifying their meaning, taking for granted the readers’ background knowledge.

Another characteristic to take into account is the length of the abstract, i.e. the number of words used. The Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL) (2012) states that abstracts should usually contain between 150-250 words, showing the writers' abilities to summarize the main points of their RA or RP. The abstract written by Rammal (2006) seems to be rather short, for it consists of only two sentences and 51 words. Thus, it seems rather short to follow OWL’s (2012) guidelines and appears to offer insufficient information. King’s (2002) article is written in less than 150 words, it contains a single paragraph and five sentences. Therefore, it does not seem to adhere to the length suggested by OWL (2012), either.

The abstracts written by Martinez et al. (2010) and Wjeysunderal et al. (2010) belong to the medicine field and seem to exceed slightly the word limit stated by APA (2007), which is 200 words. Both Martinez et al. (2010) and Wjeysunderal et al. (2010) seem to follow the IMRAD model in the abstracts of their medical research papers because of the nature of their publications, which rely on empirical data. These abstracts are longer and more structured.

OWL (2012) states that “Listing your keywords will help researchers find your work in databases”( ¶ 10).  However, none of the abstracts analyzed includes keywords. By and large, in the cases analyzed above, there seems to be a disparity in the conventions for writing abstracts. It appears that the abstracts that belong to the medicine field are longer and structured following the IMRAD model.  Both abstracts from the educational field are shorter and more unstructured, without headings and containing a single, unbroken paragraph. 

As future writers of RPs, we should bear in mind the importance of writing well-organized abstracts.  The ability to write concise, self-contained abstracts is essential: “[A]n unsatisfactory RP abstract may affect (. . .) how many people will read your paper” (Swales & Feak, 1994). An abstract is probably the readers’ first encounter with our work; thus it may as well be the most important part of it.  

References

American Psychological Association (2007). Concise rules of APA style. Washington,     DC: British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Hubbuch, S. M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum. (4th ed.).  Harcourt Brace: Fort Worth, TX.

King, J. (2002). Using DVD feature films in the EFL classroom [Abstract]. The weekly column, 88.

Martínez, C. , Assimes, T., Mines, D., Dell’Aniello, S. & Suissa, S. (2010). Use of  venlafaxine compared with other antidepressants and the risk of sudden cardiac  death or near death: a nested case-control study. [Abstract]. BMJ 2010; doi:10.1136/bmj.c249

Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL) (2012). General Format. Retrieved  January, 2013 from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/.

Rammal, S. M. (2006). Video in EFL Classrooms. [Abstract]. Retrieved June 2012 from          http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/video-in-efl-classrooms.html.

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Wijeysundera, D., Beattie, W., Austin, P., Hux, J. & Laupacis, A. (2010). Non-invasive  cardiac stress testing before elective major non-cardiac surgery: population based cohort study. [Abstract]. BMJ 2010. doi:10.1136/bmj.b5526. 

Comparing Introductions and Methods Sections in two RAs.

Research Articles (R.A.) are organized and divided into different sections; Swales and Feak (1994) state that Papers follow a “typical organizational pattern (…) the IMRD format (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) or some variant of it” (p. 155). This Paper focuses on two of those sections: Introduction and Methods. Two RAs will be compared: Roth et al.’s (2010) on Medicine and Sun and Chang’s (2012) on Education, in order to analyze their characteristics and find similarities and differences.

Research papers are structured in a similar way, being the introduction their first element. Swales and Feak (1994) state that General Specific (GS) texts "move from broad statements to narrower ones. However, they often widen out again in the final sentence" (p.33). GS texts are used in the Introduction, where writers try to gain not only research space but also readers. Swales and Feak (1994) call the pattern followed in this section the Create-a-Research-Space (CARS) model, which states that there are three moves in introductions: Move one allows writers to create a research space, move 2 establishes the niche, and move three enables writers to occupy the niche.

Sun and Chang (2012) use the CARS model to introduce their topic (i.e. Blogging to learn). This part of the text is General Specific (GP). First they define blogs using a contrastive definition and then go on to show how blogs have changed the way people use the internet. The authors emphasize the relevance of the topic when they make a description of blogs as “the best received applications in the Web 2.0 era” (p. 43) and their assertion that “blogs have fundamentally changed the way we use the Internet” (p. 43). Then they move onto a more specific setting, the pedagogical one, showing how “the effective use of blogs enables knowledge sharing through connecting learners to contexts beyond the classroom” (Sun & Chang, 2012, p.43 ). In this move, which establishes the state of the art, the authors include several studies that have been carried out that emphasize the advantages of using blogs in foreign language classrooms.

According to Swales and Feak (1994), “probably the most common way to indicate a gap or niche is to use a "negative" subject ( …) because they signal immediately to the reader that Move 1 has come to an end” (p. 189). Sun and Chang (2012) establish the niche in move 2 through the words “though”and “little” which indicate the gap that the authors have found in the literature review:

Though past literature has shed light on the ways blogs can be used to encourage language learning and learners’participation in writing practices, little, if any, empirical research has been done to examine how interactions in blogs help EFL graduate students develop academic writing knowledge and writing identities ( p. 44).

In the other RA, Roth et al. (2010) also use a GS text to introduce their research. They move from the general topic of vaccines to specific ones such as the Bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination and the Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DPT) vaccine. The three moves outlined by Swales and Feak (1994) are also present in Roth et al.´s (2010) introduction. These authors argue that "routine infant vaccines currently used in low income countries were not tested in randomised trials for their impact on overall child survival before their introduction" (p. 1). Thus they present the state of the art, that is move one. Then, they establish a niche: "The impact on overall mortality of revaccination with intradermal BCG vaccination has not been examined"(p.2). Then they occupy the niche by presenting the aim of their research: to test whether a BCG revaccination would help to reduce child mortality if applied after DPT booster vaccination.

Sun and Chang (2012) occupy the niche through purposive and descriptive statements: “[T]he current study (…)views blogs as a social medium for knowledge and identity construction and aims to explore what kind of writing-related topics the students blog about” ( p. 44). They also include a study framework to support their work and research questions to guide it. In contrast, Roth et al. (2010) do not include these elements.

As regards the Methods section, both articles follow a similar structure and have been written using the past passive, since they authors were explaining the procedures already carried out. However, they differ as regards content, type of data and participants for they belong to different types of research.

Roth et al. (2010) conducted a correlational study (Sampieri, Collado& Lucio, 1998), and within Methods, Roth et al. (2010) include not only participants, materials and procedure but also outcomes. In addition, they clearly state the objective of their study, which is “to examine whether BCG revaccination would reduce child mortality by 30%” (p. 2). As regards participants, the authors provide clear descriptions of the sample population, which was large (about 2,000 children), divided into two groups. It is also stated that the guardians of the participants were informed about the study. The procedure is clearly outlined and tables are used to illustrate the data. It was also explained that the trial was suspended temporarily due to the fact that there was a sudden increase in mortality between November 2003 and March 2004. This was done in order to “prevent a possible but unknown risk to more children” (Roth et al, 2010, p. 5).

Sun and Chang’s (2012) Methods section is shorter. It includes procedures and participants, as well as analysis of the data, but the materials used are not specified. For their research the authors did not use a scientific experiment, but a case study “to explore the EFL writer’s development as academic writers through collaborative dialogues in the blogosphere” (p. 46). Therefore, the number of participants was not large. Details of the students’ levels and needs are simply and clearly described. The procedures include the task to be performed by the participants clearly and step by step. Sun and Chang (2012) also state the way the project would be evaluated and the role of the teacher:“The course instructor served as a facilitator to guide students as they embarked on the blog project” (p. 46).

Although the research papers analyzed belong to different fields of study, they were structured in similar ways. Both of them include Introductions and Methods sections and they also refer to previous literature. Within their introductions, the authors followed the CARS model in both papers. In the Methods sections the authors did not make assumptions about the readers´ background knowledge; on the contrary, they made proper descriptions, provided examples and followed the principles of process paragraphs.

The nature of the content of the articles made it necessary for the authors to gather and present the information rather differently. For instance Roth et al. (2010) used more tables and specific figures since they were making use of quantitative methods. As Sun & Chang (2012) were carrying out a case study, they used interviews and a qualitative method.

Analyzing and comparing Research Articles, while trying to find similarities and differences in them, might lead us, as future researchers, to comprehend the underlying structures of papers in a better way. Concentrating not only on the content, but also on the structure, might help us improve our future research practices.

References

 

Hernández Sampieri, R., Fernández Collado, C., & Baptista Lucio, P. (1998). Metodología de la investigación. (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill: México.

Roth, A. E., Bell, C. B, Ravn, H., Rodrigues, A., Lisse, I. M., Yazdanbakhsh, M. & Aaby, P. (2010). Effect of revaccination with BCG in early childhood on mortality: randomized trial in Guinea-Bissau. BMJ 2010. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c671.

Sun, Y. & Chang, Y. (2012). Blogging to Learn: Becoming EFL Academic Writers through collaborative Dialogues. Language Learning & Technology, 16-1, 43-61.

Swales, J.M., & Feak, C.B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Harbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

 



Welcome Message

Hello peers and tutors!
Welcome to my blog! I have named it our discourse community since we have formed a  community to share our written work, ideas, experience and challenges! In this blog I will share my work with you.  Moreover, I will publish some papers I have written collaboratively with a fellow teacher and student, Natalia Bert. You can follow her blog at:http://nataliaeap.blogspot.com.ar/
 I look forward to your comments that I am positive that will help me improve my written performance.
Warmest,
Luciana

Critical incident

Teachers need to be adaptable

Last year I moved back to my hometown and I got a job at a secondary school in September.  I was going to stand in for a teacher who was on maternity leave.  The school was state-run but the students were grouped according to level, which was a great advantage, since both teachers and students work much better in homogeneous classes than in mixed-ability ones.  I had to teach five hours a week, from Tuesday to Friday.  My group was made up of 25 students aged 15 and 16 who were at elementary level.  The working atmosphere was pleasant; there were no behavior problems so I felt immediately at ease.

 The problem began when I started teaching.  I had spent nine years working at a bilingual school in Buenos Aires, where the language level was high and English was taught through content. I had to face the challenge of working at a new institution with different goals and levels.  What I needed was to adapt to the new working situation.  Mohanna, Chambers and Wall (2008) define the “all-round flexible teacher” as follows: “[t]his teacher can use lots of different skills effectively, can teach both peers and juniors, and is very aware of the way that the whole environment affects both teachers and learners” (p. 23).

There were many differences between my teaching experience and the role to fulfill at the new school.  To begin with, I was used to carrying my lessons in English the whole time, as my former Coordinator insisted on using the target language; besides, it was not necessary to use the native language as the students understood me perfectly well.  In this new setting, in contrast, my students struggled to understand what I was saying, they complained that I spoke too fast and reminded me all time that they were at elementary level.  What I found difficult was to change my speaking habits.  I found it impossible to bring myself to use Spanish in the classroom.  I talked to a former colleague who advised me to be more flexible and to use caretaker speech or our native language if it was necessary.  After a year, I have managed to simplify my English so that students do not panic, although some of my students still complain that I speak very fast.  The rest have adapted to it.

Another aspect I also found difficult was to lower my expectations.  After working so many years with fluent “bilingual” students, I found it hard to deal with speaking production problems.  My students were willing to work, their comprehension was good, but their spoken production, in my opinion, was poor.  I talked to the Head of Studies, who reminded me that I was teaching the lowest level.  Then I realized they just needed more time and practice, and that I needed to set achievable goals- my standards were too high.  Therefore, I tried to include more pair-work activities, role-plays and other speaking activities to help them improve their speaking skills.

As Mohanna, Chambers  and Wall (2008) pointed out:

Good teachers recognize that learners differ. We all come to learning with different experiences and pre-existing expertise, different levels of motivation and preferred ways of learning. Learners also have an understanding of what teaching and learning is, based on previous instructional experiences and hence they have expectations of their teacher. This will colour how they enter into and respond in a new learning situation. The skill of being a great teacher is in knowing how to respond to learners in ways that effectively address the differences between them and to be able to facilitate learning in a variety of ways that also takes into account differences in subject matter and setting ( p. 1)

I considered that I was an experienced teacher, but I had worked for years at the same school; therefore my experience was relevant up to a point.  Being a good teacher involves not only teaching experience but also the ability to adapt to different students and institutions.  I needed to be more aware of my working environment and more flexible so as to be successful in a new teaching context.  

 References

Mohanna K. , Chambers,  R. & Wall, D.  (2008). Your teaching Style, a practical guide to understanding, developing and improving. Radcliff Publishing. Retrieved October 2011 from http://www.radcliffe- oxford.com/books/samplechapter/8587/03-YourTeaching-Ch3-4059768rdz.pdf

Discourse Communities

Swales’ Discourse Community

The aim of this paper is to provide evidence to support Swales’ (1990) view of a discourse community.  According to Swales, a Discourse Community (DC) is defined as a group of people whose “members develop and use systems of speech and writing and are sometimes quite specific to that community´s needs and goals” (as cited in Ferris and Hedgcock, 1998, p. 5).  Discourse communities have common characteristics. Their members have common aims and exchange information and knowledge through participatory mechanisms. They also use specific terminology and adhere to a specific genre.

Kelly-Kleese (2011) contends that a community college can be considered a discourse community since it meets the criteria outlined by Swales (1990):

Its members have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, similar attitudes and values, shared understandings about how to communicate their knowledge and achieve their shared purposes, and a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style (p. 1).

Similarly, Hoffman Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) support Swales’ (1990) definition of a discourse community and focus on the importance of participatory mechanisms and common goals, as “[t]eachers interact with colleagues in goal-directed activities that require communication and the exchange of ideas [which are] "distributed" through sign systems and artifacts that are embedded in the social activity of the school community” (p. 3).

The communities mentioned above illustrate Swales’ definition of a discourse community, since the writers constitute examples of members of different discourse communities that not only communicate and share knowledge through a writing system but also have common goals and a common and specific discourse.

References.

Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Mahwah: NJ

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved October 2011, 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 October 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

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