Book critique: Cartas para los educadores del siglo XXI

Argentina has been through different crisis as regards education since politicians have changed education laws to make them fit their political models. Students from all levels have registered in their bodies, knowledge, values and feelings the deep damage the neoliberal policies have caused to education during the last decades.   However, there are people in charge who still believe in education and think that it is not too late for a change. Puiggrós (2007) is a specialist in history and education policies from Argentina and Latin America.  Being an author, a researcher, an educator and a current politician, Puiggrós (2007) has taken part in the development of the new national law of education while she was a deputy for the province of Buenos Aires.  Puiggrós (2007) stated that:

La educación no alcanza para cambiar una sociedad injusta, pero tiene la capacidad de contribuir a su transformación desde muchos ángulos y  mediante un sinúmero de estrategias. Hay que ponerla al servicio del Pueblo, para que ayude a recorrer el largo camino hacia la democracia (p. 313).

Puiggrós (2007) describes the modifications made to the national law of education in 2005 in her book.  Not only does Puiggrós’ (2007) work provide educators with an insight of the history of education in Argentina but also it analyzes the new law and the differences it has compared to the former ones. What is more, Puiggrós (2007) also refers to the role of communication in education since she considers that it is a vehicle for growth.

This book is intended for current and prospective teachers who have to face the new challenges of the century because it deals with topics such as social inclusion, responsibility and equal opportunities, terms which have been omitted in previous laws. The book is divided into four parts and each part contains between five and six chapters. The first part describes the current situation of education in Argentina as the result of the misuse of the former laws. The second part elaborates on the education system taking into account the differences among all levels of education. The third part deals with educators and the institutions in charge of providing educators with professional development. The last part gives educators an insight of the new policies and the changes that the educational has been through lately.

 Especially noteworthy is the style the author has chosen to describe the changes Argentina has suffered as regards education and the measures that have been taken in pursuit of growth. Apart from that, Puiggrós (2007) has successfully depicted the new terms included in the law such as social inclusion and equal opportunities.   Nevertheless, she has used complex terminology throughout the book which may prevent the reader from completely understanding the work. Perhaps, if the author would have avoided some legal terms or added some extra explanation, the reader would find it easier to follow. What is more, Puiggrós (2007) fails to expand some topics, such as communication. Had she explained the role of communication in depth, the reader would have understood what problems education is going through as regards this topic.

On the whole, it is an interesting book which develops and expands on the National Law of Education. Moreover, it provides educators with the necessary information to face the challenge of teaching. It is definitely worth reading.

Reference

Puiggrós, A. (2007). Cartas para los educadores del siglo XXI.  Buenos Aires: Galerna.  

Academic writing in discourse communities

A discourse community is described by many researchers and theorists, such as Bizzel (1992), as a knowledge community (cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2008).  It is seen as a social construction that, according to Swales (1990), should accomplish certain requirements to be recognized as such.  He also states that members of a Discourse Community should have common goals, they need to be intercommunicated and there should be participatory mechanisms where information and feedback can be provided (cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2010).

 As Swales (1990) pointed out members of a Discourse Community should have at least one genre which defines their work and they also ought to make use of highly specialized terminology so as to achieve a certain level of knowledge.  In this line of thought, Kuhn (1970) claims that “members of a discourse community function as scientists because they share language, practiced, education, goals, professional initiations and professional judgement” (as cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2008, p. 13).

Academic writing plays a central role within a Discourse Community since this type of writing “involves composing for knowledge transforming” (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996, cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2008, p. 10).  In order to produce an academic paper, members of a Discourse Community need to be aware of the specific requirements of academic writing. According to Swales (1990) these requirements

are regulated by a general academic register, a formal style, a proficiency in language use, the ability to integrate information from other sources, and the type of genres academic writing deals with” (as cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2008, p. 10).

The characteristics of academic writing mentioned above are connected to the requirements that a Community needs to fulfil in order to be considered a discourse community. If all these features of academic writing are accomplished and genre is properly defined, the way in which a discourse community operates is articulated (Swales, 1990, cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2010). In order to be members of a discourse community, students or future researchers should be aware of the pre- established conventions that academic writing has.

Grape and Kaplan (1996) stated that writing may have two different purposes: knowledge telling or knowledge transforming. According to these authors, those pieces of writing that are intended to generate knowledge and accomplish with  the academic requirements already mentioned are considered to be academic writing (cited in  Pintos and Crimi, 2010).

To sum up, in order to belong to a discourse community, a writer should meet certain academic requirements such as using formal style and register, being a proficient language user and having the ability to integrate information from other sources. However, academic writing involves more than knowing the conventions of academic writing.

References

Pintos,V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researches. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved October, 2010.

Pintos, V., and Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: Academic writing. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina. Retrieved October, 2010.

Critical Incident report: A naughty student

When I started to work at a state run school, two years ago, I was in charge of first form. This was my first experience in these kinds of schools since I had always worked in bilingual schools. The economic and social situation of this community was really different from the other schools where I had taught before and I felt it was a new challenge in my professional career.

Everything was developing as expected until I met Max[i]. This was a very special boy with many discipline problems.  He did whatever he wanted and he did not recognize any kind of authority. If teachers let him do what he wanted to do, he was a very nice boy, but as soon as we asked him to stop or to calm down, he shouted, ran away from the classroom or hid behind a desk so it was very difficult to deal with him. Although we had support from the school authorities, they could not do anything about this situation since the Equipo de Orientación Escolar (EOE) believed that nothing was wrong with the kid.

I remember the first lesson with him: We were working with a story called A Very Lazy Ladybug. It was story time, and a very nice atmosphere to read the story had been created. Students were sitting on the floor, I had dressed up as a storyteller and I had a magic wand to call students attention so that they got prepared to listen to the story. In the middle of the story, this kid started playing with a toy; I ignored him because I did not want to interrupt the reading. Then, he threw the toy at one of his classmates and hit her on the face. I had to stop the story and I tried to talk to him. He started to shout and ran away from the classroom.

It was a really difficult situation because I could not leave him alone outside the classroom and I could not leave the other kids alone while I went to look for him. I had to take a decision, so I made students line up and we went to look for the missing boy together. Unfortunately, the school was very big and I did not have the slightest idea where he could be.  Therefore, we walked towards the head’s office. I explained the whole episode to her and she went to look for the boy.

The boy was hiding under a table in the dining room which is on the third floor of the school.  The headmistress talked to the boy and she tried to make him calm down while I continued with the lesson in the classroom. During the break, I went to the head’s office and I also talked to the boy. He started to cry and told me that he loved me a lot. The head mistress told me to send a quiet kid to look for her next time something similar happens so that I did not leave the classroom with all the students.

Several weeks went by and the situation got worse. He started hitting his classmates; he escaped from the classroom many times, refused to enter the classroom after breaks or just hid somewhere. I avoided shouting at him or getting angry because I felt that he was used to being treated that way. Sometimes he stopped and listened to me and he frequently asked me how he was behaving.

Finally, the EOE went to school to watch a class and they realized that the boy needed treatment. They decided that a “jornada completa” was not suitable for him so the boy was sent to another school. I would have liked to help him but I did not have the necessary tools to do so.

---

[i] The real name has been changed in order to preserve the child’s identity.

Focused journal: Growing professionally

As professionals, not only do teachers have the obligation to be fluent and proficient speakers of the target language but also they need to constantly seek their progress in the field. Reflection used as a tool in teaching may lead to professional growth. Teachers have the opportunity of analyzing their own practices through the use of many techniques. The Critical Incident Technique (CIT)  is one of techniques that can be used as a vehicle to promote reflective learning.

According to Rahilly and Saroyan (1997), “CIT shows people meaningful experiences (…) and allows collecting qualitative and quantitative data about classroom teaching” (as cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2010, p. 9).  But, what is a critical incident? CIT is a method designed by Flanagan (1954) which relies on a set of procedures to collect data, analyze it, and classify observations of human behaviour.  Gonzalez, Elórtegui and Medina Perez (2003) suggested that “CIT is described as a pre-service and in- service teacher education strategy. The idea [behind this technique] is to integrate theory and practice” (p. 101).

In order to trigger change, it is important to be opened to receive critique and feedback from partners or from more experienced professionals. Everybody has something to learn and there are many aspects of our practice that need improvement.  Gonzalez, Elórtegui and Medina Perez (2003) pointed out that educational innovations have introduced deep changes in the teaching- learning processes. What is more, these changes are reached through collaboration and formative feedback among professionals.

In conclusion, It could be stated that CIT is a very useful tool to promote reflection on our teaching practices.  Teachers should include classroom observation in order to understand the different critical events that take place in the classroom and to analyze how to deal with those events so as to be able to grow professionally.   

References

Fernández González, J., Elortegui Escartin, N., & Medina Pérez, M. (2003). Los incidentes críticos en la formación y perfeccionamiento del profesorado de secundaria de ciencias de la naturaleza. Revista universitaria de formación de profesorado, 17- 001. Zaragoza, España: Universidad de Zaragoza. Retrieved October 2010, from http://redayc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/scr/inicio/ArtPdfRed.jsp?iCve=27417107

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

What is a discourse community?

Swales (1990) defines a discourse community as experts being members of a group which operates on the basis of explicit and implicit public goals. These specialists develop and use systems of speech and writing that are quite specific to a community’s needs and goals (Pintos & Crimi, 2010).  Swales (1990) created some basic criteria to verify whether a certain group of people belongs to an academic discourse community. The aim of this paper is to find evidence to account for Swales (1990)’ theory as regards the main characteristics of a discourse community. Common goals, participatory mechanisms, Information exchange, community- Specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise are the basic requirements that a discourse community should have according to Swales (1990).

The first requirement, Common goals, refers to specific objectives and interests that the discourse community has. According to Ovens (2002), different discourse communities whose main objectives are to make some research on reflection have emerged focusing on different aspects of the term: political, pedagogical or phenomenological (cited in Hoffman- Keep; 2003). As noted in Kelly- Kleese (2004), a discourse community is a social construction. Kutz (1997) claims that “its members have, over time, developed  a common discourse that involved shared knowledge, common purposes, similar attitudes and values, (…) (As cited in Kelly- Kleese, 2003, p. 200).

The second requirement refers to Participatory Mechanisms. Swales (1990) states that through these mechanisms the group receives information and feedback. Vigotsky (1978) suggests that socially guided participation is essential for reflection to take place. Through exchange and feedback the information handled within a Discourse community can circulate among its members so as to be analyzed.  According to Soltis (1981),  the sociocentric view of knowledge and learning holds that what we take as knowledge and how we think and express ideas are the products of interactions of groups of people over time (Wenzlaff & Wiseman; 2004).

The third requirement refers to Information exchange. Swales (1990) suggests that members of a discourse community will survive only if they are intercommunicated.  Hoffman- Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003) pointed out that teachers function as resources for one another, providing each other with guidance and assistance to build new ideas. 

The fourth requirement is connected to Community- Specific genres.  This item refers to the fact that at least one genre should define the discourse community you belong to. As mentioned in Kelly- Kleese (2004), members of a discourse community develop shared knowledge as well as a particular structure and style. Blanton, Simmons and  Warner (2001) argue that journals or virtual systems of communication can be used (…) so they can recall, share and respond to one another’s experiences (as cited in Hoffman- Kipp, Artiles & Lopez- Torres, 2003).  Members of a given community should produce texts that correspond to their community respecting its structure and style.

Swales also (1990) mentions that a discourse community should have highly specialized terminology. Members of a discourse community develop a collective identity in which they acquire and continually transform social language. According to Holquist and Emerson (cited in Hoffman- Kipp, Artiles and Lopez- Torres, 2003) a social language is “a discourse peculiar to a specific societal group at a specific time.”  A discourse community is “bound together primary by its uses of language, although bound perhaps by other ties as well” (Bizell, p. 222 as cited in Kelly- Kleese, 2004).

Finally,  Swales (1990) affirms that the group should achieve a certain level of knowledge:  high general level of expertise. Zito (1984) states that

 an author is granted a certain binding authority to his intended meaning; this is legitimated by academic credentials, professional associations, and the division of knowledge within the academy  Furthermore, only those qualified by some socially institutionalized agency may engage in such discourse and be taken seriously.  The academic turf is a battleground for the right to speak with authority (cited in Kelly- Kleese; 2001).

In conclusion, a discourse community is analyzed as a social construction that should meet certain characteristics to be identified as such. Sufficient evidence has been found in order to support Swales (1990)’ theory as all the requirements stated by him were present in the articles analyzed.

Reference

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into practice. Retrieved October 2007, 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 2007, 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 October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

Pintos,V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a Community of Teachers and Prospective Researchers. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Wenzlaff, T.L., & Wiseman, K.C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers To Grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_9349405

Introductory Letter

Dear collegues,

                        My name is Romina M. Gitarelli Jaume and I am a teacher of English. I graduated last year from ISFD nº 88 “Paulo Freire” and now I am attending a post graduate programme in ELT at Universidad CAECE.

I am currently working at primary and Secondary schools: Escuela °14 D.E. 20 and  Instituto D. Dalmacio Vélez Sarsfield in the City of Buenos Aires and also I deliver classes at Universidad Nacional de La Matanza in the Province of Buenos Aires.

This Blog has been created as a project for my EAP class since I would like to share my productions and reflections on Academic Writing. I really enjoy being part of this learning community because I think that if we share we are on the right track towards professional growth.

Your're welcome to post your comments on my writings, they'll be very useful for me and my peers.

Thanks a lot!

Romina

Welcome!

     Welcome to my space! I have never thought of having a blog to publish my own work and reflections! It is a very exciting experience and I am eager to start. I love being part of this community and I am looking forward to reading your comments and contributions. I hope you find it insteresting!

Thank you

Romina Gitarelli Jaume