Tuesday, October 29, 2013

APA Style in Academic Writing



Analyzing APA Style in an Academic Piece of Writing
            This paper reviews the style used in an article written by Dalvit et al. (2005) and provides a detailed account of the use of in-text citations and signal phrases, as well as the structure of the reference list, in terms of whether the rules prescribed by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010) have been followed or not.
            In their article, the authors have included some in-text citations of books, dictionaries, online journals, publications by universities and software. Most of these are parenthetical citations and signal phrases have been scarcely used. In addition, the phrase “according to” has been repeated in the article instead of using a different phrase. This would seem to show poor academic style. Other signal phrases include research has shown that and preliminary investigation shows that.
            Even though the excessive use of direct or block quotations is not encouraged in academic writing, a few citations of these types might help support a point effectively. However, the authors in this article have not included any direct or block quotations at all. They have only resorted to paraphrasing to make reference to works or ideas of other authors. It must be said, on the other hand, that all in-text citations appear to have been correctly included and all of them were cited in the references.
            In relation to the reference list, there are several issues to mention considering the guidelines provided by Purdue OWL (2013a) on APA style. To begin with, this list should have been included on a separate sheet of paper and, instead of being left-aligned, the word "References" should have been centered on the page. Furthermore, it is followed by a colon, which is not appropriate either if APA style is to be followed. Instead, the word “References” should not be underlined, italicized or highlighted in any other way.
            Other important points to mention are that the entries in the list have been numbered and that they are not double-spaced. Additionally, in all cases, the names of the titles have been title-cased when they should have been sentence-cased. In relation to this, the Purdue OWL (2013b) guidelines state that “only the first word of a title will be capitalized” (In-Text Citation Capitalization section, para. 2). As well as this, in those entries citing journals, it is the name of the journal that should be italicized and not the title of the article (Purdue OWL, 2013a). Italics should be used for titles of books or journals.
            The sources are properly listed in alphabetical order but the authors should not have indented the first line of each entry. Instead, it is the second and following lines of an entry which should be indented five spaces, while the first line should be aligned to the left (University of Minnesota, n.d.).
            Some other deviations from APA style include the use of the word “and” instead of the ampersand in the sixth entry, the missing final dot in the entries corresponding to books, that is, entries 1, 3, 4, and 6, and the missing year indicating when the document was accessed, as well as the indication "retrieved from”, in entries where a website is cited. Finally, there is a mistake in the year of publication of the eighth entry, which reads “2004” while the year of the cited source in the body of the article is 2005.
            As a result of the previous analysis, it may be concluded that the authors followed APA style to some extent. While they have used in-text citations according to APA rules, other conventions have been disregarded, particularly those related to the reference list.
           
 References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC.
Dalvit, L., Murray, S., Terzoli, A., Zhao, X., Rhodes University, Mini, B., & University of Fort Hare. (2005). Providing increased access to English L2 students of computer science at a South African University. US-China Education Review, Sep. 2005, Vol. 2 (9).
Purdue OWL (2013a). Reference List: Basic Rules. Retrieved October 2013, from    https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/05/
Purdue OWL (2013b). In-Text Citations: The Basics. Retrieved October 2013, from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/02/
University of Minnesota Center for Writing. (n.d.). Quicktips: APA documentation style: Reference list. University of Minnesota: Student Writing Support. Retrieved October 2013, from http://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/apa_References.pdf



Licencia Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Unported.

Monday, October 21, 2013

What Is a Discourse Community?



Discussing the Concept of Discourse Community
            Several definitions have been proposed for the term "discourse community”. This paper discusses the six criteria suggested by Swales (1990) in order to determine the scope of the concept.
            Swales (1990) argues that in order for a group of people to be considered a discourse community, they must share common goals. An example of this could be a group of teachers who want to improve their teaching practices and grow professional. As Chadding (1995) states, people join together to achieve objectives, solve problems or create products (as cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004).
            Another key characteristic of a discourse community is information exchange.  It is essential that members interact with each other in order for them to learn (Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004). It seems that group work is a fundamental factor required for professional development. As McLaughlin and Tabert (1993) put it a “discourse community cannot exist in the absence of a collaborative culture and an environment that supports risk-taking and reflection” (as cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004, Summary and Implications, para. 2).
            Discourse community members use one or more genres which are specific to their community (Swales, 1990). In fact, they agree to abide by certain language styles and structures, which become a social convention (Bizzell, 1992; as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004). This results in members acquiring community competence, that is to say, the knowledge of the language you need to communicate appropriately in a given discourse community (Kutz, 1997; as cited in Kelly-Kleese).
            In addition, Swales (1990) asserts that discourse community members interact by means of certain participatory mechanisms in communicating and providing feedback to each other. For instance, when describing the community college discourse, Kelly-Kleese (2004, Teaching as Scholarship, para. 7) states it flows in different ways, which may include “oral dialogue or text in arenas such as e-mail, electronic mailing lists, and discussion forums on the Web”.      
            A discourse community makes use of highly specialized terminology (Swales, 1990).  This includes words that outsiders would not usually understand since according to Giroux (1983) “language is a social event that is defined, shaped and constrained by the culture of the setting in which it is used” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, Abstracts, para. 4). Therefore, concepts acquire specific meanings given by a specific group at a certain time (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles & Lopez Torres, 2003).
            Discourse communities are characterized by having a high general level of expertise. Clark (1994, as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004) states that although it is assumed that all members in a discourse have equal opportunities to have their voices heard and to shape reality through language, some members exert more influence than others so that “individuals and groups with greater skill in using the language system will exercise power in naming and thus controlling how others will view social reality” (Bowers, 1987, p.28, as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001).
            To sum up, a discourse community implies common purposes and relationships, and similar attitudes and values, as well as sharing knowledge following certain conventions, and a discourse structure and style related to how to communicate such knowledge and achieve the proposed goals (Kutz, 1997, as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001).


References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved October 2007, from
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s choice: An open memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from
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 October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405

Licencia Creative CommonsEste obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Unported.