"Coaches can read, too": Revealing the nature of the game

Establishing a Territory:

Bra nick starts by talking about how important coaching is in any form of football, be it little league or the pros. He goes on to talk about some of the effective characteristics that coaches have to possess to be successful. It seems that he is focused on showing exactly what goes into being a coach so that their team can win. He reveals that coaches have to have many forms of literacy in order to be able to succeed. Some of the literacies are reading their players, organization of plays, making and pursuing goals, and having the competitive edge.

Establishing a Niche:

Most people know the rules and how to play football, and many also know how hard players work in order to be able to play on a regular schedule. However, it doesn't always seem like many people know exactly all the preparation that coaches have to do as well. Bra nick shows this by discussing the different factors that coaches have to have in order to win their games.

Occupying the Niche:

The end sentence in Branick's introduction is how he occupies the Niche. “How do football coaches, as members of a specific discourse community, go about reading their players and the game in order to get optimal performance and a positive end result”(561)? With all the characteristics and goals of coaching that he provides earlier in his introduction, it's obvious that coaching isn't as easy as just calling plays randomly; there must be a method that coaches follow and a strong communication between the players and coaches so that everyone is on the same page and can go after the same goals.

"Learning to Serve": Word games and food

This reading really hit home with me. The examples he uses I normally see when I work at the Diner depending on the waiters and waitresses working that night. But I digress...

I believe Tony Mirabelli's question was “How do waiter and waitresses compare to workers that have a 'higher education' job (Ie: working for a big business or office)? ” In gathering data, Mirabelli worked at restaurants and interviewed other members to get a better sense of how they interacted with customers. He also took notes about the customers he served and many text based items from the restaurant. He was able to see how the senior waiter (John) evolved through his time there and how far he's come. Mirabelli talks about how the knowledge of an item on the menu affects the customers he serves. If a waiter doesn't know specifics about an item, customers normally don't order them. In a restaurant like Lou's in the text, there are a significant amount of items that a waiter would have to memorize to be able to explain to customers. Knowing what main course meals are, what they come with, what can be substituted, and so on can be a staggering amount of information.

His findings seem to be that waiters not only have to know basic literary skills, but they have to go above and beyond to really interact with customers to make them feel like a member of the family at the restaurant. Also, waiters need to be able to think quickly and be good at 'suggestion' to be able to make a sale and to excel with getting higher tips from customers. Reading not only the menu, but people themselves, is a difficult skill to learn. Waiters and waitresses have to be creative to succeed, and Mirabelli suggests that being a waiter could be even more difficult than a white collar job because of the interaction with other people. It's harder dealing with a customer face to face than it is through a telephone.

Project 4 Proposal

I planned on examining the discourse community of the Union Street Diner. The Diner is a “mom n' pop” restaurant that is an Athens local location. The restaurant is a community in itself: the workers interacting with customers in order to provide a service to others. As a member of the community itself, I feel that there's an interesting dynamic between the workers themselves and the customers they serve.

I believe this community is significant just to show the relationship between the community and the “outsiders” of sorts that aren't directly related to it. Swales talks about how others can be partially assimilated into a community and then they leave. I think there might be more to that statement. In the case of the Diner, I do not believe that there is partial assimilation. I think the customers they serve are part of the discourse itself; perhaps as a symbiotic relationship. Without the customers, the Diner would not be able to function; without the Diner, the specific demographic that takes advantage of the 24 hour service wouldn't have a cure for hangover food cravings. I believe there is something to say about specific relationships between the community and the people not assimilated themselves.

Without a doubt, Swales will be used as a source in the paper. Along with his characteristics of a discourse community to define it, I wanted to go deeper into his thoughts on an outsider's partial assimilation with a community in comparison to my thoughts about symbiotic discourse communities. With the Diner itself, the terminology used is not a hard code to crack. Anyone outside of the community itself can pick up on it easily with listening a few minutes to any of the workers talking to each other as we work.

I was also thinking about using Gee as a source talking about the different levels of authority. I wanted to compare new workers to old workers and how they differ. Myself, for example, I've worked their the shortest amount of time but I'm already in a position of authority in my own right. Other workers have been there for years and years, but do significantly less and are not as highly regarded as others. In the case of the Diner, it's also an interesting relationship because it's under new management. The Diner is trying to get it's feet before doing major expanding; everyone there is trying to learn everything (Owners and Managers are trying to learn other jobs to better train new workers).

I also want to look at Tony Mirabelli's article on “Learning to Serve”. The article itself is based on food service, so it will relate to the community as a whole. It might also address something on the relationship between the workers and customers. This article also talks about misconceptions between food service workers and other workers as part of a big business company. Food service isn't rocket science; treat customers well and cater to them. People think that food service are just blue collar workers who didn't want to go through school and get a “real” job. However, in some cases it's what's necessary to do in order to get that higher education and a better job. It's also, unknown to many people, a strenuous job trying to be a Diner worker (or food service in general) being able to think quickly and accommodate to everyone at once so everyone is happy.

Along with that, Mirabelli talks about how authority between the customer and the waiter changes based on who is the one talking. While the customer has higher authority because a waiter is to serve them, Mirabelli talks about how waiters can use witty techniques of conversation to 'suggest' a specific dish if the waiter knows what the kitchen wants to sell.

Resources

• Mirabelli, Tony. “Learning to serve.”Writing about Writing: A college Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 57-65. Print.
• Gee, James Paul. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics.”Writing about Writing: A college Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 57-65. Print.
• Swales, John. “The Concept of Discourse Community.”Writing about Writing: A college Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011. 57-65. Print.

"Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces": 'Order Up!' vs. 'Come Get the Damn Food!'

The three ways Wardle reports newcomers belong are Engagement, Imagination, and Alignment.

Engagement is referring to, in simplest forms, just talking and discussing with other members of a workplace; being active instead of passive. This helps develop relationships between co-workers. An example would be just talking to superiors in a workplace and getting to know them. At the Union Diner (my project 4 topic), I started this by talking to everyone who was working with me that night. I tried to find everyone's name and tried to get to know them better throughout my first night there. I also made sure I knew what was expected of me in my job and tried to make sure I got things done in a timely fashion to their expectations. As the dish washer, I know my position isn't the most glamorous, but it has to be done. Doing the dishes in a timely fashion helps keep the Diner running smoothly, never running out of clean dishes to serve food on.

Imagination talks about a newcomer expanding on the job; finding new ways to pursue the goals of the workplace they are a part of (in good or bad terms depending). It also discusses what I think is making a name for yourself and find out how you belong and relate to the other workers in the workplace. An example would be making your job methods more efficient in order to make yourself useful in the workplace, I guess. At the Diner, the owner bought a new rack for dishes to be hung on to create more space. He made it my job to assemble it and reorganize the dishes. When I got there, all the dishes were scattered and just placed in a different area depending on who else did the job the nights before I worked. I organized it into a system that everyone understands and it has stayed that way since I reorganized.

Alignment refers to molding yourself into the position. You need to be able to focus your priorities onto a focus that is the same as the rest of the workplace. I guess an example of this is a new worker understanding how their job is done and makes sure it is done the way they are told to do it. Once they are skilled at doing it their way, they can branch out and explore new ways that get the job done, but might be more efficient. At the Diner, everyone is working to make a satisfying meal for the customers. We all need to make sure we are on the same page in order to provide that experience for those who come in. If one particular person isn't doing their job quite as well as the next person, then the entire place suffers. For example: a cook isn't cooking food appropriately, food gets out late. If a server isn't courteous with customers, they could walk out frustrated.

"Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice": Confusing, but understandable...

To me, the conversation between Swales and Gee is discussing what exactly is “discourse.” Swales talks about how a group can be discourse community if they meet a specific series of characteristics. He also talks about how other people can be partially assimilated into a discourse and then leave the community. Gee counters with how his beliefs are that a “Discourse” is more of a ongoing process that everyone is born into. People who aren't born into a specific discourse is doomed to only being a pretender to what they want to be a part of. Through life, Gee also discusses how mentors are “gatekeepers” of sorts that test their students constantly on their knowledge of a specific discourse. Swales focuses on the community while Gee focuses on the individual.

Johns comes in with an explanation of the deeper meaning of discourse and discourse community through the use of examples that students can relate too (Ie: AARP and Bicycling examples). She also talks about the reasons why people join groups and how their relationship to a discourse community changes overtime. She provides information on the items that help bring a person into s discourse, but she then provides the new material on how one can be pushed out of a discourse. She talks about the conflicts between being a part of a specific discourse and the sacrifices it might cause. In an academic discourse, Johns discusses that one must devote themselves to academia and distance themselves from social pursuits and family.

She also goes on to talk about the “who's in charge” factor when a new recruit is initiated, and how a person can change through evolution of a community and breaking the old, in place, rules that are there. Authority is that driving force in a community that provides the test to make sure the members are passing through the right gates and growing in the community as they should be. With breaking the old rules, Johns discusses how a student can be in higher praise because they can break the rules, only with that understanding of the rules themselves and “breaking them in the right way” so to speak. This rule breaking is what seems to be a “development of identity in a discourse community”.

"Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics": Use the Discourse, young padawan...

I believe Gee is talking about “tests” that superiors use to make sure we are ready for the next step in the process of learning a Discourse. The tests that are provided are just a safeguard that the teacher has effectively taught one part of the discourse and that the student “apprentice” has a grasp and understands what is needed of the discourse thus far. If a student isn't ready to proceed, they will be forced to look elsewhere for a discourse or to stay in that particular stage of learning the Discourse until they can master that part.

An example I know first hand is any of the language courses here on campus (But for my personal experience, I will use Japanese Class). Every week, we have two quizzes. The Friday quiz is a review of what we've learned earlier in the week. The Monday quiz is normally based on what we learned last week, but the other half of what we learned. For example: a Friday quiz focuses on grammar learned in the week while the following Monday quiz focuses on the vocabulary. Eventually, you have the Final exam in the class. The rule is if you do not meet a certain grade on the final, you don't progress onto the next stage of the class. So: it's the school's (and the teachers) way of making sure that if the student progresses, he will be able to understand and survive in the next part of the class (or Discourse).

"The Concept of Discourse Community": ...I can't think of a witty subtitle.

In “The Concept of Discourse Community”, John Swales argues six different characteristics of a discourse community:

1)”A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.”

To me, Swales is arguing that a community has a set of goals (a purpose) that is known to everyone that is in the community. To a Facebook group, these goals could be promoting an object, idea, or club (the group ANIME [promoting Japanese television cartoons] for example). To a workplace, it's the common goal to keep the business running and functioning correctly.

2)“A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.”

This seems to be that members of any particular community have a way to get a hold of each other and pass on information one way or another. It has many different forms from word of mouth to a sophisticated newsletter. Using Facebook again, it can be the messaging feature to spread information or a post on the group wall. In a work environment, it can be a list of phone numbers if you need to find someone to cover your shift.

3)”A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback.”

This seems to mean that members of a community pursue different advancements in information that could be beneficial to the group, or critiques on what's already there. In a rock band, for instance: members of the band sometimes pose questions to their audience to see if they enjoy a particular style or not. The band Avenged Sevenfold, for instance, has been touring with a new drummer due to the recent loss of their former drummer and they ask the audience to tell them if they approve of him or not; to see if the new drummer keeps the spirit of what the band was before their former drummer died.

4)”A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of it's aims.”

This one is a little more difficult. I believe it's talking about how a community has different ways of meeting it's goals. In a workplace, it can be having some employees who are trained in more than one job. If service gets hectic or people don't show up to work, those who are trained in more places could go to where they are needed to keep advancing the business.

5)”In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis.”

I believe this is talking about the language aspect of a group and the technical terms that it's used to make business run smoothly. In my own community of “Union Street Diner”, it can relate to how orders are called out. We have special terms meaning different things. For example: an “OM” is referring to “Over Medium” eggs, “Walkin' in” means “The next order is...”, “All Day” refers to everything a person should be working on at the time, and so on.

6)”A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discourse expense.”

I believe Swales is talking about how membership changes over time. In a workplace, it can be when members get fired from the job. It can also refer to a senior member teaching new employees how to do their job correctly.