Discourse Communities & Language Negotiation

## Discourse Communities & Language Negotiation **Course**: ENC 1101 **Instructor**: Glenn S. Ritchey III Today you'll peer review Multimodal Literacy Narrative drafts and explore how writers negotiate language expectations within discourse communities—preparing you for Major Assignment 2. ### What you'll do 1. Provide peer feedback on MA1 drafts using discourse community frameworks 2. Apply Melzer + Tremain concepts to identify literacy practices for MA2 3. Share insights about language negotiation in your communities **Which schedule are you on?** [[Monday/Wednesday section →->MW-Groups]] [[Wednesday/Friday section →->WF-Groups]] *Need help navigating?* Here is how to [[How to use this Twine->Instructions-Node]].

## How to Use This Twine ### Navigation Click blue links to move between pages; including to return to previous pages. ### Working in Groups Find your group number, follow your pathway (Peer Review → Discussion 2 → Shareout Prep), and take notes in your shared Google Doc. ### Peer Review Read your partner's draft carefully. Use the criteria provided to give substantive, helpful feedback that prepares them for MA1 submission. ### Discussion 2 After peer review, apply today's concepts to identify potential literacy practices for Major Assignment 2. ### Reference Nodes These provide extra context on key concepts. Use them when you need a refresher or want to go deeper. [[← Back to start->Start]]

## Group Assignments [[Group 1: Selecting Analyzable Artifacts →->Group1-Opening]] [[Group 2: From Description to Analysis →->Group2-Opening]] [[Group 3: Applying Tremain's Frameworks →->Group3-Opening]] [[Group 4: Identifying Socio-Cultural Constraints →->Group4-Opening]] [[Group 5: Synthesizing Multiple Frameworks →->Group5-Opening]]

## From Understanding to Analyzing Discourse Communities **Quick Review**: Last class, Melzer showed us that discourse communities have six characteristics (shared goals, communication mechanisms, genres, lexis, experts, feedback systems). You practiced identifying these features. **Today's Addition**: Tremain builds on Melzer by showing us that discourse communities aren't static—they change through language negotiation. Members use translanguaging (blending languages) and code-meshing (blending dialects) to challenge expectations. But language is inseparable from power: some members' language is valued, others' is marginalized. **Key Concept**: Socio-Cultural Analysis — examining how literacy practices are shaped and constrained by social factors (power, norms, beliefs, access) and cultural factors (identity, language, community expectations) **Today's Question**: How do you move from identifying discourse communities to analyzing how they shape literacy practices—and what artifacts would show this? *Your group will develop analytical skills for Major Assignment 2.* [[← Back to MW Groups->MW-Groups]] [[← Back to WF Groups->WF-Groups]]

## Group 1: Selecting Analyzable Artifacts Your group explores what makes an artifact rich enough to analyze for MA2—and what's too simple or too broad. *Why this matters*: MA2 requires 2+ artifacts demonstrating literacy practices. Not all artifacts reveal socio-cultural constraints equally well. You need to choose artifacts that actually have something to analyze. ### Your Pathway 1. **Peer Review**: Give feedback on MA1 drafts focusing on artifact quality 2. **Discussion 2**: Evaluate potential artifacts for MA2 analysis 3. **Shareout Prep**: Organize insights to share with the class #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Peer Review →->Group1-Peer-Review]] #### Reference [[What Makes an Artifact Analyzable?->Group1-Reference]]

## Group 1 — Peer Review: MA1 Draft Feedback **Goal**: Provide substantive feedback that helps your peer strengthen their Multimodal Literacy Narrative ### Exchange Drafts Partner up within your group. Read your partner's draft carefully (8-10 minutes). ### Feedback Criteria As you read, focus on these elements: **1. Theoretical Framework Application** Does the draft effectively use frameworks from our readings (Melzer, Tremain, Anzaldúa, etc.)? Are the concepts applied accurately to their literacy experience? **2. Discourse Community Awareness** Can you identify what discourse community/communities their literacy practice belongs to? Do they explain the language expectations, genres, or specialized vocabulary of that community? **3. Artifact Description Quality** Are the examples and artifacts described with enough specific detail that you can visualize them? Do they support the analysis? **4. Argument About Writing Identity** Does the draft answer "How have past literacy experiences impacted your present writing identity?" Is the claim clear and supported? ### Written Feedback Provide 2-3 concrete suggestions focusing on the criteria above. Be specific: not "good job" but "your analysis of how your family's code-meshing created belonging would be stronger if you explained what languages were blended and why that mattered." [[Reference: Discourse Communities & Swales' Characteristics->Group1-Reference]] #### *Ready for Discussion 2.* [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]] | [[Continue to Discussion 2 →->Group1-Discussion-2]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="600" data-passage="Group1-Peer-Review"> </div>

## Group 1 — Discussion 2: What Makes Artifacts Analyzable? **Goal**: Develop criteria for selecting artifacts that will actually support socio-cultural analysis in MA2 ### From Peer Review to Artifact Selection You just reviewed how your peers used artifacts in MA1. Now think critically: which artifacts would work for MA2's deeper socio-cultural analysis? ### Questions **1. What's the difference between a simple artifact and a rich one?** Simple: A text message that says "ok" Rich: A group chat thread showing code-meshing, inside jokes (lexis), and relationship dynamics What makes the second one more analyzable? **2. Brainstorm 3-5 potential artifacts from YOUR literacy practices** For each, ask: - Does it show discourse community features? (lexis, genre, power dynamics) - Does it reveal socio-cultural constraints? (whose language is valued, what norms shape it) - Can you get 2+ artifacts showing the SAME literacy practice? **3. Red flags: What artifacts won't work well?** Too generic, no clear discourse community, nothing to say about power/context, can't access enough examples, too private to share ### Quick Draft (if time allows) Choose one: - **Option A**: Describe 2 artifacts from the same literacy practice and explain what each would reveal about socio-cultural constraints - **Option B**: Compare a "thin" artifact (not enough to analyze) with a "rich" artifact (plenty to analyze) from your literacy practice - **Option C**: List specific questions you'd ask about your artifacts to generate socio-cultural analysis [[Reference: What Makes an Artifact Analyzable?->Group1-Reference]] #### *Time to prepare your shareout.* [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="600" data-passage="Group1-Discussion-2"> [[Time to prepare your shareout→->Group1-Shareout-Prep]] </div>

## Group 1 — Shareout Prep Prepare a **2-3 minute** presentation for the class. ### What to Share **1. Key Insight** (1 min): What makes an artifact rich enough to analyze vs. too simple? **2. Specific Example** (1 min): Show a CONTRAST—one thin artifact and one rich artifact from the same literacy practice. Explain the difference. **3. MA2 Application** (30 sec): What's one criterion classmates should use when selecting their artifacts? ### Get Organized - Who's presenting which part? - What artifact examples will you use? - Can you explain why one is more analyzable than the other? *Keep it tight — 2-3 minutes. Give classmates concrete selection criteria.* #### *Ready to share with the class.* [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]] | [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="240" data-passage="Group1-Shareout-Prep"> </div>

## Reference: What Makes an Artifact Analyzable? **What it is**: An artifact is an object produced through literacy practices. For MA2, you need artifacts that reveal how social and cultural factors shape literacy. **Why it matters for MA2**: Not all artifacts are equally rich. Some show clear socio-cultural constraints; others don't give you much to analyze. ### Criteria for Strong Artifacts **Rich artifacts show:** - Clear discourse community features (lexis, genre, goals) - Evidence of language choices/negotiation (translanguaging, code-meshing, style shifts) - Power dynamics (whose language is valued, who has access) - Social/cultural norms shaping the practice - Relationships between participants - Multiple modes working together (if multimodal) **Weak artifacts lack:** - Clear discourse community context - Interesting language features to analyze - Evidence of constraints or power - Enough complexity to support 4-5 pages of analysis ### Examples **Too Simple**: A one-word text response "ok" **Rich**: A group chat thread showing inside jokes, code-meshing between languages, and relationship dynamics **Too Simple**: A grocery list **Rich**: Recipe annotations showing family culinary traditions and language preservation ### How to Apply This Look at potential artifacts and ask: Can I identify the discourse community? Can I analyze language choices? Can I discuss power/constraints? Can I get 2+ examples of the same practice? If yes, you have analyzable artifacts. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group1-Opening]]

## Group 2: From Description to Analysis Your group explores how to move beyond describing artifacts to actually analyzing how socio-cultural factors shape them. *Why this matters*: MA2 isn't a report about your artifacts. It's an analysis of how social actors interacted with them and how they were shaped by context. That requires different writing moves. ### Your Pathway 1. **Peer Review**: Give feedback on MA1 drafts focusing on analytical depth 2. **Discussion 2**: Practice analytical moves for MA2 3. **Shareout Prep**: Organize insights to share with the class #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Peer Review →->Group2-Peer-Review]] #### Reference [[Description vs. Analysis->Group2-Reference]]

## Group 2 — Peer Review: MA1 Draft Feedback **Goal**: Provide substantive feedback that helps your peer strengthen their Multimodal Literacy Narrative ### Exchange Drafts Partner up within your group. Read your partner's draft carefully (8-10 minutes). ### Feedback Criteria As you read, focus on these elements: **1. Language and Identity Analysis** Does the draft explore how language shapes identity? Do they discuss how different discourse communities expected different language use? **2. Translanguaging or Code-Meshing Examples** Can you identify moments where they describe language blending or negotiation? (Even if they don't use those terms.) Do they explain what those moments reveal? **3. Power Dynamics** Does the draft address who had language power in their literacy experience? Do they discuss expectations about "correct" or "acceptable" language? **4. Connection to Writing Identity** How do language experiences connect to their current writing identity? Is this relationship explained clearly? ### Written Feedback Provide 2-3 concrete suggestions. For example: "You mention switching between Spanish and English with your grandmother—explain what each language allowed you to express that the other didn't. This would strengthen your identity analysis." [[Reference: Translanguaging & Code-Meshing->Group2-Reference]] #### *Ready for Discussion 2.* [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]] | [[Continue to Discussion 2 →->Group2-Discussion-2]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="600" data-passage="Group2-Peer-Review"> </div>

## Group 2 — Discussion 2: Practicing Analytical Moves **Goal**: Learn to recognize the difference between description and analysis—and practice making analytical claims ### From Observation to Interpretation MA2 asks you to "make an argument about the effect/effectiveness of artifacts on the socio-cultural context." That means moving from WHAT happened to WHY it matters and WHAT it reveals. ### Questions **1. Practice the difference** Take a simple artifact (a meme, a text exchange, a social media post). **Description**: "This meme uses bad grammar and a cat." **Analysis**: "This meme uses intentional misspellings ('haz,' 'plz') to establish membership in internet culture and challenge standard English expectations—revealing how discourse communities negotiate language norms through humor." Try this with an artifact from your literacy practice. What's the description? What's the analysis? **2. What analytical questions unlock deeper thinking?** Instead of "What does this say?" ask: - What power dynamics does this reveal? - Whose language is valued here? Whose isn't? - What norms/beliefs/structures shaped this? - How do social actors interact with this? - What would happen if someone violated these expectations? **3. Choose one artifact you might use for MA2** Practice asking ALL the analytical questions above. Which ones generate the most interesting insights? ### Quick Draft (if time allows) Choose one: - **Option A**: Write one descriptive sentence and one analytical sentence about the same artifact—show the contrast - **Option B**: Take a simple observation and turn it into an analytical claim using Melzer or Tremain's frameworks - **Option C**: List 5 analytical questions you could ask about your chosen artifact [[Reference: Description vs. Analysis->Group2-Reference]] #### *Time to prepare your shareout.* [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="600" data-passage="Group2-Discussion-2"> [[Time to prepare your shareout→->Group2-Shareout-Prep]] </div>

## Group 2 — Shareout Prep Prepare a **2-3 minute** presentation for the class. ### What to Share **1. Key Insight** (1 min): What's the difference between describing and analyzing? Why does it matter for MA2? **2. Specific Example** (1 min): Show a BEFORE/AFTER—descriptive statement vs. analytical statement about the same artifact. **3. MA2 Application** (30 sec): What's one analytical question classmates should ask about their artifacts? ### Get Organized - Who's presenting which part? - What example will show description vs. analysis clearly? - Can you explain what makes the analytical version stronger? *Keep it tight — 2-3 minutes. Help classmates level up their analytical thinking.* #### *Ready to share with the class.* [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]] | [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="240" data-passage="Group2-Shareout-Prep"> </div>

## Reference: Description vs. Analysis **What it is**: Description tells what you observe. Analysis interprets what it means and why it matters. **Why it matters for MA2**: The assignment asks you to "make an argument about effect/effectiveness" and "critically examine" literacy practices. That requires analysis, not just description. ### The Difference **Description**: - What is happening - Observable features - Surface-level reporting - Example: "This group chat uses emoji and abbreviations." **Analysis**: - What it reveals/means - Interpretation using frameworks - Connections to power/context/theory - Example: "This group chat uses emoji and abbreviations to create intimacy and mark insider status—those who don't know the codes (like parents) are excluded, revealing how lexis functions as a gatekeeping mechanism in peer discourse communities." ### Analytical Moves **Ask interpretive questions**: - What does this reveal about power/norms/values? - How does this connect to [framework from readings]? - What would happen if someone violated this expectation? - Whose interests does this serve? - What constraints shaped this? **Use framework terminology**: discourse community, lexis, genre, translanguaging, code-meshing, gatekeeping, negotiation, constraints **Make claims**: "This reveals...", "This demonstrates...", "This challenges..." ### How to Apply This For each artifact, describe it briefly, then spend most of your analysis explaining what it reveals about socio-cultural factors using frameworks from our readings. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group2-Opening]]

## Group 3: Applying Tremain's Frameworks Your group explores how to use translanguaging, code-meshing, and language negotiation as analytical lenses for MA2. *Why this matters*: Tremain gives you specific frameworks for analyzing how language works in discourse communities. These frameworks help you move beyond describing what you see to analyzing power, identity, and negotiation. ### Your Pathway 1. **Peer Review**: Give feedback on MA1 drafts focusing on language analysis 2. **Discussion 2**: Apply Tremain's frameworks to potential MA2 artifacts 3. **Shareout Prep**: Organize insights to share with the class #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Peer Review →->Group3-Peer-Review]] #### Reference [[Tremain's Analytical Frameworks->Group3-Reference]]

## Group 3 — Peer Review: MA1 Draft Feedback **Goal**: Provide substantive feedback that helps your peer strengthen their Multimodal Literacy Narrative ### Exchange Drafts Partner up within your group. Read your partner's draft carefully (8-10 minutes). ### Feedback Criteria As you read, focus on these elements: **1. Specialized Language (Lexis)** Does the draft identify specialized vocabulary from their literacy practice? Do they explain what that language meant and how they learned it? **2. Insider vs. Outsider Language** Can you tell from the draft who was an insider vs. outsider in that discourse community? How was specialized language used to include or exclude? **3. Framework Terminology** Does the draft use concepts from our readings accurately? (e.g., discourse community, lexis, genre, literacy sponsorship) **4. Evidence of Learning** Does the draft show how they learned the specialized language of their literacy practice? What does that learning process reveal? ### Written Feedback Provide 2-3 concrete suggestions. For example: "You mention gaming language but don't explain terms like 'ganking' or 'farming'—showing how you learned these terms would strengthen your analysis of how you joined that community." [[Reference: Lexis and Specialized Language->Group3-Reference]] #### *Ready for Discussion 2.* [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]] | [[Continue to Discussion 2 →->Group3-Discussion-2]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="600" data-passage="Group3-Peer-Review"> </div>

## Group 3 — Discussion 2: Where to Look for Language Negotiation **Goal**: Practice using translanguaging, code-meshing, and language negotiation as analytical frameworks ### From Concepts to Application Tremain shows that discourse communities change through language negotiation. Your job: find examples of this in your literacy practices. ### Questions **1. Where do you see translanguaging or code-meshing in your literacy practices?** Look for: - Blending languages (Spanglish, "I googled it", multilingual family communication) - Blending dialects ("y'all" in formal settings, AAVE mixed with academic English, regional terms in professional writing) - Internet language ("plz," "haz," emoji as language) - Specialized terms crossing into everyday speech **2. What's being negotiated when language blends?** Is someone: - Claiming membership in multiple communities at once? - Challenging "standard" expectations? - Creating intimacy or marking insider status? - Preserving cultural/linguistic identity? - Resisting assimilation to dominant discourse? **3. What power dynamics does this reveal?** Whose language is considered "correct"? What would happen if you used only standard language? What would happen if you used only the non-standard form? Who benefits from current language expectations? Who is marginalized? ### Quick Draft (if time allows) Choose one: - **Option A**: Identify a specific moment of code-meshing or translanguaging in your artifacts and analyze what's being negotiated - **Option B**: Explain how Tremain's framework reveals something about your literacy practice that Melzer's framework doesn't - **Option C**: Analyze the risks and benefits of language negotiation in your chosen discourse community [[Reference: Tremain's Analytical Frameworks->Group3-Reference]] #### *Time to prepare your shareout.* [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="600" data-passage="Group3-Discussion-2"> [[Time to prepare your shareout→->Group3-Shareout-Prep]] </div>

## Group 3 — Shareout Prep Prepare a **2-3 minute** presentation for the class. ### What to Share **1. Key Insight** (1 min): How does Tremain's framework help you analyze language in ways Melzer's doesn't? **2. Specific Example** (1 min): ONE concrete example of translanguaging or code-meshing from someone's literacy practice—and what it reveals about power or negotiation. **3. MA2 Application** (30 sec): Where should classmates look for language negotiation in their artifacts? ### Get Organized - Who's presenting which part? - What language blending example will you use? - Can you explain what's being negotiated and what power dynamics it reveals? *Keep it tight — 2-3 minutes. Make Tremain's concepts concrete and useful.* #### *Ready to share with the class.* [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]] | [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="240" data-passage="Group3-Shareout-Prep"> </div>

## Reference: Tremain's Analytical Frameworks **What it is**: Tremain gives us specific frameworks for analyzing how language works in discourse communities, especially around power and negotiation. **Why it matters for MA2**: These frameworks help you analyze HOW social and cultural factors constrain literacy practices—specifically through language expectations and power dynamics. ### Key Frameworks **Translanguaging**: Crossing/blending languages to communicate - Example: Spanglish, "I googled it", multilingual family communication - What to analyze: What's accomplished by blending? What would be lost by using only one language? **Code-meshing**: Meshing dialects/codes within one language - Example: "Y'all" in academic writing, AAVE mixed with standard English, internet slang in formal contexts - What to analyze: What's being negotiated? What risks/benefits exist? **Language Negotiation**: The ongoing process of challenging/reinforcing language expectations - What to analyze: Who has power to decide what's "correct"? How do members resist or conform? What changes over time? ### Critical Questions Tremain Enables - Whose language is valued? Whose is marginalized? - How does "standard English" uphold dominant power structures? - Where do writers strategically blend languages to claim multiple identities? - What are the consequences of conforming vs. resisting language expectations? - How do discourse communities change through language negotiation? ### How to Apply This Look at your artifacts for moments of language blending, dialect mixing, or strategic language choices. Analyze what's being negotiated, what power dynamics are revealed, and what this shows about how socio-cultural factors shape literacy. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group3-Opening]]

## Group 4: Identifying Socio-Cultural Constraints Your group explores how to identify norms, beliefs, structures, and behaviors that shape and constrain literacy practices. *Why this matters*: MA2 asks you to examine how literacy practices are "shaped and constrained by context." You need to identify WHAT those constraints are and HOW they operate. ### Your Pathway 1. **Peer Review**: Give feedback on MA1 drafts focusing on contextual analysis 2. **Discussion 2**: Identify socio-cultural constraints in your literacy practices 3. **Shareout Prep**: Organize insights to share with the class #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Peer Review →->Group4-Peer-Review]] #### Reference [[Socio-Cultural Constraints->Group4-Reference]]

## Group 4 — Peer Review: MA1 Draft Feedback **Goal**: Provide substantive feedback that helps your peer strengthen their Multimodal Literacy Narrative ### Exchange Drafts Partner up within your group. Read your partner's draft carefully (8-10 minutes). ### Feedback Criteria As you read, focus on these elements: **1. Genre Awareness** Does the draft identify what genre(s) their literacy practice used? (Letters, videos, texts, posts, etc.) Do they explain why that genre mattered for the community's goals? **2. Multimodality** Does the draft discuss how different modes (visual, linguistic, spatial, etc.) worked together in their literacy experience? Is there analysis of WHY those modes mattered? **3. Social Action Through Genre** Does the draft explain what the genre ACCOMPLISHED—what social action it performed? (Building relationships, sharing information, creating art, etc.) **4. Genre Conventions** Can you tell what the "rules" or expectations were for the genre in their discourse community? ### Written Feedback Provide 2-3 concrete suggestions. For example: "You describe Instagram posts but don't analyze how the visual + linguistic modes work together to create belonging in your friend group—adding this would strengthen your multimodality analysis." [[Reference: Genre and Social Action->Group4-Reference]] #### *Ready for Discussion 2.* [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]] | [[Continue to Discussion 2 →->Group4-Discussion-2]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="600" data-passage="Group4-Peer-Review"> </div>

## Group 4 — Discussion 2: What Constrains Your Literacy Practice? **Goal**: Identify specific social and cultural factors that shape and constrain your literacy practices ### From Abstract to Concrete The MA2 prompt says literacy is "shaped and constrained by social and cultural factors, including norms, beliefs, interactions, structures, behaviors." What does that actually mean for YOUR literacy practice? ### Questions **1. Choose a literacy practice—what SOCIAL factors shape it?** - **Power structures**: Who has authority? Whose language/rules dominate? - **Interactions**: Who communicates with whom? How do relationships shape what's possible? - **Norms**: What's considered "appropriate" or "correct"? Says who? - **Access**: Who can participate fully? Who is excluded? Why? **2. What CULTURAL factors shape it?** - **Beliefs**: What does this community believe about literacy, language, identity? - **Values**: What's prized? What's discouraged? - **Traditions**: What practices get passed down? What changes? - **Identity**: How does language connect to cultural/racial/regional identity? **3. What specific constraints can you identify?** Platform limitations (character counts, available modes)? Genre expectations? Language norms? Time/money/access barriers? Power hierarchies? ### Quick Draft (if time allows) Choose one: - **Option A**: List 3-5 specific constraints shaping your literacy practice and explain how each one limits what's possible - **Option B**: Analyze one constraint deeply—what is it, who benefits from it, who is limited by it, and what would happen without it - **Option C**: Compare constraints across two contexts (e.g., texting friends vs. emailing professors) [[Reference: Socio-Cultural Constraints->Group4-Reference]] #### *Time to prepare your shareout.* [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="600" data-passage="Group4-Discussion-2"> [[Time to prepare your shareout→->Group4-Shareout-Prep]] </div>

## Group 4 — Shareout Prep Prepare a **2-3 minute** presentation for the class. ### What to Share **1. Key Insight** (1 min): What does it mean for literacy to be "shaped and constrained by context"? Make it concrete, not abstract. **2. Specific Example** (1 min): ONE specific constraint from someone's literacy practice—what it is, how it operates, and who it affects. **3. MA2 Application** (30 sec): How can classmates identify constraints systematically in their own literacy practices? ### Get Organized - Who's presenting which part? - What constraint example will make the concept clear? - Can you show both social AND cultural factors? *Keep it tight — 2-3 minutes. Make "constraints" feel concrete and analyzable.* #### *Ready to share with the class.* [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]] | [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="240" data-passage="Group4-Shareout-Prep"> </div>

## Reference: Socio-Cultural Constraints **What it is**: Constraints are the social and cultural factors that shape what's possible and what's not in your literacy practice. They limit, guide, or determine how you read, write, and communicate. **Why it matters for MA2**: The assignment specifically asks you to examine how literacy practices are "shaped and constrained by social and cultural factors, including norms, beliefs, interactions, structures, behaviors." ### Types of Constraints **Social Factors** (how people interact and organize): - Power structures and hierarchies - Norms about appropriateness - Access and exclusion - Institutional rules - Economic barriers - Platform/technology limitations **Cultural Factors** (shared meanings and values): - Beliefs about "correct" language - Values about literacy and education - Cultural/linguistic identity - Traditions and inherited practices - Aesthetic preferences ### Examples **Instagram poetry community**: - Social: Platform limits (character count, image-centered), influencer hierarchies - Cultural: Aesthetic values (minimalism, whitespace), beliefs about accessibility vs. "literary quality" **Family group chat**: - Social: Parent authority over tone, who gets included/excluded, technology access - Cultural: Language preservation (using heritage language), intimacy norms (emoji use), generational expectations ### How to Apply This Ask: What MUST you do in this literacy practice? What CAN'T you do? What's preferred? What's discouraged? Who decides? These constraints reveal the socio-cultural context shaping your practice. --- [[← Back to pathway->Group4-Opening]]

## Group 5: Synthesizing Multiple Frameworks Your group explores how to put multiple theoretical frameworks in conversation to create richer analysis for MA2. *Why this matters*: MA2 requires you to "synthesize multiple textual sources (at least 2) to help you define and interpret the theoretical framework." That means using Melzer AND Tremain (and others) together, not separately. ### Your Pathway 1. **Peer Review**: Give feedback on MA1 drafts focusing on source integration 2. **Discussion 2**: Practice synthesizing frameworks for MA2 3. **Shareout Prep**: Organize insights to share with the class #### Navigation [[Whole-class framing (review)->Framing]] [[Start Peer Review →->Group5-Peer-Review]] #### Reference [[Synthesizing Frameworks->Group5-Reference]]

## Group 5 — Peer Review: MA1 Draft Feedback **Goal**: Provide substantive feedback that helps your peer strengthen their Multimodal Literacy Narrative ### Exchange Drafts Partner up within your group. Read your partner's draft carefully (8-10 minutes). ### Feedback Criteria As you read, focus on these elements: **1. Critical Analysis of Power** Does the draft examine who had power in their literacy experience? Do they discuss language expectations and whose language was valued? **2. Constraints and Agency** Does the draft show how their literacy practice was constrained (by school, family, culture, technology)? Do they also show moments of agency or resistance? **3. Identity and Belonging** Does the draft connect language/literacy to questions of identity and belonging? Do they examine who was included/excluded? **4. Socio-Cultural Context** Can you understand the social and cultural factors shaping their literacy experience? Is the context clear enough? ### Written Feedback Provide 2-3 concrete suggestions. For example: "You mention your teacher's rules about 'proper English' but don't analyze whose dialect counts as proper and why—adding this critical perspective would strengthen your power analysis." [[Reference: Power, Language, and Discourse Communities->Group5-Reference]] #### *Ready for Discussion 2.* [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]] | [[Continue to Discussion 2 →->Group5-Discussion-2]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="600" data-passage="Group5-Peer-Review"> </div>

## Group 5 — Discussion 2: Putting Frameworks in Conversation **Goal**: Practice using multiple frameworks together to create layered, sophisticated analysis ### From Single Framework to Synthesis Using one framework gives you one lens. Using multiple frameworks together reveals what each one alone cannot. ### Questions **1. What does each framework let you see?** **Melzer** helps you: - Identify structural features (goals, genres, lexis, communication mechanisms) - Understand how discourse communities are organized - See patterns and conventions **Tremain** helps you: - Analyze power dynamics and language negotiation - Understand how members challenge or change expectations - See whose language is valued and whose is marginalized **Together**, they help you show HOW structure and power interact. **2. Practice synthesis with your literacy practice** Instead of: "My gaming community has specialized lexis (Melzer)." Try: "My gaming community has specialized lexis like 'ganking' and 'farming' (Melzer), but streamers who code-mesh this language into everyday speech challenge the boundary between gamer and mainstream discourse, revealing how language negotiation can expand or reinforce community membership (Tremain)." What synthesis could you create about YOUR literacy practice? **3. What other frameworks from our readings could you add?** Anzaldúa (language and identity), Carroll (rhetorical analysis), Gagich (multimodality)? How would adding a third framework deepen your analysis? ### Quick Draft (if time allows) Choose one: - **Option A**: Write one paragraph analyzing your literacy practice using BOTH Melzer and Tremain in conversation (not separately) - **Option B**: Show how Melzer reveals one thing about your practice and Tremain reveals something different—then explain what you see when you put them together - **Option C**: Add a third framework to Melzer + Tremain and show how all three create richer analysis [[Reference: Synthesizing Frameworks->Group5-Reference]] #### *Time to prepare your shareout.* [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="600" data-passage="Group5-Discussion-2"> [[Time to prepare your shareout→->Group5-Shareout-Prep]] </div>

## Group 5 — Shareout Prep Prepare a **2-3 minute** presentation for the class. ### What to Share **1. Key Insight** (1 min): Why use multiple frameworks together instead of separately? What does synthesis give you? **2. Specific Example** (1 min): Show synthesis in action—one statement using Melzer alone, one using Tremain alone, then one putting them in conversation. **3. MA2 Application** (30 sec): What's one strategy for synthesizing sources effectively? ### Get Organized - Who's presenting which part? - Can you demonstrate what synthesis sounds like vs. separate frameworks? - What's the payoff for doing the extra work of synthesis? *Keep it tight — 2-3 minutes. Make synthesis feel doable, not overwhelming.* #### *Ready to share with the class.* [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]] | [[Ready for synthesis →->Collective-Synthesis]] <div class="timed-nav" data-timer="240" data-passage="Group5-Shareout-Prep"> </div>

## Reference: Synthesizing Frameworks **What it is**: Synthesis means putting multiple theoretical frameworks in conversation with each other to create analysis that's richer than any single framework alone. **Why it matters for MA2**: The assignment requires you to "synthesize multiple textual sources (at least 2)" and use their combined insights to analyze your artifacts. ### Synthesis vs. Summary **Summary** (what NOT to do): "Melzer says discourse communities have lexis. Tremain says language can be negotiated." → These are separate statements sitting next to each other **Synthesis** (what TO do): "While Melzer's framework helps identify specialized lexis in my gaming community, Tremain reveals that streamers who code-mesh gaming terms into mainstream content challenge these boundaries, showing how language negotiation can both expand community reach and risk insider authenticity." → The frameworks work together to reveal something neither shows alone ### How to Synthesize **Strategy 1: Build on** "Melzer identifies [feature]. Building on this, Tremain helps us see how [feature] relates to power..." **Strategy 2: Show tension** "While Melzer emphasizes [structure], Tremain reminds us that [agency/change]..." **Strategy 3: Layer insights** "My artifact shows [Melzer concept], which reveals [Tremain concept], demonstrating how [combined insight]." **Strategy 4: Use together** Apply both frameworks to the same artifact/moment and show what each reveals ### Example Synthesis "My family's multilingual group chat demonstrates Swales' characteristic of mechanisms of intercommunication (text platform, voice notes), but Anzaldúa and Tremain help me analyze WHY we code-mesh Spanish and English—not just efficiency, but cultural identity preservation and resistance to English-only assimilation, revealing how structural features of discourse communities intersect with power dynamics around language." ### How to Apply This Pick 2-3 frameworks. For each artifact, ask: What does Framework A reveal? What does Framework B reveal? What do I see when I use them together that I couldn't see with just one? --- [[← Back to pathway->Group5-Opening]]

## Bringing It Together Each group shares (2-3 min each): Key insight → Specific example → MA2 application. ### As You Listen - What patterns do you notice about moving from Session 1 (understanding discourse communities) to Session 2 (analyzing literacy practices)? - How do the different analytical skills—artifact selection, description vs. analysis, applying frameworks, identifying constraints, synthesis—work together? - What's clearer now about how to approach MA2? ### Synthesis Questions After all groups have shared: - You now have analytical tools from both Melzer and Tremain. How will you decide which frameworks to use for your MA2 analysis? - What's the difference between identifying a discourse community (Session 1) and analyzing how it constrains literacy practices (Session 2 / MA2)? - Which group's insight was most helpful for thinking about your own MA2 project? Why? - What's still unclear or challenging about moving from MA1 (literacy narrative) to MA2 (socio-cultural analysis)? [[Looking Ahead (MW) →->MW-Looking-Ahead]] [[Looking Ahead (WF) →->WF-Looking-Ahead]]

## Looking Ahead **By next class**: - Continue working on your Multimodal Literacy Narrative—draft due **Friday 11:59 PM** - Reading Summary 3 due **Friday 8 AM** - Start thinking about which literacy practice you want to analyze for MA2 Questions? Concerns? Use Canvas Messages anytime or stop by my office hours (on our home page). [[← Back to start->Start]]