First Learning Strategy

Jessica Andrea Pea, C.C 1125782260

Jhon Jairo Carvajal Ardila, C.C 1098750523
Javier Alejandro Landnez, C.C 80053724

Reflection on the texts: Humour in an organization Ojha & Holmes;

and How Flat is the World? Hall & Keynes 2008.

Discourses have social purposes that go beyond communication. DA helps us to interpret

what the speaker or writer tries to convey within that social scenario. Therefore, its use
provides analysts with relevant information to understand the social settings, domain and
culture where a discourse takes place.
Since analyzing a text is not an easy task given the complex factors shaping its form (e.g.
linguistics, semiotics, psychology and sociology); in discourse analysis we need to
understand what we are facing beforehand. This allows us to have a better perspective and
as a consequence, we can focus our inquiries.
The analysis of the following texts is aimed at understanding concepts of the anatomy of DA,
along with the schematic structures of discursive settings. We will also identify the corpora of
discourses in order to be able to apply approaches of discourse analysis in language
teaching.

THE DISCOURSE OF OERS: HOW FLAT IS WORLD?

1.Why does the text use Discourse analysis? What for? (objectives)
This text talks about a term proposed by Thomas Friedman in his book The world is Flat. In
it, the term flat is used as a metaphor for describing how technological advances have

levelled out the playing field making competition less intense and collaboration a lot more
evident. Using Discourse Analysis, the author of this article looks to analyze a lot more deeply
the use of Open Education Resources (OER). These are a series of free accessible material
that can be used and reused for teaching, learning and research.
It proposes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a tool for identifying the various resources
that can be found in the Open Educational resources. It also suggests the use of CDA as a
powerful tool for identifying some of the discourses embedded in the OER movement. Here,
Fairclough (2000) presents Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a useful approach in the
critical study of language in social practices which is one of the objectives of DA in this text.

2. What kind of discourses can be found in the text?

The kind of discourses found in this movement include the Discourse of collaboration and the
institutional discourse.
The Discourse of Collaboration points out the use of collaboration as the name implies to
flatten the world. This article lists some extracts that point out the use of this term where
words like share, shared intellectual commons and collaboration demonstrate that.
Collaboration is a key concept in the flattening of the world. According to Friedman (2005:81)
And as more and more of us learn to how to collaborate in these different ways, we are
flattening the world even more.
The institutional Discourse is a clear example of interdiscursive relations, which means that it
uses different discourses together. This discourse looks to socially include others and how
open content can benefit society and at the same time follow the norms of the institutions.
OER also has the advantage of being able create new discursive texts. It makes shaping
society a lot easier.

3. In what way(s) does the text exemplify Discourse Analysis process?

First of all, theres a context. The author of the article is researching OER in society and how
they affect it. Then the person clearly did their homework gathering enough background
information. Another aspect of the DA process present is coding, which is where you assign
certain attributes to specific units of analysis like sentences or paragraphs. In the article the

author points out different words and sentences from the original text that support the
presence of the different discourses embedded in OER.
A final way that the text expresses the DA process is that the findings were presented in a
clear and concise way with all the information collected very well organized with a very
detailed conclusion that sums everything up.

DONT TEASE ME, IM WORKING: EXAMINING HUMOR IN A MIDWESTERN

ORGANIZATION USING ETHNOGRAPHY OF COMMUNICATION

1.Why does the text use Discourse analysis? What for? (objectives)
This texts looks to use the Ethnography of communication (EOC) which is a qualitative
method used to discover and analyze socially constructed and historically transmitted
patterns of symbols, meanings, premises, and rules (Philipsen, 1992, p. 7).
This text uses Discourse analysis to support the research process by analyzing the natural
occurring of laugh and its implications within organizations. This approach, helps researchers
obtain real and vivid meanings from participants. That is, it allows for emic and inductive
analysis to preserve the naturally occurring features and discourse of the organizational
scene (Taylor & Trujillo, 2001, p. 183)

2. What kind of discourses can be found in the text?

This text provides a good example of how Critical Discourse Analysis can be used to analyze
texts. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) stems from a critical theory of language which sees
the use of language as a form of social practice -Fairclough (1989, 1995). Here, we can see
how CDA supports from theory, the development and applicability of educational and
practitioner studies.
Another type of discourse present is spoken discourse. There was an interview done to all
members of the organization in order to determine a common humor pattern. Also there was
different background information gathered through observa tion.

Using these types of discourse, the author determined the different types of humor present at
the workplace. There was teasing, jokes and sarcasm used to lighten up the mood.

3. In what way(s) does the text exemplify Discourse Analysis process?

Discourse analysis is a systematic process. In this document context was determined in first
place, establishing the start point of the investigation; which was the importance of humor at
the workplace. The researchers gathered as much background information as possible by
taking notes observing how the workers interacted with each other.
An interesting analysis of literature was interestingly conducted and this provided researchers
with remarkable theoretical sources that helped them shape the study. The method on the
other hand, was clearly exposed, including the procedures taken into account to analyze the
data. They also interviewed all of the employees to see how important it was for them to joke
around. They were also able to gather the kind of humor that was used in this organization.
The steps followed by this investigation resemble the ones of a critical discourse analysis in
different ways. According to Turchan (2013), the analysis process of discourses in English for
academic purposes should start with brainstorming ideas and mapping of the approaches.
This, followed by literature analysis, linguistic study and social understanding, allow
researchers to visualize and interpreter the data.

4. What is similar and different in the texts when making DA?

What is similar in the texts is that both of them propose Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to
make manifest some structures of power relations and ideologies that are opaque. It is used
for not taking anything for granted, opening up alternative readings and allowing the
information in the texts to become more transparent. It is also used to provide a critical
dimension in the theoretical and prescriptive account of the texts. On one hand, it is used in
the text The Discourse of OERs: How Flat Is World? to find out the resources and skills
necessary to benefit from OERs; on the other hand, it is proposed in the text Dont Tease
Me, Im Working: Examining Humor in a Midwestern Organization Using Ethnography of

Communication, to capture real and vivid moments among organizational members and use
those moments for interpretation; this, specifically aimed to the communication through social
interaction.

What is different in the texts when making DA is that the first one includes Discourse of
Collaboration and Institutional Discourse while the second one includes Spoken Discourse
mainly. In the first text we can see the metaphor of a flat world and the main components that
can be transferred onto the understanding of the OERs movement; we can also identify how
to draw on the discourses of widening participation, social inclusion and on the ideal of
creating a better world. In the second text, and taking now into account the Spoken
Discourse, it is possible to identify, how people accustom themselves to each others
behaviors, and how they socially construct humor when communicating.