Overall Reflection 3

Goal 1: I believe that in my time in 1102 I have learned a lot about writing and research. From reading the many texts in class I have learned a lot about writing in the world of writing studies. I have learned about rhetorical analysis of writing, different components of texts, and how writing is used in communication. I have also Learned what it takes to write a research paper. I learned the process of gathering information, inquiring about certain ideas, and how to formulate accurate research questions and gather sufficient research.

Goal 2: Throughout this semester I have learned a great deal about the research process. I have learned how to gather general information before making an inquiry. Which in turn has taught me how to make inquiries and develop effective research questions that aid in the effectiveness of my research. I have also learned how to gather information that relates to my initial research questions. Finally I have learned how use the information I gathered in order to establish claims about my community.

Goal 3: The many readings we have done in class have taught me how to dissect information from complex sources in many different ways. By reading complex texts with peers in class, I was able to learn how they analyzed the text which in turn allowed for me to gain the maximum information from each source. Once I analyzed a complex source I then learned how to implement that source in my own research. To do this I highlighted and made note of specific information in a source that related to my research and used it in order to validate the claims I was making about my community.

Goal 4: During the semester I was constantly made aware of how to appease to writing studies scholars, which was my audience. I learned how to include specific writing studies lexis and valuable writing studies sources in order to establish credibility with my audience. The incorporation of these techniques allowed for me to produce effective arguments that were suitable to the academic context of the class because of how they paralleled other sources by writing studies scholars.

Goal 5: Each task during the semester included some sort of revising or editing process. By doing this constantly for each task I was to pick up on certain cues that helped better my editing skills. I learned how to do things such as line by line analysis of my own writing, which allowed for me to determine what was wrong with each specific line in my paper. I also learned valuable editing skills from peer reviewing other classmates's work in class. Of the many editing and proofreading strategies I learned the only I found most effective and flexible was the peer review method, because it offers a simple effective proof reading method that can be done with the help of just one other person. The reason I found this most effective is because I learned that sometimes "fresh eyes" on a paper can reveal to you key flaws or errors in your research.

Overall Reflection 2

Throughout the semester I noticed the general progression of each and every one of my tasks. After writing a specific task, I felt confident that by using what I learned from writing the previous task I could write even better for the next one. A lot of this stems from fact that after completing each task, I started to understand my community more and more. For example, when I began task 1 I really had no idea about how to research lexis within my community. However after rewriting my task 1 I was able to generate valid research questions regarding the use of lexis in my own community, which would be the foundation for all of my later research that followed. Another sign of my progression between tasks, was how I came to better understand how secondary sources should be used to validate my research. For instance, when I finished my task 2 I did not really know how to synthesize and connect the sources I had collected to one another and to my research. Yet, after receiving feedback that it was lacking from my paper, I met with my professor and addressed the issue.
After fixing the issue with my sources I then felt fully and completely confident in my ability to perform well on task 3. So as I began writing task 3 I incorporated all of these lessons about sources, my threshold concept, and research questions in my paper in order to develop an effective analysis of my discourse community. I used what I knew about lexis to develop strong claims regarding the online bass fishing community and their use of lexis within community communication. I used the research questions to guide my research and as relatable talking points that aided my mini claims that I made about my own research. The research questions also helped me formulate a more concise and accurate methods of research, which I later explained in my task 3. Finally, when revising my final draft of task 3 I included sources in order to validate and relate the claims I made to real existing research regarding lexis and writing studies.
With my task 3 complete I then had to begin on the final paper. For my research and analysis section and introduction I pulled heavily from prior tasks that we had completed earlier in the semester. In the introduction I implemented the same CARS model design from task 2 and expanded upon it. I elaborated more in each required section and gave a better more in depth explanation of the literate activities of the community. I also used the newly revised research questions from my task 3 in my introduction as well. As for my analysis, I pretty much copied the analysis from my task 3 and expanded upon it, like my introduction. In the newer analysis I included more secondary source information as well as more evidence for my claims. I also incorporated pictures of the texts from my community as examples. Another thing that progressed from task 3 to 4 was how in depth my analysis was. In the newer version I included information on how my claims connected directly to my thesis of the paper.
Overall, over the course of the semester I definetly saw a large progression in my work. My ability to understand the basic characteristics of a discourse community changed through the writing of each task, which is reflected in the grades I received for each task. It should be noted that although I learned a lot about these basic characteristics, the main reason my performance on each task improved was because it took me awhile to adjust my writing style to the needs of class. I had to go from a creative argumentative style to a more strict rule binding analytical style, which was hard for me to do. Nevertheless I believe that my a large part of the success of my tasks has to do with the in class material that was taught by professor Pierson, her knowledge of writing and guidance allowed for skills as a research and analytical writer to really blossom.

Overall Reflection 1

I have learned many things from my time in 1102. I learned not only does 1102 demand a specific writing style, but it also requires a nonstop demand for writing about rhetorical scenarios. However despite this I do find that some of the skills I learned in this class are applicable to certain situations they I may face later on in life. For example, though I do not plan on pursuing a future career in analytical or rhetorical writing, I can surely use the skills I learned in this class to write a research thesis for writing scholars in my spare time. Other skills, such as the ability to write while following APA format, will allow for me to adhere to the requirements of any further class in which there is a paper calling for the use of this specific citation style.
As for writing skills, I believe that one of the most important writing skills I learned from this class is the ability to organize my research information. For example, break down my research final into smaller elements allowed for me to work more efficiently on each section. Writing a paper in sections has also taught me the value of doing a large task one step at a time. For example, in this particular instance, I am using the skills I learned from writing in 1102 to write each individual overall reflection one at a time. This remarkable innovation I have learned from 1102 has really changed the dynamic of planning skills and is something I plan to implement in the writing of all assignments for the rest of my college career.
Furthermore, if there is one thing I learned that superceedes the importance of that of any other skill, its that writing for research is a long process. Throughout my time in 1102 I have developed an acute patience for research and analytical writing. During the entire semester I had to push myself in order to complete each and every task that was assigned. This dedication to the craft of research writing has inspired me to possibly write for research, thus meaning that I will be able to transfer the many writing studies terms and skills I have accumulated in the forefront of mind, and apply them to the various research papers that I encounter in the future.
Overall 1102 has been a great class, the concepts I learned from this class have helped my writing ability transform into my one of stronger skill sets. I look forward to the future knowing that if I do decide to pursue a career in writing, that I will be able to impose the same guidelines I was taught in class in my writings. This will not only certainly guarantee a virtuous professional career in the future, but it will also insure my spot as a writing studies scholar for the next edition of Writing About Writing.

Task 4 Reflection (In Class)

Before writing my task 4 I felt pretty prepared considering the amount of work we had done in class to help our writing. I was very confident that most of the things we completed in class throughout the semester would help me in writing an effective task4. However, I might have been even more prepared if I had done really well on the past assignments. This would have given me the confidence to be able to write at the level necessary for this class. Yet, compared to task 1, for task 4 I felt 10 times more confident in my ability to write a quality paper. The reason being is that for task 1 I had a lot less time to actually write and prepare myself, as well as the fact that I was not as familiar with my community back then as I am now. Overall, knowing more about academic writing has changed my perspective on the entire class. Knowing what I do now has made me think more positively about the course as a whole. 

Task 4 Revision Plan

In writing my task 4 I incorporated skills and knowledge that I learned from every previous task. I used my knowledge of synthesis and incorporating sources from task 2 to include detailed information about the sources I used and connect the information to my own research. I also used the analysis from my task three as the foundation for my research section in task 4. When including information from both of these task I had to add certain parts to the final product in order to make the final outcome greater than the initial product. For example, when I transplanted my analysis from task 3 into my final, i had to add credible secondary source information to validate my claims and appeal to my audience, which is something I did not originally include in my task 3.

When i first began researching I had no idea as to what aspect of my community I was really researching. In fact, I left my options "open" so much so that I ended up failing task 1. Yet, after finding relatable sources and analyzing secondary sources relating to writing studies, I was able to better understand lexis and how I should analyze and come up with research questions regarding its role in my community. However, when it came to my thesis, I can honestly say it changed slightly throughout each and every single task. At first my thesis was centered around just the importance of lexis in the community, it wasn't until after task 2 and midway through task 3 did I incorporate the multiple levels of lexis idea and how they relate to membership level.

Furthermore, by studying the my community all semester long I was able to better understand and acknowledge the working systems of a writing studies discourse community. Through my analyzation of the community I was able to understand lexis and its role and communication patterns, which led me to be able to better inquire about their role in my community. By understanding the concepts of a discourse community, I was able to research more effectively how certain characteristics, such as lexis, played in role in the communication of members. I used information provided from my analysis and paired it with valuable secondary sources in order to develop valuable research questions. Overall, this process tremendously helped my inquiry and researching abilities.

In my opinion I believe literacy is defined as the ability to comprehend, retain, and produce information in a way that adheres to the standards set fourth by the community or environment that you are in. Meaning that literacy measures how well you can interpret and produce texts relevant to the situations that you participate in in your everyday life. I determined this very much so through the analysis of my own community. For example, in the online bass fishing community, the most literate members (members with highest membership level), are proficient in their literacy abilities because they understand the information presented and community dialogue and they can produce useful information that the community can use and understand.

This assignment in particular was fairly hard to me for multiple reasons. For one, the tasks we did in preparation for this final did not necessarily fit the bill for what is deemed appropriate for this assignment. Each and every skill that I learned throughout the semester had to be tweaked to some degree. I often times found myself just eliminating what I knew and releasing or reteaching myself through in depth examples or new outside information that was later presented in class. During the entire time I wrote this paper I struggled, each category had its own specific challenges as well as fine details that were just not was clear as they seemed to be from in class explanations. Nevertheless, I was able to successfully overcome the many hurdles and I still feel confident that my paper will hold up to the requirements of the task.

For my project in particular, the most important reading terms to know and understand came from the concept of discourse communities by John Swales. Understanding the six characteristics of discourse community that he outlines was vital to understanding my entire project. Being that my threshold concept was lexis, I used the examples and definitions provided by Swales in order to guide my research. I also used the explanations of the other 5 characteristics to help with my understanding of my own discourse community. Determine and understand what each term meant, such as lexis and genre, really allowed for me to be able to better understand what was happening with the online bass fishing community. Which in turn allowed for me to write a better task 4 that really embodied my threshold concept.

I believe overall that the feedback I was given was well received. By this I mean that I used and took full advantage of all advice that I received in every version of my final task. From professor Pierson I received feedback regarding the analysis section of my paper and how I should tie my claims into my actual thesis more, as well as incorporate and apply secondary sources to my claims. After receiving this feedback I then in turn included both of these elements in my own final version of Task 4. As far as peer reviews go, I received feedback primarily on the structure of my introduction paragraph. Which I then later fixed to more closely align with the expanded CARS model.

Task 4 Final

Evaluating the Role of Lexis in the Online Bass Fishing Community's Patterns of Communication

Introduction 

The use of lexis is the defining feature of any discourse community, its role in facilitating information and ideas through the use of group specific language is absolutely fundamental to the structure of a community. The purpose of lexis as a communicative tool in discourse communities has long been researched by various different scholars of the writing community. However, there has been little if any scholarly research associated with the use of lexis in the online bass fishing communities.
The online bass fishing community that I plan to showcase in my study includes two distinct websites that as a whole exemplify the true dynamic of the community exceptionally. One of the websites being researched in my study is Fishbrain, a fairly new addition to the bass fishing community that follows a certain Twitter/Instagram model. On the website Fishbrain, users interact with one another through the posting of bass fishing related photos and descriptions. Each post is not only unique in picture and description, but they also include specific lexis generated by the author of the post. The lexis in these descriptions are used in tandem with the picture in these posts to describe how and where the fish was caught, as well as what time of day and weather conditions. Additionally, users on Fishbrain will often gravitate towards regional or local groups that exist on the website in order to be more in tune with local bass fishing trends. Overall, the website includes a vast amount of users that communicate with each other via post to post conversation, where members of communities use lexis to explain to other members the conditions in which they caught the fish in their picture.

The other website included in my research that I will be investigating heavily is the forum/thread based website Bassresourceguide.com. The primary literary activities that occur on Bassresourceguide.com are posts on online threads, and online articles to which other users can comment and ask questions. The posts and articles included on the website use lexis in variety of different ways. Lexis on Bassresourceguide.com is most commonly found in posts in articles by specific users however, lexis can also be found in on sidebars of the website, thread titles, and titles of subgroups that exist on the website. For example, when navigating through the threads it is not uncommon to stumble upon a certain thread that is designed specifically to talk about one specific topic related to bass fishing, an example of this would be the "plastics fishing: worms, creature baits, trailers, flukes and more". As noted by the title, this thread incorporates a lot of community specific lexis that relates to using plastic baits to fish for bass. Lexis on Bassresourceguide.com is pivotal to the foundation of the website and is used in many different ways on website, which is why it serves as the perfect subject for my research.

Though the subject of my research is clear, in order to analyze in depth the value of lexis in these two communities I intend to use information about lexis from other writing scholars in the writing studies community. For example, scholars of discourse communities and communication have examined how lexis is community specific and should be hard for outsiders to understand (Swales, 1990), how novice community members are exposed to the specific lexis
of the community (Borg, 2003), how social media facilitates communication (Gruzd, 2011), as well as the meaning of lexis in social media postings (Zappavigna, 2015). Scholarly research has even been conducted on the membership levels of bass fisherman within the community (Wilde, 1998). Yet, despite the vast amount of research related to the lexis and communication within a discourse community, there is still little to no research examining the role of lexis in the online bass fishing communities.

Thus, with Fishbrain and Bassresourceguide.com being the focal points of my research on lexis usage in the online bass fishing community, I will need to consider each and every literary activity associated with both websites in order to develop an accurate understanding of the true value of lexis in this community. To determine this value I have generated two research questions to help guide my analysis of these two sources, which are how is lexis depended upon as the primary characteristic of communication on both websites?, and does the use of specific lexis determined by the membership/experience level of the user? Using both of these questions I will generate and validate relative claims regarding the use of lexis in the online bass fishing community, as well as research the communication patterns of users on both websites and how they use lexis to communicate. Therefore proving that the lexis used on the social media website Fishbrain is necessary in order for communication to occur because of its prevalence in posts by community members, as well as the difference in lexis used by members with varying skills levels based off of articles and threads that use specific lexis based on target audiences on the website Bassresourceguide.com.

Methods 

Before conducting any research regarding the online bass fishing community I first had to generate valid research questions that would help to guide me throughout the research process.
Thus for my study, I devised two main research questions regarding the use of lexis on both Fishbrain and Bassresource.com. Which included, how do users on the website Fishbrain use lexis to communicate in their posts and replies?, as well as how does lexis correlate to the level of membership of the user on the website Bassresource.com?

With both research questions in mind, I then proceeded with gathering specific texts and data associated with each website. For the website Fishbrain, I researched over a hundred post from various users until I found three of the best examples for my study. Before I began this process however, I had to establish a certain criteria needed for each post I was researching. Yet after researching for hours I found that I often had to adjust the criteria requirement so that I gather adequate research for my study. In order to meet the criteria for my study the post had to contain community specific lexis, responses from other users, and at use at least 25 or more words in the description. In the end I found three post from three different users that explained things such as specific tackle and technique using community specific lexis. For Bassresource.com, I gathered posts based on the level of membership of the author and the target audience that the post was written for. Therefore, from Bassresource.com I collected two articles, one that served as a guide for beginner anglers written by a fellow angler that was starting out, and another article written by a professional level angler in which he discusses tips and tricks that he has learned from fishing on the pro circuit. In order to gather these articles I also had to look for certain characteristics that I knew would match the criteria created by the research questions that I had imposed. Which is why both post showcase the differences in membership level because via their authors and their target audiences.

Once I had collected a set amount of data for my study, the next step was to analyze what I had collected in order to draw certain conclusions and answer the research questions that I had
presented. With no face to face interaction needed in order to draw conclusion from my data I found that there would be no need for any interviewing of any kind. Instead I decided to analyze my data through line by line observation and systematic pattern analyzation of the texts that I had gathered. Considering the briefness of the post on Fishbrain, I decided that it would be best to analyze these post via line by line. On Fishbrain, I was looking at each post line by line so that I could determine the amount of lexis used in each post compared to the overall length of the post, the relation in lexis and/or type of lexis used by each post, and how the lexis was used in responses to the post by other members. For this I simply just highlighted and made not of each account of lexis in each post as well as number of times it was used throughout the three post anf replies. I also took note of the overall word count of each post and the amount of total lexis used in by all three. When analyzing the articles from Bassresource.com I used a far different method from the one I used on Fishhbrain. Knowing that the length of the articles far superceeded that of the post from Fishbrain, I instead developed a system in which I analyzed the usage of lexis in each article as well as any patterns of certain types of lexis that were specific to membership levels of users on the website. For example, in my analysis of the article written by the professional angler I made note of not only how often he used lexis compared to the non-professional article, but also what lexis he was using and how it differed in complexity to the lexis used in the beginners guide article. In the end I had a detailed list of lexical terms from both articles and was able to compare complexity based on how each term matched to style of fishing expected from a professional/non-professional user of the website.

Results & Analysis 

After analyzing all of the texts from my community, one of the first and foremost claims I have devised from my data, is that the use of lexis on Fishbrain is needed in order to
communicate ideas between anglers effectively. The data I collected from this website best explains the main point of my claim because each of the texts I gathered illustrate how much the different members of the community all use lexis specific to bass fishing at some point in their posts. For example, I have determined that from the three posts that I gathered from Fishbrain there was a total 95 words used. Out of these 95 words, I found that exactly 29 of these words were lexis specific to the community. This shows that each of the post that I collected uses lexis about 30% of the time on average, and with the average post consisting of about 30 words, most posts will usually use lexis about 10 different times. Furthermore, for each of these posts on Fishbrain, other users will often reply, comment, or ask a question regarding the information the angler presented in his post. From observing these replies I have also found that between each of my three texts, lexis has been used in order to either ask a question, respond to question, or communicate another point that was not previously mentioned in the original post. The feedback and dialogue this extensive use of lexis creates, proves that lexis is needed in order for communication within the community to flow cohesively. This idea of lexis as a necessary component for the fluidity of communication, closely parallels the arguments presented by scholar John Swales (1990). In his research, Swales explains how discourse community conversations are often times hard for outsiders to comprehend due to the wide use of specific language and lexis used, and that without this complexity, the community is no longer a discourse community and therefore loses its unique conversational identity. The relatability of this argument to the claims I present in my analysis is most apparent when considering that I am also proving how the use of lexis is depended upon in order for intercommunication amongst members to be both "unique" and successful. Therefore when generating and establishing my claims for my research, I often referred to this piece by Swales in order to grasp a better
understanding for the role of lexis within discourse communities like the two at the head of my study. Swales's description also helps prove the validity of my own claims because he explains, much like I do, how lexis is necessary in order for a community to identify as a discourse community, where as I am also proving lexis to be a necessary element of communication within my own discourse community. Thus, with lexis making up about 30% of the primary communication on Fishbrain, without it the community would for certain would lose the post by post dialogue that occurs on the website. This would in turn cause the communication within the community to collapse. On the other hand, the need for lexis in these post could also stem from the limited word count that each post is confined to. However this could not be the only reason because, as shown in the post I have collected, there are certain things anglers use or do that just require the use of lexis to describe or explain. For example, in one of the post I collected by a local fisherman, he attempts to explain a specific bait he used to catch fish for the day at his local pond. To do this, the fisherman had to use lexis to describe the action of the bait, how it was rigged, and even what it's official name was, which proves the need for lexis in these post despite the word count restriction created by the website. Nevertheless, from the data I collected on usage patterns I have showed how lexis dominates community texts that are used for communication and even how it is included in responses regarding these texts.

When looking at other data I have collected, another claim regarding the use lexis that I have constructed, is that the use of lexis on Bassresourceguide.com varies based on level of membership of the user. Though there has already been research regarding lexis usage and membership level by writing scholars like Erik Borg (2003), my research will attempt to prove a specific correlation between types of lexis used and skill/membership level of the user. I have found that specific word usage and lexis differs amongst the many posts and articles on the website, which is based on the audience and writer of the piece in question. On BassResource.com I have conducted a full scale observation of two specific articles with two different intended audiences and authors, who differ in professional experience. One article by John Neporadny Jr. explains specific professional bass fishing tips that he has learned from his time in professional Bassmaster Elite Series competitions. In this article I have noted the incredibly technical and specific terms that he uses that relate to his experience as a professional. For example in the article Neporadny mentions different types of baits such as reaction baits as well as their subsets, such as spinner baits and crankbaits. He also mentions highly technical and specific bass fishing techniques, such as bait selection based on water clarity, temperature, wind conditions, cloud cover, and vegetation. The other article "Angling 101", by Bonita Staples, is an introduction to the world of bass fishing and offers tips to aspiring bass fishermen. In the article Staples uses very little lexis and sticks primarily to explaining the different types of fish and certain very basic lure and baits such as crank baits and standard worms. Unlike the article by Neporadny, Staples uses very little to no lexis in the article in order to appeal and be able to communicate effectively with her target audience, which consists of beginner anglers. However, the lexis Staples does use mirrors slightly the words used in the professional article This contrast in lexis usage proves that on Bassresource.com members with different levels of membership will at times use lexis more suited to their own personal skill level or experience with bass fishing. On Bassresource.com articles written by professionals, including this one, use this exact same style of complex lexis because their advance skill level in real life allows for them to be a higher level community member on the website. Writing studies researchers such as Erik Borg even explain how higher level members of the community will use more complex lexis as introductory device for new members of the community, which falls in line with my own claimregarding the changing patterns of lexis based on membership level. Borgs's research on lexis comes from the analysis of an online community with forums and threads just like Bassresourceguide.com, which even further proves the discrepancies in lexis use due in part to the fact that Bassresourceguide.com is forum and thread based community. Overall, the difference in use of lexis between members of Bassresource.com not only highlights a fundamental characteristic of the community but it also plays into the communities membership hierarchy that controls the actions of the community.

Discussion

The claims posed in the analysis section of my research highlight and support the basis of my thesis because they explain and define the literary situations occurring in the online bass fishing community. In my thesis I stated that I would attempt to explain the role of lexis as a necessary tool for communication as well as why lexis differs due to the membership level of the author or intended audience of a certain piece through the analyzation of both Fishbrain and Bassresourceguide.com. The claims made in my analysis not only attempt to explain the situational lexis that occurs in these communities, but it also validates a certain characteristic of lexis that is unique to understanding the dynamic of the two communities. Through my claims I prove the prevailing role of lexis in the Fishbrain community and how it dominants the content of posts through statistical evidence. I also provide ample reason to believe firmly that lexis usage on Bassresourceguide.com differs based on the membership level of the member who is either writing the piece or part of the audience that the piece is written for. Both of these claims outline the statements presented in my thesis closely by reiterating the general ideas presented in my thesis and turning them into provable, valid claims with evidence to support my reasoning.

Though there are no obvious rebuttals to the claims I present in my paper because of the lack of research specific to the online bass fishing community, hypothetically speaking, there are possible rejections to my claims that could be made by an outside researcher of the academic writing community. For instance, in regards to my claim about the necessity of lexis in member-to-member communication on Fishbrain, a possible refutation to this claim would be that lexis is used in such large amounts because it delivers a short concise point on a website that limits users with a word count. Though this claim is substantial, upon further analyzation it is clear that the lexis used cannot be substituted to explain the items or actions being portrayed in the picture that corresponds with each post. For example, there is no way to describe a junebug paddle-tailed senko without calling it exactly that. Therefore proving that lexis isn't used to deliver a message effectively, but instead to describe the message presented by the picture that accompanies the post, making the picture the communicative device that helps deliver the message without the use of many words.

Another possible objection to one of my claims is that lexis use does not correlate to the experience/membership level of the member, but instead is situational and depends on what type of communication is taking place. While this may seem like another possible rejection to one of my claims, with further analysis of the community it just does not make sense as an opposing argument. One reason why this doesn't make sense is because it does not take into consideration the context of the situation surrounding members of varying membership levels on Bassresourceguide.com. For example, on the website members with high membership levels are considered to be either professional or semi-professional bass anglers. Thus, because of this elevated real life status, their fishing experiences will differ from that of beginning anglers in that they will have access to more advanced techniques and equipment. This will in turn reflect how
they relay information in the community because in the forum setting, these anglers will be more inclined to communicate at their own level which requires the use of veteran-level lexis that only other high caliber community member will be able to understand. Meaning that there use of lexis is different because when they use lexis it serves as a direct reflection of their ability and experience with bass fishing.

Furthermore, after analyzing and collecting data associated with the online bass fishing community, as well as establishing and validating claims, I believe that the information gathered has serious implications on the writing studies community. By establishing that lexis is a defining characteristic in the communication of members as well as finding other characteristics, I have, according to John Swales (1990), determined that both of these websites can be labeled as participants of "discourse". I have also opened the door for other researchers to conduct their own study regarding the many online bass fishing communities. I have even determined a major component of communication that will aid in understanding the fundamental design of communication, which will help aid in researching other aspects of the online bass fishing community. My claims regarding lexis unveil the vast learning curve that comes with being a part of not only the bass fishing community but any community with an online counterpart. Through my research I have exposed a vital communication aspect of social-media-type communities, which is that all online social media groups have a specific way of communicating that involves lexis. Even scholars like Michele Zappavigna (2015), who have extensively researched the discourse of social media websites, would value my research because of how it applies her social media theorems to a real life online example. With the new information collected about the involvement of lexis in a discourse community, I hope to also add to the conversation of discourse community characteristics continued by Erik Borg (2003). Who I
believe would see my research as a meaningful contributor to his conversation about discourse communities because of how I explain a new side to the use of lexis within such communities. My research about lexis in the online bass fishing sphere also contributes to members of the real world bass fishing community. After reading my research, such members would have a better understanding of the community dynamic due to the fact that most of the principles applied to the online counterpart reflect that of the real life community. Non-members could even use this information as a guide to entering one of these communities.

Overall, any reader of my research should understand that lexis is a major component of all discourse communities. The study of lexis in any specific discourse community is crucial to understanding both what the community is about as well as how they communicate. Therefore, with my research I hope to open the door for any future researcher to analyze and discover more about the truly complex and unique online bass fishing community. The many components of this community make it unique to that of any other discourse community, and it is perfect case study for any writing studies researcher. My research regarding how members of the online bass fishing community use lexis is important because it reveals the powerful role of lexis in a discourse community that may have been overlooked by other writing studies scholars. As proven through my research, even in a non-academic discourse community, lexis plays a vital role in communication is the single defining feature of communication on both websites. Without this lexis there would be no communication between members at all. My research explains and proves the role of lexis as more than just one of the many characteristics in the online bass fishing community and instead as both a necessary tool used in communication and decisive factor in determining membership level.

Works Cited 

Swales, J. (1990). The concept of discourse communities . Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings, 21-32. https://eng1301-knous.wikispaces.com/file/view/Swales-11.pdf

Borg, E. (2003). Discourse community. ELT Journal, 57(4), 398-400. https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/eltj

Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409378

Wilde, G. R., Riechers, R. K., & Ditton, R. B. (1998). Differences in attitudes, fishing motives, and demographic characteristics between tournament and nontournament black bass anglers in Texas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 18(2), 422-431. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs

Zappavigna, M. (2015). Discourse of Twitter and social media. London: Bloomsbury.

Gee, J. (1989). Literacy, discourse, and linguistics: introduction. Journal of Education, 171(1). http://jamespaulgee.com/geeimg/pdfs/Literacy%20and%20Linguistics.pdf

Duszak, A. (1997). Culture and styles of academic discourse. Berlin: Mouton.

Bazerman, C. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: how texts organize activity and people. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 309-339. http://cdh.sc.edu/~hawkb/readings/bazerman_speech.pdf

McCarthy, L. P. (1985). A stranger in strange lands: a college student writing across the curriculum.

Harris, J. (1989). The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication, 40(1), 11. doi:10.2307/358177

Mr.ojosverde. (2017, February 15). Social media post 1.
Hobbs, J. (2017, February 15). Social media post 2.
Plummer, C. (2017, February 15). Social media post 3.

Task 3 Reflection

After completing Task 3 I later looked back at my paper and reviewed all of the errors that I made. When looking back at the content of the paper after receiving final feedback, I found that the primary issues with my paper fell into the global error category. One of the main problems with my paper is that I failed to use credible secondary sources to support my claims and establish credibility as a writing studies researcher. Therefore, to fix this problem I had to incorporate specific sources from scholars John Swales and Erik Borg. I used John Swales's research to support my claim about the neccesity of lexis in the communication of members on Fishbrain. I used Erik Borg's research to prove the changing patterns of lexis use based on the membership level of the user. When using both sources I made sure to explain the purpose of each source as well as how it related to the claims I was making. Finally, the last thing I incorporated into the implementation of these sources was proper in text citations that accurately follow APA guidelines. Outside of the lack of secondary sources, another problem I had with my paper was connecting my claims to the thesis of my paper. To do this, I constantly incorporated the purpose of my claims as evidence to prove the overall points made in my thesis. For example, in my thesis I outlined that I would determine that need for lexis within the communication of the online bass fishing community, which was proven by my first claim regarding lexis use in Fishbrain. The other point in my thesis that is reflected by my mini claims, is the idea that use of different levels of lexis coincides with the membership level of the member. I proved and connected this idea in my mini claims by researching the differences in lexis use based on membership level on Bassresourceguide.com. Overall in my revision of Task 3, I learned that incorporating secondary sources and adjusting my mini claims to reflect the ideas of my thesis made my research more credible and effective in proving my point.