7) Project 3 Critique

7/30/2019 7) Project 3 Critique

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/7-project-3-critique 1/15

With this paper I wanted to show that football coaches are a discourse community

and that they would be more efficient in achieving their group goals if they utilized new

forms of technology specifically the Zeus computer program in making decisions during

and before games. I thought that I would be successful in achieving this because I am

knowledgeable about the subject. I come from a coaching background and I have

coached on high school teams despite my young age. I also have been the head coach of

a youth football team in Nevada. I constantly am reading about the game of football and

am very current on my knowledge regarding game planning and statistical data. I want to

return to the sport some day at the high school level and so I research almost daily. I

changed my paper drastically from my peer-reviewed paper. I didn’t understand the

assignment at first and failed to make a claim. Also I didn’t provide enough information

in my synthesis section the first time around. The revised paper includes an in depth

synthesis regarding concepts I thought applied to my discourse community. Also I made

a claim. I think that as far as what could be better, I feel like I couldn’t quite fit the paper

within the word limit. I tried and felt that my ending was rushed despite going over by a

few hundred words. I think that to fully write a polished paper I would need more of a

word limit. I ended my paper sort of abruptly to avoid going over more than I already

have. I think that if I had no limit I could have explored a more complete argument and

tied things together more cleanly. As far as what is working well I think that I have done

a large amount of research. I am sure that I sound informed on my topic and I think that

the reader will pick up on this as well. I think I make an argument that is logical and

makes sense. I do a good job of supporting the argument in my opinion. This project has



taught me to be more organized and to keep in mind who I am writing to. Also I learned

a great deal about discourse communities and what goes on inside of them.



Football Coaches: An Ethnographic Study

As people we are all involved in some kind of group or area of interest. Have we

ever stopped to wonder what makes up these groups – what they are called or what they

bring to others within different areas of interest? These groups are called discourse

communities among scholars. They are – more or less – groups that share an interest and

a common goal. A community I am involved in is a community of football coaches.

Inside of this large community there are smaller communities made up of individual

teams.

The coaches on these teams are held to a standard – almost always – that includes

instant success. If a team is not competing for championships right away employers of

coaches often times have little patience – leading to a coaching staff’s dismissal. This

type of pressure to win – and to win early – pushes those involved in the coaching

discourse community to employ many means of gaining an edge over opponents. Many

coaches rely on current sorts of “multiliteracies” to achieve this advantage over

competition.

The question arises then – what type of multiliteracies are used to aid in the

success of these coaches and how can new forms of multiliteracy be used to gain an edge

over competition that is seen within the discourse community among individual teams?

The answer to this question lies in advancement of technology. Through the breakdown

of statistics and the use of new forms of technologies coaches can combine current forms

of multiliteracy with newer forms that are either not yet being used or are being used by a

small percentage of coaches. To understand this concept better it is important to first

understand what is already being said about discourse communities.



According to John Swales, to identify a group of individuals as a discourse

community the group has to meet a set of six criteria. In his article “The Concept of

Discourse Community” Swales says,

“1. A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals… 2.

Discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its

members… 3. A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms

primarily to provide information and feedback… 4. A discourse community

utilizes and hence posses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of

its aims… 5. In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired

some specific lexis… 6. A discourse community has a threshold level of members

with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise (Swales 471 –

472).”

By outlining a set of criteria we can see what constitutes a discourse community and what

does not. This helps us identify many key concepts that arise when discussing discourse

communities such as how information is passed and why certain problems or situations

might arise.

Now that John Swales has given a clear concept of what a discourse community

is, it is important to look at the actual function of a discourse community and what goes

on inside of one. What it takes to be a member and what must happen once one is

already a member is an essential part of understanding discourse communities. There are

many important concepts and ideas about what goes on inside of discourse communities,

but for the purpose of this paper there are only a handful that are overly important. Those

concepts are the ideas of identity, authority, the definition of genre, the definition of



multiliteracies, and Discourse with a capital “D”. James Paul Gee, the Writing About

Writing glossary, and Elizabeth Wardle express these ideas.

James Paul Gee explains in his article, “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics”, that

to truly be a part of a Discourse community we as people must, “say or write the right

thing in the right way while playing the right social role and (appearing) to hold the right

values, beliefs, and attitudes. Thus, what is important is not language, and surely not

grammar, but saying (writing) – doing – being – valuing – believing combinations” (Gee

484). This idea that being a part of a discourse community is important. You are either

involved in it or you are not. There is no in between. This means that being involved in

a discourse community is just that – being. It is a part of the individual. Because

belonging is a sense of being – it cannot be taught. Gee claims that Discourse

communities are not mastered by overt instruction, but instead through enculturation into

certain behaviors that support the inclusion of new individuals taught by those that have

already mastered a certain Discourse (Gee 484). Through “apprenticeship” – or

enculturation – a veteran member of any community can help someone practice being a

certain way with them, however, they cannot teach anyone to be a part of a discourse

community (Gee 485).

Gee ties in one more important aspect of Discourse communities before making

an important statement. Gee connects with Swales indirectly by mentioning the

participation of individuals involved in Discourse communities. Gee claims that an

individual’s participation through participatory mechanisms is an important aspect of

communities from a member perspective. The members of any given community needs

to be active participants in order for the community to function as well as to retain



membership (Gee 487). All of Gee’s ideas tie into what he calls “Discourse” as opposed

to “discourse”. Discourses – with a capital “D” – are ways of being in the world (Gee

484). Essentially Gee is saying that being a member of a Discourse community takes

total immersion in that community. (For the sake of avoiding confusion – “discourse

communities” will now be referred to as “Discourse communities” for the remainder of

this paper.)

So far Discourse communities have been defined by Swales and what it takes to

be a member and stay a member has also been described by Gee. Elizabeth Wardle

makes her contribution to the conversation by breaking down the identity of members as

well as who has authority inside of Discourse communities. Wardle states, “To “find

their own unique identities” within new organizations, newcomers must choose levels

and types of engagement; they must find modes of belonging” (Wardle 524). Wardle

goes on to state these three modes of belonging as engagement, imagination, and

alignment (Wardle 524). These three concepts are important in an individuals fitting into

a certain community and establishing themselves as apart of that community.

Once identity is established there is generally some sort of authority that is gained

inside of a community. Authority – like identity – is constantly changing and being

negotiated (Wardle 525). Authority is something that is given by institutions or members

of a Discourse community, and must be maintained through appropriate expressions of

authority. All members have a level of authority, but the authority can only be kept if

members “learn the appropriate speech conventions…” or otherwise, “lose the authority”

(Wardle 526). This idea that there is a hierarchy present inside of organizations is an

important one to grasp. The use of authority by those with the most authority can directly



influence the livelihood as well as the future membership of those with less authority in

any given Discourse community.

The last concept pertinent to this paper is the definition of “genre”. It is given to

us by the Writing About Writing glossary. The glossary says, “genre actually goes well

beyond texts; accordingly, some theorists use genre to describe a typified but dynamic

social interaction that a group of people use to conduct a given activity” (Writing About

Writing 724). Genre describes all of the modes of communication that are used to relay

information within a Discourse community. This goes beyond text and stretches into

multiple forms of literacy giving way to multiliteracies within Discourse Communities.

Multiliteracies include the ability to compose and interpret multimodal texts, as well as

the ability to make meaning in various texts (Writing About Writing 728). Multiliteracies

and genres can include audio, visual, and textual forms of communication. If information

is passed through a certain means than it is a genre.

To quickly recap – Swales identifies what a discourse community is, Gee

identifies what it takes to become a member, Wardle shows that there is a hierarchy of

power and authority among individuals in a Discourse community, and the definitions of

multiliteracies and genre show that communication within a Discourse community is

more than just saying or writing things down. All of these sources show that Discourse

communities are constantly processing and producing information as well as the

importance of their individual parts.

As I explained earlier – I am a part of a Discourse community of football coaches.

Looking at the definitions above and the information provided by the authors it is evident

that this community is the epitome of what these authors are discussing. Football



coaches fit Swales six criteria. They want to win, they exchange game tape and

information between each other, the use of statistics and game film are examples of

numerous forms of genres that help to achieve the shared goal, there is an obvious lexis

with one example being play calls, there are professionals and youth football coaches

with high school and college levels in between the high and the low, and there is

generally a set number of coaches that can be involved on a given team.

Gee stated that being involved in a Discourse community involves “being”. This

is apparent in football coaches as well. Generally speaking a coach is involved as an

assistant before he can achieve more authority and advance in the field. Through

enculturation he learns how to be a head coach from the head coach he assists (Coffin 1).

Wardle claims that there are certain means of achieving identity and authority

within a group. In the Discourse community of coaches the coaches must be engaged in

what is going on, create concepts with their imagination, and their ideas and goals must

align with those that the other members posses in order for them to truly have an identity

within the group. Also, authority is distributed throughout individual coaching staffs.

The head coach – generally a more senior member – has the most authority where a

positions coach – generally a newer member – has the least authority. Every member of

the staff has a say however there is a clear hierarchy of authority present.

Finally coaches go to conferences, watch videotape of opponents, read books, and

study statistics to utilize multiple genre types to their advantage. This plays into the

mastering of multiple forms of literacy or multiliteracies.

All of these concepts show that football coaches are a high functioning Discourse

community. Now that it is apparent what a discourse community is, how it functions, and



the fact that coaches are in fact a Discourse community, we are brought back to the

concept originally stated at the beginning of this paper. Coaches utilize many forms of

literacy to gain an edge over opponents. Often times new technologies are neglected and

not used whereas older more proven methods of literacy are used to gain an advantage for

game day. Certain genres are ignored or used by very few coaches. This is something

that needs to change. Through the breakdown of statistics and the use of new forms of

technologies coaches can combine current forms of multiliteracy with newer forms that

are either not yet being used or are being used by a small percentage of coaches.

New technology is coming out every day. New forms of data analysis are

constantly evolving and coming into use through multiple different fields. Why not in

football? Coaches constantly analyze film to determine when an opponent will show

certain patterns. Coaches look for trends or patterns of play calling in an opponent’s

game plan on a week-to-week basis. These trends determine how a coach will call plays

during the game. Based off of the data that has been established in preparation for the

game coaches make educated decisions on what they think will work and when they think

their team should execute the predetermined game plan. The decisions are more and

more often being decided off of statistics and probability percentages, but key

technologies are challenging what traditionally has been done inside of the football

coaching Discourse community. These technologies are being totally ignored.

The biggest example of data analysis technology that is being ignored is the Zeus

computer program developed by ViMass Group. Zeus is a computer program developed

that models and predicts the outcomes of coaching decisions. The program produces

statistical outputs showing the odds of favorable outcomes depending on the personnel



and paly calls of a coaching staff. The output by the program even produces what is

called the “Game Winning Chance”, which evaluates the chances of winning the game

based off of specific play calls.

If this genre was used with the current forms of information gathering coaches

could establish more of an edge on competition than they already can. By using this

technology there is a clear advantage yet it is often times ignored thanks to the distrust of

old school coaches that currently dominate modern football. An example of the

computer’s statistical advantages can be seen in the analysis of the 2007 Super Bowl

between the Colts and the Bears.

Super Bowl XLI featured a high-powered Colt’s offense against an opportunistic

Bears defense. The Bears had a very average offense this year yet somehow were able to

stay in the game against the Colts for much of Super Bowl XLI. ESPN broke down the

numbers that were compiled by the Zeus computer system and explained the importance

of the statistical data here:

The Colts were flagged by ZEUS for six critical call errors. In all cases they

chose the conservative kicking route, not taking advantage of their high-

powered, efficient offense. The worst decision occurred late in the third

quarter. Leading 19-14, the Colts initially faced fourth-and-goal from the

Bears 2-yard line. That field goal decision was a moderate error of 1.5

percentage of GWC. But a running-into-the-kicker penalty gave them a

chance for fourth-and-goal from the 1-yard line -- a situation where even the

worst offensive team in the NFL is a favorite to score a TD. The Colts

declined the opportunity, satisfied to take the field goal that gave them a 22-



14 lead. That decision was a significant 4.4 percentage of GWC mistake.

Indianapolis's total errors for the game were 14.3 percent. To put this in

perspective, if they performed at this level for seven games consecutively,

on average they would cost themselves a full game over that seven-game

stretch.

The Colts went on to win the game, however, the numbers do not lie. They could

have taken the Bears out of the game entirely if they had relied on the numbers

instead of constructs that have existed in football for years.

By basing the decisions on mathematical outcomes coaches would achieve a

higher chance of attaining their desired outcome. If as a Discourse community

coaches take note of constantly evolving technology they could better achieve their

goals as well as produce information in a more efficient manner. By relying on

newer versions of data analysis this Discourse community can benefit other

communities of a similar sort, and can become more successful among its own

members.

Jared, as you identify in your cover letter, this paper is well-researched and well-

sourced. I think you demonstrate that you have a passion and knowledge for this

area, and you do a good job establishing a frame (even if it is a little too idealistic)

that you then apply to football coaches to show that they constitute a discourse

community. Also, your argument that coaches should adapt the Zeus computer

system makes sense, and you've shown that it could be beneficial towards the

ultimate goal of winning. However, as you've presented it here, you pretty much



skirt the idea of discourse. To have built an argument for the Zeus computer system

based on discourse, you'd want to dive into how communication between coaches is

ineffective and that Zeus would help to make this more effective. For instance, there

is a lot of communication that occurs in calling a play... as you know, it's (most

often) just not the head coach choosing. You'd want to perhaps unpack a situation

where an offensive coordinator or play-caller's decision conflicted with the coaches

and how this caused a bad or errant call. Another interesting aspect with the Zeus

system would be how it changes authority for play calling. What dynamics change

on a team when you rely on statistics? Also, while your example makes sense

statistically, the Colts won, so the system, in that instance, really proved

insignificant (which in some ways could argue against the need to adopt it in the

first place)— a better example would be a prediction where the system

outperformed a coaching staff. Another interesting dynamic that could have been

explored in terms of discourse is that between the coaching staff and the players.

Again, I'm not saying you haven't made a case for your claim, but I am saying that

your claim leaves a lot to be questioned and desired in terms of language use and

the dynamics of the community per language/discourse.

Overall, as I said, the paper is well-written, but if you choose to revise this paper,

you'll definitely want to consider the argument through the lens of

language/discourse.

Overall response: Check plus.



Interview Questions:

Coach Lane Coffin – Coach Coffin is a coach at Marsh Valley High School in Moscow,

Idaho. Coach Coffin has won state championships and has also coached with my father.

He has been coaching for many years and has a son who is now on his staff.

How does your community of coaches fit the six guidelines presented by John Swales?

• “Well we want to win. We focus a lot on the process of winning and what

it takes to be a winner. We share film and go to seminars. I don’t really

understand what you are saying about the genres. We definitely have a

specific language and lexicon. We have new coaches and more

experienced coaches. That plays into novices and experts. We also have a

threshold cap of 9 coaches.”

Have you experienced any moments where you could decipher a clear hierarchy of

authority among coaches?

• “Absolutely I have. Generally speaking what the head ball coach says

goes. He has the power to make all the important decisions, but will rely

on his assistants as well. The reason it is his say most of the time is

because it is his ass on the line. If I make a bad call as an offensive

coordinator he is the one that gets blamed not me. He faces more job



security issues than anyone on the staff so that is why he has the most

authority. Other coaches have authority as well though. When I was an

offensive coordinator for Cal high in California I had almost complete

control of the offense. Our head guy was a defensive mined coach and

didn’t care how I called the offense mostly because he wasn’t super

inclined on the offensive side of the ball.”

How did you experience a rise in authority?

• “At first I was a grad assistant at Idaho State. I learned a lot there under

the coaches that were ahead of me. I was fresh out of undergrad and was

working for a local paper there to pay the bills. Those guys at ISU taught

me a lot and I eventually decided that I wanted to become a teacher and

coach at the high school level. That is what I did. I moved to California

to teach at a school there and eventually ended up as the OC at Cal high.

After a few years at ISU and a few years at Cal High I moved back to

Idaho and was offered a head coaching job here. I took it and have been

here ever since.”

Would you agree with what Wardle says about establishing an identity?

• “I don’t know a whole lot about this writing class of yours, but I think that

it might apply. Sure. I don’t know if I understand exactly based off of

what you said, but I think that when you explain it to me I could see how it

can fit in with football.”

Have you heard of the Zeus program for computing data and play calls?

• “I have not.”



Would you go for it on fourth down in the 2007 Super Bowl if you were on the goal line

with the Colts offense? (I had just showed him the ESPN article referenced in my paper).

• “I think I would have kicked the field goal as well. The coaches at ISU

told me to always take the points. That is what I would have done.”

Work Cited

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men-action/201211/how-oregon-coach-chip-kelly-

can-spark-moneyball-revolution-nfl

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=zeus/070206

http://vimassgroup.com/ViMass_Group/Welcome.html

Swales, John. “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Genre Analysis: English in

Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990. 21-32. Print.

Gee, James P. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Journal of Education

171.1 (1989): 5-17. Print.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces.”

Enculturation 5.2 (2004): n. pag. Web. 18 Feb. 2010.

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/men-action/201211/how-oregon-coach-chip-kelly-can-spark-moneyball-revolution-nfl








7) Project 3 Critique

Documents

Transcript of 7) Project 3 Critique