My Progress in Writing Through ENC1102

This is my submission for Process Work 2:

1. The research site I’m planning on using is the AIAA. I think it’s a good choice for this project because it provides me with opportunities to talk to other members, as well as provide in-club experiences. There are meetings every week usually, and I often see fellow club members, so the community is pretty active. This site is interesting because it’s a hands-on experience for the aerospace major and helps build connections with both peers and employers alike. By studying the AIAA club, I can learn more about their outreach, connections, and activities. It would be interesting to go in depth about my own major and the organizations that fall under the engineering umbrella, so to speak.

2. My access to this site is my membership in the club due to my major. I attend meetings and interact with other undergrads and GTA’s alike. To conduct interviews, I could attend meetings and ask club leaders about their involvement and how they came to be a leader of AIAA. I could also inquire about past and upcoming projects and how the teams worked to achieve goals. I’m also in several chatrooms and on social media for this club, so I could pull information out of those platforms as well. 

3. Main Website: https://aiaa.org/Links to an external site.

UCF Website: https://www.aiaaucf.com/Links to an external site. 

UCF Instagram: @aiaaucf 

Construct Analysis

This introduction to my research site allowed me to pose the question: what makes a discourse community, and how is that present in my life? This exemplifies generating inquiry very well, and allows me to create a question and splice it into various research topics. This question was the first building brick to my entire portfolio this semester, giving lead to each of my major assignments and my final research paper.

An Annotated Bibliography on UCF’s AIAA

            Here at UCF, most students find themselves in a community, whether they chose it or not. This can be clubs, friend groups, majors, Greek affiliations, and hundreds of other groups. Many of these groups can be classified as something called a discourse community, which is a community of people who share interests, goals, and ideas amongst each other. My community is The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The discourse community of AIAA plays an important role in shaping the future of aerospace engineering; it assists future engineers in learning to communicate, collaborate, and contribute to the field. The club provides members with the opportunity to participate in projects, competitions, research, and networking within the field. Studying the UCF chapter of AIAA is worthwhile because it allows me to show how learned practices from the classroom and daily life translates into professional environments and interactions. I have chosen to conduct my analyzation through the framework of discourse communities, which I introduced earlier. This allows me to use several modes of evidence to support my research idea through media, communication types, and shared goals from other members of the organization. This allows me to highlight not only the group’s activities, but how insider communication leads to completed objectives.

            AIAA is a technical organization, and like many other engineering clubs, it is centered around structured communication. In my past research, I discussed that academic as well as professional engineering societies use specific genres of communication such as lab reports, proposals, competition reports, and tech developments. All these genres are heavily targeted to a certain audience and rely on data rather than normal social expression. AIAA functions similarly to this but also has a strong social platform to encourage relationship building. We share our work and communicate through different digital platforms such as social media and discord servers, and in-person meetings. These characteristics build a foundation for my analyzation on how AIAA carries the features of a discourse community.

            I started conducting my research by choosing methods of communication within the community. Before I discuss those, I want to explain what led me to choosing these methods and how I approached gathering data. John Swales and Ann Johns provided me with a definition and how to translate AIAA’s activities into the terms of a discourse community; a discourse community is a method of studying how a specific group of people use communication to meet their collective goals, connect with each other, and nurture a sense of belonging within each member. On top of John’s connection to emotional fulfillment within a community, she describes how social concepts translate to academic discourses. She also described the different values, identities, and hierarchies within groups that eventually lead to sub-communities and ever-developing systems.

            In connection with this academic viewpoint, a study by Karl-Heinz Pogner is especially useful in starting to translate relationships between engineers and correlate that to AIAA. Pogner examined two Danish engineers’ reports while they worked on a grid system and concluded that, while hollow feeling and technical, the interactions between the workers were indeed social. Similarly to the work done in AIAA, the engineers offer each other advice, discuss issues as well as their solutions, and work together to meet a goal. Engineers communicate differently than most people, and this makes them seem to deviate from social norms. This linguistic barrier dissolves in the AIAA discourse community, keeping it exclusive. These communication abilities are a necessary foundation in the engineering community, as emphasized in Annie Attan and Wan Fakhruddin’s article about applying knowledge to lab reports. Shared research, interaction, and evaluation from peers are all dire to work done in the AIAA chapter here at UCF. Without the proper skills, data and ideas can be lost easily between project partners, and builds could suffer because of it.

            My research could use more feedback from members of the club, preferably ones who are working on projects currently, or have in the past. It’s difficult to make community-wide assumptions based off the input from two low standing members who have little experience in working on builds and flight plans. I do agree with the opinions and research of my secondary sources; their work pertains exactly to what occurs in AIAA and communities like it. I plan to utilize this research and develop my primary sources to solve the issue with a lack of meetings and opportunities for member input. My investigation will have to continue due to this, but my conclusions on academic translation to project work within the group are final.

            The best way to refine my research question would be to target the communication in an academic standpoint, thus keeping away from opinionated or emotional inputs. I can connect the sense of belonging need in a discourse community to the choice of major and membership. But I don’t believe it’s a large discrepancy, and my interview primary source can stand as ample evidence for communication within the community.

Primary Sources

Member Interview, personal communication, February 24, 2026

This primary source was an interview I conducted with a friend of mine in AIAA discussing his participation and relationship with the chapter. My focus was on his opinions on communication within the chapter and how he’s connected the aerospace major’s curriculum to club activities/ experiences. It was noted that AIAA focuses heavily on rocketry concepts, which is a popular interest within the major due to obvious circumstances. Communication is a vital piece to the chapter and determines outcomes of projects and relations between members. During this interview, we deemed that the most influential area for communication is the discord server for aviation design and DBF (design build fly). These include heavy amounts of specialty jargon, but are accommodating to users who are new to the forums. The individual I interviewed admitted to not being particularly involved in those chatrooms, but frequently reads the general and announcement tabs to keep up with club events and group chats discussing general interests.

This interview was helpful for my research because it proved the idea that there are specific groups within a discourse community. Even though the aviation and DBF channels are the most active, a lot of members are content with the social channels within the servers and in-person relations during meetings.

This interview was helpful towards my research and pushed development in discerning communication practices within the site. It was nice to gain an outside perspective on interactions between members and how this communication is perceived. It connects well to my analysis on the social media page interactions and may provide further understanding towards those interactions. While it would’ve been nice to get the opportunity to interview a member that has more experience, this time spent wasn’t wasted and provided a solid perspective on how members begin building relationships within the chapter.

AIAA ucf, [aiaa@ucf], February 26, 2026, posts, Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/aiaaucf/

The main platform I examined was the UCF AIAA chapter Instagram page. It’s a page that’s full of information on events, deadlines, and volunteering opportunities. It hasn’t been as active this semester in terms of posts, but in previous fall semesters, it’s regularly updated. The page is a good representation of how AIAA represents itself to nonmembers. It shows the community activities that define discourses such as highlighting meeting events, volunteer updates, and general interaction between members. Comments and tags also show participation in the events by members, strengthening the argument of AIAA being a well-rounded and involved community. The images used also help me develop ideas based off purposeful branding and engagement that I don’t receive from chat servers.

This source is relevant to my research on AIAA as a discourse community because it showcases social interactions hosted by the club itself. Captions and activities display connections to Swales’ listed characteristics of specialized lexis and expertise shared between members of discourse communities. It’s a source that’s also beneficial to developing my understanding of the site’s communication skills on top of what I learned from my interview. The activities on the page occasionally deviate to more social activities than just building rockets, such as hikes, fundraisers, and seasonal socials. So, it provides a little more insight into more of what happens in the chapter, other than what’s expected from a group like this one.

Discord Server Analysis, February 26, 2026

The discord server source was especially helpful in my research on club activity. Within the servers lie every event, challenge, and update about every little thing that goes on in the chapter here at UCF. The chatrooms capture the everyday conversations between members, including every aspect of the chapter and what members are required to attend and do. While the social media handles show the public what the club does, the discord server contains all the information that only members are privy to. The language within the chatrooms is also representative of the definitions provided by Swales and Johns, meaning it’s mostly technical and exemplary of complex terminology that only members or individuals in similar fields would understand. In addition to this, the server is divided into separate chats, showing the levels of club integration and each specialty that members may have. The discord server allows me to record data in real time, rather than just analyzing and interpreting socials and older sources. Overall, it provides another solid foundation on how the chapter shares goals, organizes members involvement, and creates an atmosphere of belongingness/identity through communication.

Meeting Analysis, February 26, 2026

At AIAA meetings, the main concept is presentation and integration. It’s all about community and inclusion and is like a hangout. Of course, important deadlines and projects are discussed, but most of the general body meetings are accompanied by free pizza and friends met along the way. This develops the social aspect of a discourse community further, going hand in hand with the social media source. General body meetings are open to members of every level, as well as potential members. This source deviates from the associated stigma of all work and no play that stem groups tend to have. It’s another example of live-research, meaning I can observe in real time. Unlike digital platforms, meetings bring members together for real face to face interactions, which build connections and relationships. Members can engage with leaders’ presentations via questions and commentary; this supports the discord community trait of communication and feedback.

This source was useful because It’s the only in-person method I engaged in with multiple members of the chapter from all different skill-levels. Every aspect of general meetings provides evidence of discourse community activity. Meetings display shared knowledge, interaction between members, and hierarchy within the chapter (such as new members all the way up to the chapter president). The source provides me with a more relatable introduction to the chapter as well. Most college students have been a part of a club at some point during their time in school. AIAA really is just like any other club; the only difference is the professional opportunities gained from membership. In other words, it gives the chapter a more approachable and fun energy, which helps me develop my claim of discourse community standards.

Secondary Sources

Johns, Ann M. “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership, Conflict,     and Diversity.” Text, Role and Context: Developing Academic Literacies. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge UP,  1997. 51-70. Print.

In this article, Johns described correlations between academia and discourse communities. She discusses the translation between professional settings (as are those created in academic communities) and behavioral characteristics in these communities. Within the article, Johns provides a different viewpoint to the classic understanding of discourse communities, instead calling it a community of practice. She does this so it’s easier to picture how members behave within their groups, considering hierarchies, developing membership, and conflicts. This take on discourse communities takes away from the harmonious definition Swales mentions; these communities are not always smooth-operating or socially equal. This especially translates into AIAA due to the skill range across the different members, such as a senior being more qualified than a freshman.

This source is important to my research because it details how the AIAA community is really shaped. There are a multitude of roles within academic groups such as this one, each with different skills and accomplishments. Membership within the group isn’t a stationary relationship, it’s continuously developing. Growth in this category requires commitment, communication, and practice. This highlights that not all members experience AIAA in the same ways, and that there are levels to learning the language the chapter uses. While AIAA meets Swales’ definition of a discourse community, the expansion written by Johns reveals how participation shapes individuals and pushes them to contribute to the group.

Swales, John. “The Concept of a Discourse Community.” Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990. 21-32. Print

Swales is the foundation for identifying discourse communities in my writing and provided the original definition for a discourse community with his six characteristics. The six characteristics are common goals, intercommunication, participation in feedback, genres, specialized lexis, and members with relative expertise. He focuses on group interaction and presents them as stable, non-fluctuating, and lacking in membership diversity.  This article is a good tool for defining a basic discourse community, but it lacks the depth that accompanies human relationships. Luckily, this isn’t too important for my research on AIAA, so Swales’ opinions on discourse communities are a central base piece to my writing and analyzation of the chapter.

This article is useful for my research because it provides me with a base structure. His six characteristics directly apply to my chosen community, given its academic standings. The article encourages the question of communication between the members, thus developing my focus on social concepts within the academic community. It’s also relevant to engineering due to the shared technical work, proposals, and exclusive terminology, which are all vital to the field and mentioned in this article as concepts that create a discourse community. I also consider this a gateway source; it directly ties to my earlier source from Ann Johns, who further develops the idea of a discourse community.

I began this research project with Swales’ guidance on choosing communities, so his article was essential to my research’s development. It provided me with the basic principles of discourse communities and allowed me to describe my chosen site. Instead of using a basic notion of what discourse communities are, this source helps me analyze evidence and elements that ensure the clubs place as a community. In addition to this definition Swales provided, I can use my knowledge of AIAA to challenge his examination and further develop what I think a discourse community is (and of course provide those answers in my research). An example of these challenges is developing his stance on a fixed community hierarchy with the addition of fluctuation in membership roles. This allows me to use Swales’ article as a comparison model, rather than simply a hard-set definition.

Fakhruddin, Wan Farah Wani Wan, and Anie Attan. “Putting Knowledge Gained into Practice in Civil Engineering Lab Reports.” Procedia, social and behavioral sciences 70 (2013): 1501–1512. Web.

This source details how civil engineering students use applied knowledge to produce lab reports. The authors argue that these lab reports aren’t simply records of projects and experiements, but opportunities for students to learn about the community that is professional engineering. This is what connects it to my research on the discourse community within the aerospace engineering major. This article is beneficial towards my research because it explains how writing and language is important within these communities and how it shapes development.

It connects to AIAA by standing as an example of the integration of knowledge in a specific setting. Much like our project proposals and presentations, the students described in the article are required to update and present their findings in a professional way (such as a lab report to a professor). Fakhruddin and Attan explain that mastering the genres of professionalism and linguistics will help students master the standards required in this field of study. The focus on communication supports my analysis by showing that these engineering communities rely on shared goals to reinforce collaboration. This source is a good support on connecting AIAA to outside engineering tasks and also how AIAA teaches the next generation of engineers.

Pogner, Karl-Heinz. “Writing and Interacting in the Discourse Community of Engineering: Pragmatics of Writing.” Journal of pragmatics 35.6 (2003): 855–867. Print.

This article looks at the social and collaborative aspects of writing in engineering. Pogner discusses the work done by a group of Danish engineers working on a city project and how their reports are shaped by interactions with each other, only being developed through mutual goals and shared interests. The author argues that the engineering language is more of a network product than a strictly individual and technical task. Engineers must consider their clients and audiences when doing their work, leading to other opinions being extremely valuable and, in most cases, mandatory. This is useful for my research because it again challenges the idea that discourse communities are rigid structures defined by a strict set of rules from a definition. In AIAA, members not only communicate through their work, but also socially through chapter activities. The article expands upon Swales’ article and roams in the territory of Johns’, describing a teamwork-based profession. This strengthens my research by backing up my findings on communication and interaction within engineering groups. It provides a guide to how communities like AIAA really function, and why this method is helpful to experience while still in college.

The classwork/homework that benefitted my work on this assignment most thoroughly was major assignment 1 and the source finding assignments. The first major assignment helped me decide my research site and begin its development by finding methods. The source finding assignments helped me browse for supporting documents to better explain my research and how AIAA was a discourse community. The outcomes I felt I best worked towards was contribution of knowledge and information literacy. I drew conclusions for my research based off every source I included in my bibliography, as was the point of gathering the research. Trying to find articles/sources that related in a proper way wasn’t difficult and it allowed me to practice my skills of deciding what was important to my claim, and what wasn’t. This brings me to my development on my skill of deciding what was relevant and credible (information literacy). I had to make sure all my sources were unbiased and peer reviewed so they would hold strong in a research paper.

I struggled the most with typing the actual annotation paragraphs. It was difficult to explain each source individually without sounding like a broken record or tying them into the other sources. My feedback was mainly to continue developing my writing, since I hadn’t finished my draft fully and it was still in pieces. As a result of this I finished my source annotations and tried to make sure they flowed correctly. Through this assignment, I learned the importance of choosing supporting sources to back up my research and how to connect these sources to my writing claims.

As I stated in my major assignment 2 reflection above, the outcomes I feel I achieved are contributing knowledge and information literacy. I reached these outcomes through my source choosing process and connection to my writing. I met the contributing knowledge goal by connecting my sources to my research in a meaningful and understandable way. Each source ties back to each other and can be used to explain my research topic through definitions and worldly examples.

I met the information literacy goal by choosing my sources from Primo (UCF libraries) and ensuring they were credible through peer reviews and lack of bias. Each of my sources created another topic I could discuss through my research and connect to each other. The point of the annotated bibliography was to develop our skills in choosing sources to support a claim. I met this construct best through this assignment and my development in the annotations paragraphs at the end of my submission that I have linked in the first accordion on this page.