Blog Entry #4

Fernsten, Linda. "Discourse and Difference." International Journal of Inclusive Education 9 4 (2005): 371-87. Print.

Fernsten’s article examines the effects of “dominant academic discourses” on students’ identities and perception of their ability as writers and argues that “students whose discourses differ from the dominant academic discourses of school may develop negative writer identities as a result of their language struggles in the academy” (371). To support this argument, Fernsten discusses her study in which she used critical discourse analysis (CDA) and analysis of two of her students. She justifies her stance, referring to herself as “an advocate for change in traditional composition classrooms” (372). She then references Lu, who “clarified the idea that certain students may be in conflict with language policies” and “hypothesizes that the marginalization students feel when writing in the academy comes from the way they believe their own discourses have been received there” (372). She also refers to Weedon’s argument that “language differentiates and informs us about what is socially accepted as normal” and encourages instructors and students to “explore the way different discourses position people in the academy” (372).

She discusses briefly the historical background and development of academic discourses, acknowledging Berlin, stating that theses discourses “with their formality of tone and style and highly structured paragraphs are adopted by many colleges and universities and have been the dominant form of college writing instruction since early in the twentieth century” (373). She argues that these academic discourses combined with “dominant culture” often brand second-language writers as “less able or less intelligent” (373). She expresses that while her stance is “not a rejection of Standard English,” she believes that “by redefining the variety of dialects as different ways to communicate, and by explicitly teaching that use of particular dialects in certain situations represents effective communication, we can help students investigate the nature and politics of language use” (374).

Fernsten’s study involves the analysis of two students, one who uses Black English Vernacular, and one who is a trilingual Haitian-American student. Through discussion and observation of these students, Fernsten reports that both struggled with writing, as they felt misunderstood and “unsuccessful when people focused on [their] formal construction of language” (382). As a result of this study, Fernsten resolved to incorporate more expressivist genres in her courses and “to include a number of alternative ways of responding” to student writing. She states that “even in formal required academic assignments, [she] allows for hybridity, which blends genres and discourses” and justifies these strategies in that they “help students understand writing expectations” (385). Fernsten ends her article by calling for action to “take up a political discourse that empowers instructors and students to discuss language difference openly,” thus reconstructing the composition classroom to become a “more inclusive, culturally competent environment” (385-386).

This article is useful in providing an alternative way of viewing language policy and ESL writers. By studying how second language writers are affected by academic discourse, instructors can better understand these students’ attitudes toward writing and how to reconstruct the composition classroom in order to help these students feel less marginalized.

Blog Entry #3

Horner, B., & Trimbur, J. 2002. “English Only and U.S. College Composition.” College Composition and Communication, 53.4, 594-630.


In their article “English Only and U.S. College Composition,” Horner and Trimbur examine the historical origins of the “tacit policy of English monolingualism” in the university curriculum (594). Their purpose is to question this policy and how it became so firmly rooted within the curriculum. They “argue that a tacit language policy of unidirectional English monolingualism has shaped the historical formation of U.S. writing instruction and continues to influence its theory and practice…” (594). They acknowledge that by neglecting to understand how this policy came into existence, it will “continue to exert a powerful influence on our teaching, writing programs, and our impact on U.S. culture” (595).

Horner and Trimbur reference the institutionalization of writing instruction in the modern university when the classical curriculum was replaced with “secular education in the vernacular” (595). This movement not only established the “required first-year course in written English,” but also “replaced the bilingualism of the classical curriculum with a unidirectional monolingualism” (595). Harvard played an important role in the movement toward monolingualism by moving away from “the classical curriculum’s predominantly oral and performative pedagogy,“ and replacing it with “an emphasis on such now standard literate practices as lectures and student production of written texts” (599). Evidence of this is seen in the Harvard Reports, which discourage oral practices and call for “[replacement] of the daily oral recitations in all classes with regular written exercises” (600).

Horner and Trimbur sum up “the settlement of the modern curriculum and the roles ascribed to English and other languages” within four beliefs that formed within the first two decades of the Modern Language Association:

“1. Learning the modern languages as living, spoken languages is held to be a nonintellectual, feminine activity.
2. The modern languages are represented not as living languages but as texts in an archive.
3. The study of modern languages figures unidirectionally, not as an end in itself but as a means to mastering English.
4. English in the U.S. is represented in geographical isolation from the other modern languages” (603-606).

They address the debate over the English-Only policy through “identifying the operation of reified notions of language and sociocultural identity [in arguments advocating English-Only], revealing that there are similar notions in arguments made against English-Only the policies and for the rights of first-year composition students,” and considering the arguments‘ implications (608). However, they state that this debate focuses “squarely within the confines of the United States” and they define the task to be completed as “developing an internationalist perspective capable of understanding the study and teaching of written English in relation to other languages and to the dynamics of globalization” (624).

I would recommend this article to anyone interested in understanding how and why the policy of English monolingualism became rooted in the U.S. college composition curriculum. Unless those within the field seek to understand the history, the policy will continue to dominate over writing instruction and the “opportunities for rethinking writing in the academy” will be difficult to achieve.

Blog Entry #2

Costino, K. A. & Hyon, S. "“A Class for Students Like Me”: Reconsidering relationships among identity labels, residency status, and students’ preferences for mainstream or multilingual composition." Journal of Second Language Writing 16.2 (2007): 63-81. Web. 4 Feb 2010.

Costino and Hyon’s article pertaining to ESL students’ feelings regarding identity labels and their choice to enroll in mainstream versus multilingual composition courses was an appropriate article for my next blog entry as last week’s class briefly mentioned this topic. As I read through the introduction, I recalled how we had discussed that some ESL students may take offense to certain “labels” regarding their L2 status. In addition, they may even choose to enroll in mainstream composition courses for this very reason. These issues motivated Costino and Hyon’s study in which they analyzed “possible connections or disconnections among students’ responses to identity labels, their residency statuses, and their composition course preferences” (65). The study centered around two main questions:

1. “How do [students] understand and affiliate with various linguistic identity labels that are often institutionally ascribed to them?”
2. “Why do students prefer one type of composition course (mainstream or multilingual) over another? (65)

As I have chosen to direct my focus toward the effects of language policy within the ESL composition classroom, I was especially interested in the findings pertaining to question #2.
For their study, the authors interviewed nine ESL students taken from both mainstream and multilingual composition courses. They asked the students questions regarding their “experiences in basic writing and [first year composition],” as well as questions in which the students described the preparation, patterns, and methods used in the courses. In addition, the authors also included questions inquiring about the identity labels students encountered while enrolled in their courses and their reasoning for preferring either mainstream or multilingual composition courses (66-67). Their findings concluded that the students who were interviewed “defined the labels in terms of English language ability, though they did not always agree on which labels signified strong or weak ability” (69). More interestingly, most students expressed the desire to enroll in a course with other students with whom they could relate to in terms of “current language ability” (74). These students explained that mainstream courses had an “American context” which would be more difficult for them and that they “felt less comfortable speaking in the mainstream environment” (75). However, the students who preferred mainstream composition courses justified their choice not based on linguistic assistance, but that the courses “spoke to the strong language abilities they already had” (74).

When viewed separately, the two questions presented interesting findings that seemed to be well-justified. However, the authors were unable to find a relationship between “writing course preferences and label affiliations” (76). As my focus for this course will not be specifically analyzing ESL students and identity labels, I was more interested in the results for the second question regarding ESL students and their preference for mainstream or multilingual writing courses. For this purpose I found this article to be very informative and extremely relevant and useful for my focus.