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.