• Login
    View Item 
    •   Athenaeum Home
    • University of Georgia Theses and Dissertations
    • University of Georgia Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    •   Athenaeum Home
    • University of Georgia Theses and Dissertations
    • University of Georgia Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Deconstructing disability and (special) education: a rhizoanalysis

    Thumbnail
    Date
    2001-12
    Author
    Bowles, Steffanie Noreen
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    This study, a poststructural ethnography, used rhizoanalysis to deconstruct the literacy practices of four students in an urban middle school self-contained classroom for students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) in order to understand how a constructivist learning environment contributes to the positioning of students as abled and literate.|This poststructural Ethnography includes textual experimentation, a focus on the research process itself, and obliteration of the customary and mannerly distinction between researcher and researched. A poststructural ethnography puts the interlocutor into the account and makes the tension that comes with interaction and negotiation between researcher and participant explicit.|Data was collected in the form of narratives written from participant observation, documents including work samples and student records, and videotapes of class sessions and member checks. Data was analyzed using rhizoanalysis.|The results of the study indicate that the focal informants were able to get it right as students in the SLD classroom. Helping others, engaging in research, and working hard were practices that the students and teachers came to see as useful in the struggle to reposition themselves as literate/able. The tasks and curriculum worked to position students and shape their literate practices. Using technology also helped the participants "get it right" as students. Students were agentic in that they were sometimes able to recognize the constitutive force of the discourses of regular and special education and in some ways were able to change/resist those discourses.|While the focal informants were agentic in some ways, they were not always able to eclipse their positioning by the dominant discourse as illiterate/disabled. Barriers to agency included others' positioning of the students as unable to access discursive, social, and personal resources. Getting it right as students required more than my reading of the students as simultaneously literate/illiterate, abled/disabled. It also required that others in the school community read them as able to legitimately take up agentic subject positions.
    URI
    http://purl.galileo.usg.edu/uga_etd/bowles_steffanie_n_200112_phd
    http://hdl.handle.net/10724/20289
    Collections
    • University of Georgia Theses and Dissertations

    About Athenaeum | Contact Us | Send Feedback
     

     

    Browse

    All of AthenaeumCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    About Athenaeum | Contact Us | Send Feedback