Examining the Possibilities of Critical Literacy for Students With Disabilities

• In Event: Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Teaching in Special Education

Abstract

Despite an overall trend of critical literacy during the mid- to late-20thcentury (Freebody & Luke, 1990; Freire & Macedo, 1987), no such apparent parallel trend occurred in the special education reading comprehension literature (Berkeley, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2010; Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Gajria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007). Because of this most blatant gap, the purpose of this study is to examine the possibilities of a critical literacy instructional model for students with disabilities, an essential component of Culturally and Linguistically Relevant Teaching (CLRT) . I developed the COAST acronym, which serves as a mnemonic device and set of self-monitoring cues to help students remember the strategies, like examining perspectives missing from the text, considering advantage, and taking action.
I ground this research is the seminal work of Freire and Macedo (1987), supported by contemporary critical literacy theorists who view literacy as a practice embedded within social, cultural, and political spheres (Freebody & Luke, 1990; Janks, 2000). Sociocultural perspectives (Bakhtin, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978) inform the heteroglossic nature of language, that a single text is always contested with competing discourses and perspectives. Language is the primary semiotic tool we use to make meaning of our social worlds (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, multiple and strategic forms of semiotic assistance are necessary for leveraging students’ access to powerful texts.
Five upper elementary students in special education were identified who exhibited adequate reading fluency but difficulties with comprehension. Three students were selected based upon who provided assent and whose parents provided consent, all of which were girls of color. Two of the three students were multilingual learners. Using qualitative methodology, data sources include video-recordings of the lessons, audio-recordings of the lessons, field notes, activity logs, and semi-structured formal interviews with the students’ teachers. Approximately 40 hours of lessons were video- and audio-recorded, resulting in 16-18 total sessions for each of the three students. I wrote analytical comments in my field notes, analytic memos, and discussed possible findings and theories with colleagues throughout the process of collecting data.
Three themes became salient to me as a researcher and educator as I considered my reflexivity (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013) while working with the girls. Tensions related to my positionality, the methods used to implement the instruction, along with the goals I had in mind for them became prominent strands within my quest to understand the possible affordances and constraints of a critical literacy model built using traditional principles of teaching literacy to students of color with disabilities. Unexpected, even so-called incorrect responses led me to recognize the girls’ novel and ingenious perspectives of the critical elements they were learning.
Of the existing models that have been designed with critical lenses, very few have been implemented with readers who score below average (e.g., Haria & Midgette, 2014; Jenkins & Lyle, 2010), and even fewer involve students with diagnosed learning disabilities (e.g., Luna, 2003). This study newly and importantly works to understand the affordances and constraints of critical literacy instructional models for students with disabilities.

Author

• Amy Lynn Ferrell, University of Colorado - Denver