Disability Studies Annotation

I believe that the classroom should be a playground that fosters creativity and curiosity and one that encourages innovation with an understanding that learning and critically thinking begins with failure. In order to create this type of environment I had to reframe the rhetoric of failure and then create an environment where diversity was not just tolerated (even more than just appreciated) but looked as a necessity in order to move through failure to success. I researched the company Google X as an example of a collaborative environment that fosters innovation by starting with failure. At the time, I examined the instructor’s role as a facilitator. I understood that collaborative learning had to be a part of this environment. Smaller groups throughout the semester where they key to create this type of community. The issue is that collaborative work isn't always accommodating and accessible, particularly for those with mental disabilities. Mental disability can be more invisible in the classroom and often lower on the disability hierarchy. People can’t see it, so they often have a more difficult time understanding the existence of mental disability.

The research I have gathered examines collaborative learning through a disability studies lens and addresses the questions: What is the role of the instructor in this type of environment? How should the groups be chosen? Will semester-long groups help draw the students away from who is contributing what, stop focusing on the grade, and start asking questions and appreciating each other’s difference? Will this type of collaborative learning promote the perspective of research as a social act and help students view their peers as cultural informants? What is the best approach to create a classroom that promotes innovation, centers on failure, and incorporates discussion assessment accessible for those with mental disabilities?

Browning, Ella R. “Disability Studies in the Composition Classroom.” Composition Studies, vol. 42, no. 2, Fall 2014, pp. 96-117. EBSCOhost, ezproxy.umsl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=99660806&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

In “Disability Studies in the Composition Classroom” Ella Browning asks readers to reflect on their pedagogical strategies and reimagine how they can incorporate disability into the curriculum rather than including it as an add-on or afterthought at the end. She offers a sample curriculum to provide readers with a practical approach. Browning begins by outlining why disability studies should be in the composition classroom. Disability studies ask people to take a closer look at language usage and challenges binary thinking. She notes that disability needs to be actively integrated into the curriculum.

Theories are discussed in the article, but practical approaches follow the discussion. Browning begins with a selection from Brenda Brueggemann’s essay “An Enabling Pedagogy; Meditations on Writing and Disability” selecting one of the classroom spaces, themed as “Abilities in America.” The readings discuss cultural issues through a disability’s lens. Browning argues that discussing disabilities is not enough; disability studies needs to be incorporated into the curriculum because it includes theory and insight on analyzing multiple perspectives and language usage. She suggests assigning readings from disabled writers, not readings of “overcoming narratives”, but ones that demonstrate that people with disability live full-filling lives. She provides an example of an assignment where students are asked to examine visual images created by stakeholders of a topic and the way they portray disability and how that plays into people’s perception of disability. She offers a list of questions for instructors to consider to help them “avoid ableist ideologies” (112), such as the physical space and accessibility of their classrooms, assumptions instructors have about their students and their abilities, the accessibility of the technology and materials used in the course, the language an instructor uses, the types of identity represented in course material, making sure all are included.

Disability study has not been included in my curriculum before. I think sometimes I’m so worried about approaching topics, like disability, incorrectly, that I avoid discussing it at all.  However, as Browning points out, doing nothing is also a rhetorical act and has consequences; in this instance, the consequence is that our students stay ignorant and disabilities remain invisible.  What I appreciated the most about Browning’s article is that she begins by providing a background of the foundations of disability studies. Disability study is about accessibility, including accessibility of writing. Browning acknowledges that readers may approach her writing with little knowledge about disability studies, so she highlights the nuts and bolts of it. She does an excellent job of defining the medical model and social model, one that I plan on quoting when I talk to my students and others about disability. Most definitions that I have encountered use “social barriers” as part of the definition but do not tease out the definition what constitutes as social barriers. As I tried to explain these models to other people, I found myself often struggle to come up with a concise definition, and often had to draw out the definition by providing a specific example. Browning’s definition is digestible.

Browning also provides an example of an “invention activity” where the class lists hot topics. Her class selected  “date rape” as their topic. Breggemann asked the class how disability connected to this topic. I have to admit that as I read, I paused, blanking, as I tried to come up with a way that disability related to date rape. Brueggemann pointed out how an alarmingly high portion of the disabled community, especially those institutionalized” have been sexually abused or the misperceptions on a disabled individualizes sexuality and sexual capability. Browning mentions that the critical thinking and the assessment of a student’s learning isn’t always demonstrated in one final project at the end. She specifically uses examples of a reflection essay placed at the end of the semester. I’m glad she mentioned this because its ideology connects to Jesuit pedagogies’ perspective about reflection- to reflect often. Within these types of assignments, or in conversation, an instructor will be able to gage whether or not learning is taking place. It’s important to take an inventor at the beginning of the semester to see what students know. How else are you going to know where they are at and how you are going to meet them where they are? How are you going to meet them where they are when you don’t know where they are at?

Kerschbaum, Stephanie L. “Avoiding the Difference Fixation: Identity Categories, Markers of Difference, and the Teaching of Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 63, no. 4, 2012, pp. 616–644. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23264231.

The article explores the framework of differences. Kerschbaum discusses the impulsivity of fixity and the harmfulness of overemphasis on categorization. Differences are not static and are not created during one isolated moment. Identity does not stem from one individual characteristic but a constellation of many parts. The article outlines two dominant strategies on addressing differences. The first is taxonomizing differences, which strives for precise difference definitions that provides a wide range of interpretive possibilities for each category. The downside of this approach is that instructors become too fixated on the categories that they start to miss other relevant details outside the parameters of the categories. Redefining categories resist essentialism; however, sometimes instructors focus on categorical differences that may not exist within the group. Both taxonomizing differences and redefining them make differences appear static. Placing differences in categories creates more of an impulse to fix differences. Kerschbaum encourages readers to apply rhetorical listening to help resist this urge to fix. Identifying differences should cultivate awareness and contextualize differences within a series of moments. Categorizing differences, such as gender, race, disability, etc. can’t be used as a pedagogical course of action. Two individual’s differences do not mean they experience the same thing. For instance, two students may be placed in a disability category because they are deaf, but those two individuals experience and talk about deafness differently. Those differences may not emerge until a communicative situation occurs between the two students. Therefore, differences are relational and evolving. Kerschbaum also provides personal anecdote as a deaf instructor. If a student doesn’t realize she is deaf and asks her where she is from, she responds differently about her deafness than she would if a student asked her if she knew sign language. This demonstrates that differences can cause others to shift perspectives they have about others and their own identity. Since differences aren’t fixed, instructors and researchers need to be open-minded about identity, recognizing that identity isn’t fixed either. Markers of difference a composed of three elements – dynamism, relationality, and emergence. 

Kerschbaum claims that differences are emergent because differences emerge from students’ interactions and conversations with others- what they decide to reveal and not reveal what they respond to and not respond to. Markers of difference bridge the gaps of categorization.

Kerschbaum’s work has helped me reexamine the formation of groups. Prior to reading this article, I assumed that the creation of groups could be formulated based on students’ difference, but Kerschbaum’s article helped me realize the harm in categorization and the complexity of locating difference among students.

Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. "My 'Orphan Disease' Gave Me a New Family." New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) ed., Oct 29 2017, ProQuest. Web. 14 Dec. 2018 .

Rosemaire Garland-Thomson’s article in The New York Times discusses her rare genetic condition and how it helped her form a kinship with the disability community. She begins by describing her physical traits that she has in common with her family members, and then leads into a comparison of these similar traits to her complex syndactyly, which sets her apart. She highlights the comparison on how her condition is viewed compared to a birth defect, and provides perspective on how society views differences and disability. She is released of blame- it isn’t a consequence of “bad” behavior from her mother while she was pregnant or something she caused. The rarity of her engrammatic condition makes it special, almost like it's destiny, and that there’s a higher purpose behind it. Garland-Thomson highlights the evolution of the value of physical traits, and describes the disabled as innovators and inventors, mentioning these adjectives three times throughout the piece. She reminds readers that everyone will be disabled at some point in their lives, which links everyone together. Although this article doesn’t directly relate to my research topic, I wanted to read something from Garland-Thomson because I found her other works to be absolutely brilliant and have provided me with a new perspective on certain issue. This article made me reevaluate what society deems as different and what they value. As I read the piece, I kept thinking about how and when we use the words different and diversity. I think appreciation is the missing link.