Owen Barden

The coronavirus pandemic necessitated rapid, radical changes to global systems, structures, and organisations across all areas of life, including education, healthcare, and social services. These changes were something of a double‐edged sword. On the one hand, widespread adoption of the kinds of remote‐working technologies long advocated for by disabled people opened up possibilities for inclusion. On the other, some people’s inability to access such technologies, together with increased social isolation, exacerbated forms of exclusion. This thematic issue considers what lessons can be learned from the pandemic in striving to design a future which is more inclusive for all. In this editorial, we provide a brief overview of some of the major challenges the pandemic created for disabled people, who were disproportionately negatively affected by it. We also suggest that a disability rights lens is a useful way of highlighting both the contingency of disability and the need for more res...

My thesis in this chapter is threefold. Firstly, I contend that “Learning Difficulties” as we now understand them are a phenomenon created by certain contingent discursive formations. That is to say that they are not natural, but manufactured, and dependent on particular, peculiar historical conditions. Secondly, that “Learning Difficulties” is an organizing concept: one which has, over the course of the 20th and 21st-centuries, irrespective of the shifting signifying terminology used over this period, radically transformed our sense not only of education and learning, but also of who is or is not deemed entitled to full citizenship and the associated rights, and so who is or is not fully human. Thirdly, that a regime of truth has been constructed around “Learning Difficulties” which privileges certain knowledges and excludes alternative ways of knowing, most notably those of people labelled with Learning Difficulties.

This chapter elaborates Bolt's (2012) concept of critical avoidance through reference to Brian Street's seminal ideological model of literacy (Street, 1984). According to Bolt, critical avoidance occurs when avoidance of disability is replicated at the curricular level, and results in a general lack of informed engagement with disability as well as the perpetuation of tropes and stereotypes associated with impairment. I suggest that critical avoidance is manifest when students labelled as dyslexic are subjected to normalising pedagogies away from the mainstream class and curriculum, and consequently discursively represented as literacy 'strugglers' or 'failures' with Special Educational Needs. Such remedial pedagogies are predicated on the idea of encouraging independence in and through normative literacy skill development. In setting out his ideological model of literacy, Street (1984) critiqued the fallacy inherent in conceptualising literacy simply as a se...

Imagine fluently speaking two languages, but not English, and having two degrees from Cairo University, and then having to retrain in a new language – English. This is the example of a teacher from Egypt, a Coptic Christian, who managed to immigrate to Australia just before the Arab Spring political uprising in January 2011. Coptic Christians faced discrimination and violent clashes. Her husband came to Australia on a skilled immigrant visa. E’s qualifications were not recognised in Australia, so she had to retrain. E’s story is but one of a number from Australian and British adult students we obtained by interview, and which we report in this chapter. In relaying these students' voices, we attempt to re-emphasise the importance of mentors, coaches and tutors understanding the principles underpinning inclusiveness. This chapter looks at cultural aspects of inclusive education. Whereas 'inclusion' is often taken only to refer to disabled students or those deemed to have &...

My thesis in this chapter is threefold. Firstly, I contend that “Learning Difficulties” as we now understand them are a phenomenon created by certain contingent discursive formations. That is to say that they are not natural, but manufactured, and dependent on particular, peculiar historical conditions. Secondly, that “Learning Difficulties” is an organizing concept: one which has, over the course of the 20th and 21st-centuries, irrespective of the shifting signifying terminology used over this period, radically transformed our sense not only of education and learning, but also of who is or is not deemed entitled to full citizenship and the associated rights, and so who is or is not fully human. Thirdly, that a regime of truth has been constructed around “Learning Difficulties” which privileges certain knowledges and excludes alternative ways of knowing, most notably those of people labelled with Learning Difficulties.

Contemporaneously with the publication of Lennard Davis’s Enforcing Normalcy in 1995, Keith Stanovich, an eminent Canadian psychologist, was questioning the conceptual foundations of learning disabilities. To illustrate his critique he invented a new learning disability that he called dysrationalia (Stanovich, 1993). Around the same time, Peter Senge's seminal management book The Fifth Discipline was encouraging people to credit organisations with the ability to learn and even to have learning disabilities (Senge, 1990). True to the interdisciplinary ethos of Disability Studies, in this chapter I draw on current and historical perspectives from discourses including philosophy, critical and cognitive psychology, and organisation management to ask if dysrationalia can help to explain social attitudes toward disability as they occur within organisations.

“Oh my, what a gathering!” commented one observer upon seeing photographs of the Disability and Disciplines Conference published on Facebook. Another spoke of “Disability Studies royalty all in one room.” Although the scholars concerned would no doubt balk at such a description, this conference— organized by David Bolt, Claire Penketh, Heidi Mapley, and other core members of the Centre for Culture and Disability Studies, 1 and 2 July 2015— truly was a remarkable event. Almost sixty papers in eighteen panels, as well as three keynotes, were presented over the two days, and of course much of the conference’s strength lay in its diversity. The theme of Disability and Disciplines enabled presenters to engage with an extensive range of topics, held together by a thread of criticality drawn from David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder’s The Biopolitics of Disability that questioned the limits of inclusion through embodied pedagogies. The keynotes were of course fantastic. Julie Allan closed the first day with an erudite, impassioned plea for better recognition and appreciation for the role of art and “serious play” as ways of learning about and through disability, aesthetics, and ethics. On day two, Peter Beresford delivered a strong critique of the narrative of “recovery” which permeates discourses of psychiatry and mental health, arguing for greater acknowledgement of other models of mental health and living. Delegates’ tweets about Beresford’s paper were credited with boosting interest in Mad Studies. David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder closed the conference by screening a short film made by their George Washington University undergraduates about a visit to Germany, illustrating the powerful learning about contemporary marginalization engendered through tangible experience of international disability history and eugenics. There were many other highlights—far too many for any one person to keep track of. With this in mind—and inspired by Rosemarie Garland-Thomson and Georgina Kleege’s plenary panel, where digital technologies were used to help the audience engage with, and contribute to, the presentations—this Comment

ABSTRACT This paper reports on the novel methodology used in a participatory project called ‘Inside the History of Learning Disabilities.’ Through engaging learning-disabled people as co-researchers with valuable insider knowledge and expertise to share, the project sought to disrupt hegemonic discourses around both the history of ’learning disabilities’, and of the lived experience of learning disabilities today. The overall objective was to make an important contribution to the growing field of interdisciplinary and emancipatory research about learning disabilities. The year-long project used a bespoke, two-step methodology in addressing this objective, combining archival research with a series of participatory focused workshops. Traditional methods and academic expertise in archival research and textual analysis were combined with less orthodox approaches to elicit insider knowledge about learning disabilities, which was then expressed in a range of ways. These expressions provide preliminary indications of how emancipatory and transformational research aims may be met. The paper makes a contribution to the discourse around new and emerging action research methodologies which seek to promote social justice. It describes away to not only recognise and challenge the oppression and exclusion encountered by disabled people, but to advocate for appreciation of disability and the insider-knowledge learning-disabled people have.

Lexism (Collinson, 2012, 2014) is alternative conceptualisation of what defines dyslexics. Much as ableism and racism entail prejudice against specific culturally constructed groups, lexism is the Othering of, and discrimination against, dyslexics. Lexism is the result of normative attitudes and beliefs of literacy – that literacy should only be ‘done’ a certain way. We use the new concept of lexism to reassess some assumptions around literacy and dyslexia, and then to examine the way social media can act as enabling technologies which unsettle these normative assumptions.

Held at the Merseyside Maritime Museum on 13 October 2015, this conference brought together recent research, policy, and practice to discuss the latest developments in challenging hate crime. Organized by the International Criminological Research Unit (ICRU) at the University of Liverpool, in partnership with Merseyside Police and Moving On with Life and Learning (MOWLL), the importance of "partnership" echoed throughout the day. The transdisciplinary nature of the conference invited speakers from a range of fields to explore the impact of hate crime for the communities too often placed at the centre of victimology. The wide range of speakers included activists, academics, and practitioners representing disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. While recognizing the unique cases of hate crime for these different communities, the idea of collaboration was central to developing future debates that could continue to challenge all aspects of hate crime.Introducing the day's keynotes, Professor David Ormerod employed a political interpretation of hate crime. In relation to the project assigned to the Law of Commissions by the Ministry of Justice, he provided a brief outline of the Commissions response for the development of hate crime legislation. The primary concern underpinning this project was the need to extend the categories of "aggravated offences" and "stirring up hatred" so that they applied to all five protected characteristics. In a politically informed exploration of the conceptual tensions underpinning hate crime legislation, Professor Ormerod concluded by giving the final recommendation of the Commission not to extend the current offences. Although justified on the basis that such offences lacked relevance to the forms of hate crime most often experienced by both lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and disabled communities, this conclusion generated a varied response among the academics, activists, and professionals in the room. While I recognized the political complexity that legislative change entails, this conclusion left me pondering the political "misinterpretation" of a human rights agenda that continued a system of legislative discrepancy. Moreover, I could not help feeling pessimistic about the political developments aiming to challenge hate crime. If disabled and LGBT communities are not given equal status and protection in legislation, I wonder how they might gain this in a society that has historically nurtured a rejection of difference.Centred on a "public health" approach to the problem of hate crime, Professor Paul Iganski invited us to move away from the criminological focus of "reporting" crime toward a global perspective on both the spatial and psycho-social consequences. The psycho-social approach extended my own interpretation of victimization, and led me to focus not only on the instant physical and emotional effects of hate crime but also on those of post-traumatic stress, identity, and visibility. Perhaps of greater impact, however, Professor Iganski reaffirmed the spatial impact of hate crime, such as the sense of "locational imprisonment," whereby many communities feel restricted and have to avoid certain areas that threaten their identity. The unsettling severity of a "global problem" questions the cultural and social conditions in which hate crime is nested, probing the need for preventative measures on both individual and community levels. Professor Iganski's attempt to move toward a public health approach therefore encouraged a model of resistance and prevention predicated upon a communitive challenge to hate crime.These keynotes introduced the conference to hate crime in relation to race, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation. However, my main reflections here are on the work of Professor Alan Roulstone regarding disablist hate crime.1Professor Roulstone introduced the conference to many of the issues faced when challenging disablist hate crime. …

This paper contributes a definition of mobile literacies, with specific reference to higher education. This is worthwhile because although mobile, internet-enabled devices are increasingly prevalent in many people's lives, mobile literacies appear to be under-theorised and lacking definition. After giving an overview of the scale and nature of mobile device use, the paper develops the definition through building on an existing body of work which seeks to define literacies, digital literacies and mobile learning. The definition takes account of the mobility of technology, of learners, and of learning in current HE contexts. A systematic multimodal analysis of a complex undergraduate text, in the form of a conference-style poster, is then undertaken in order to exemplify the definition offered. The analysis attends to both the semiotic resources exploited by the text's author and the wider context the text is created within. Interview data complements that constructed through analysis of the text itself. Combining these two data sources reveals the ideational, interpersonal and textual/organisational meanings communicated by the text, and how mobility is a factor which is fundamental to the literacy practices employed by the author to convey these meanings.

ABSTRACT This is a case study of one student’s mobile device use in HE. We draw on data generated by extended interviews to illustrate the learning practices and dispositions the student, now a co-author, evidenced with his smartphone and other devices whilst producing a third-year undergraduate assignment. We describe the process of assembling a complex academic text across multiple mobile internet-enabled devices. We aim to illuminate some contemporary mobile learning practices, and hence contribute to the discourse on pedagogy, assessment and mobile learning in HE. The paper is timely because although smartphones and internet access are near-ubiquitous in universities, there is relatively little extant research which reports in detail on the ways in which students actually use these technologies in their everyday learning and lives.

In this paper I theorise a contemporary educational configuration, which comprises a physical classroom and an online space. I invoke the hybrid concept of the heterotopic affinity space as a tool for helping us think more clearly about this configuration. The paper thus contributes an alternative way of thinking about a contemporary educational space. Drawing on an empirical classroom research project, I pay particular attention to the way the disciplinary space of a Sixth Form ‘dyslexia support workshop’ is reconfigured into a space which exhibits features of both a heterotopia and an affinity space. However, neither of these concepts by itself can adequately explain the space. The concept of heterotopia is insufficient because although it indicates certain characteristics of the space, it does not adequately account for the shared learning endeavour; the concept of affinity space is insufficient because although it helps us understand aspects of learning within the space, it does...

Held at the Merseyside Maritime Museum on 13 October 2015, this conference brought together recent research, policy, and practice to discuss the latest developments in challenging hate crime. Organized by the International Criminological Research Unit (ICRU) at the University of Liverpool, in partnership with Merseyside Police and Moving On with Life and Learning (MOWLL), the importance of "partnership" echoed throughout the day. The transdisciplinary nature of the conference invited speakers from a range of fields to explore the impact of hate crime for the communities too often placed at the centre of victimology. The wide range of speakers included activists, academics, and practitioners representing disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. While recognizing the unique cases of hate crime for these different communities, the idea of collaboration was central to developing future debates that could continue to challenge all aspects of hate crime.Introducing the day's keynotes, Professor David Ormerod employed a political interpretation of hate crime. In relation to the project assigned to the Law of Commissions by the Ministry of Justice, he provided a brief outline of the Commissions response for the development of hate crime legislation. The primary concern underpinning this project was the need to extend the categories of "aggravated offences" and "stirring up hatred" so that they applied to all five protected characteristics. In a politically informed exploration of the conceptual tensions underpinning hate crime legislation, Professor Ormerod concluded by giving the final recommendation of the Commission not to extend the current offences. Although justified on the basis that such offences lacked relevance to the forms of hate crime most often experienced by both lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and disabled communities, this conclusion generated a varied response among the academics, activists, and professionals in the room. While I recognized the political complexity that legislative change entails, this conclusion left me pondering the political "misinterpretation" of a human rights agenda that continued a system of legislative discrepancy. Moreover, I could not help feeling pessimistic about the political developments aiming to challenge hate crime. If disabled and LGBT communities are not given equal status and protection in legislation, I wonder how they might gain this in a society that has historically nurtured a rejection of difference.Centred on a "public health" approach to the problem of hate crime, Professor Paul Iganski invited us to move away from the criminological focus of "reporting" crime toward a global perspective on both the spatial and psycho-social consequences. The psycho-social approach extended my own interpretation of victimization, and led me to focus not only on the instant physical and emotional effects of hate crime but also on those of post-traumatic stress, identity, and visibility. Perhaps of greater impact, however, Professor Iganski reaffirmed the spatial impact of hate crime, such as the sense of "locational imprisonment," whereby many communities feel restricted and have to avoid certain areas that threaten their identity. The unsettling severity of a "global problem" questions the cultural and social conditions in which hate crime is nested, probing the need for preventative measures on both individual and community levels. Professor Iganski's attempt to move toward a public health approach therefore encouraged a model of resistance and prevention predicated upon a communitive challenge to hate crime.These keynotes introduced the conference to hate crime in relation to race, religion, gender identity, and sexual orientation. However, my main reflections here are on the work of Professor Alan Roulstone regarding disablist hate crime.1Professor Roulstone introduced the conference to many of the issues faced when challenging disablist hate crime. …

PurposeDefining and describing research methodologies is difficult. Methodologies have similarities and resonances, and overlapping characteristics. Familiar labels of case study, action research and ethnography may not be adequate to describe new and creative approaches to qualitative research. If we simply transfer old ways to new contexts, we risk limiting our understanding of the complexities of real life settings. The call to set aside old dualisms and devise new methodological approaches has been sounded. Accordingly, this article sets out to describe a fledgling new methodological approach, and how it was operationalized in a small‐scale study of digitally‐mediated classroom learning.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology combines elements of action research and case study with an ethnographic approach. It was devised for a study of the use of Facebook as an educational resource by five dyslexic students at a sixth form college in north‐west England. Its flexibility and a...

This paper reports on the novel methodology used in a participatory project called "Inside the History of Learning Disabilities." Through engaging learning-disabled people as co-researchers with valuable insider knowledge and expertise to share, the project sought to disrupt hegemonic discourses around both the history of what are now called 'learning disabilities', and of the lived experience of learning disabilities today. The overall objective was to make an important contribution to the growing field of interdisciplinary and emancipatory research about learning disabilities. The year-long project used a bespoke, two-step methodology in addressing this objective, combining archival research with a series of participatory focused workshops. Although the field of disability studies has already enjoyed some success in challenging some more traditional modes of research production, major barriers to disabled people engaging with research still exist. This paper explores the foundations of the research design and its implementation, which attempted to address these barriers through a democratic and democratising inclusive research project. Traditional methods and academic expertise in archival research and textual analysis were combined with less orthodox approaches to elicit insider knowledge about learning disabilities, which was then expressed in a range of ways. These expressions provide some preliminary indications of how emancipatory and transformational research aims may be met. The paper thus makes a contribution to the discourse around new and emerging action research methodologies which seek promote social justice. It describes a way to not only recognise and challenge the oppression and exclusion too-frequently encountered by disabled people, but to advocate for an appreciation of disability and the insider-knowledge learning-disabled people have.

This paper contributes a definition of mobile literacies, with specific reference to higher education. This is worthwhile because although mobile, internet-enabled devices are increasingly prevalent in many people's lives, mobile literacies appear to be under-theorised and lacking definition. After giving an overview of the scale and nature of mobile device use, the paper develops the definition through building on an existing body of work which seeks to define literacies, digital literacies and mobile learning. The definition takes account of the mobility of technology, of learners, and of learning in current HE contexts. A systematic multimodal analysis of a complex undergraduate text, in the form of a conference-style poster, is then undertaken in order to exemplify the definition offered. The analysis attends to both the semiotic resources exploited by the text's author and the wider context the text is created within. Interview data complements that constructed through analysis of the text itself. Combining these two data sources reveals the ideational, interpersonal and textual/organisational meanings communicated by the text, and how mobility is a factor which is fundamental to the literacy practices employed by the author to convey these meanings.

In this paper I theorise a contemporary educational configuration, which comprises a physical classroom and an online space. I invoke the hybrid concept of the heterotopic affinity space as a tool for helping us think more clearly and critically about the character of, and activity within, this configuration.  The paper thus contributes an alternative way of thinking about a contemporary educational space. Drawing on an empirical classroom research project, I pay particular attention to the way the disciplinary space of a Sixth Form "dyslexia support workshop" is reconfigured into a space which exhibits features of both a heterotopia and an affinity space. However, neither of these concepts by itself can adequately explain the space. The concept of heterotopia is insufficient because although it indicates certain characteristics of the space, it does not adequately account for the shared learning endeavour; the concept of affinity space is insufficient because although it helps us understand aspects of learning within the space, it does not adequately account for the Otherness of the space. I therefore apply and problematise the metaphors of heterotopia and affinity spaces in relation to the project space, before synthesising these two concepts to reveal resonances and resolve dissonances between them.  I propose the new hybrid concept of heterotopic affinity space as a way of better understanding the project space, and suggest this concept may be useful in coming to understand other contemporary educational configurations.

This paper examines the role of identities in underpinning and activating literacies learning in a small class of adolescent students labelled with dyslexia. It derives from a project in which teacher-researcher and student-participants co-constructed a Facebook group page about the students’ scaffolded research into dyslexia. The study investigated an apparent paradox: that although literacy demands are often cited as barriers to learning and participation for students labelled with dyslexia, social networking technologies seem to motivate at least some such students to willingly undertake significant amounts of reading and writing. Two interrelated potential explanations are investigated to attempt to resolve this paradox. Firstly, that the social and collaborative nature of Facebook literacy events and practices, which promotes a sense of shared identity amongst the participants, is itself motivating. Secondly, that identity strongly influences engagement with texts. Three intert...

This paper proposes a new way of thinking about a contemporary educational space. This new way of thinking combines two established spatial metaphors to develop an enhanced understanding of a contemporary educational configuration. Drawing on a recent empirical classroom research project, I argue that the project space exhibited features of both a heterotopia and an affinity space, yet that neither of these concepts by itself can adequately explain the character of the space. The concept of heterotopia is insufficient because it does not adequately account for the shared learning endeavour; the concept of affinity space is insufficient because it does not adequately account for the Otherness of the space. I apply and problematise the metaphors of heterotopia and affinity spaces in relation to the project space, before synthesising these two concepts to reveal resonances and resolve dissonances between them.  I propose the new hybrid concept of heterotopic affinity space as a way of better understanding the project space, arguing for its usefulness whilst acknowledging its limitations. This paper therefore advocates the hybrid concept of the heterotopic affinity space as a tool for helping us think more clearly about contemporary educational spaces.

This chapter appropriates and repurposes Keith Stanovich’s (1993) concept dysrationalia, to examine its usefulness in explaining institutional attitudes towards disability. Drawing on evidence from psychology, philosophy and management as well as Disability Studies, it will be argued that people are predisposed to irrational thought and action when faced with the “problem” of disability, and that as a result the organisations that those people represent also tend towards irrationality.  The chapter concludes with suggestions for fostering more rational attitudes.

This article discusses the combination of methods used in a study of the use of Facebook as an educational resource by a class of five students at a Sixth Form College in north-west England. Through a project in which teacher-researcher and student-participants co-constructed a Facebook group page about the students’ scaffolded research into dyslexia, the study examined the educational affordances of a digitally-mediated social network. Combining multiple data-collection methods including participant-observation, semi-structured interviews, video recordings, dynamic screen capture (Asselin & Moayeri 2010; Cox 2007), and protocol analysis (Ericsson & Simon 1993) helped to capture multiple perspectives on the learning that happened in the classroom over the five weeks of the research project's lifetime. Aggregating the resulting data permitted meticulous, comprehensive reconstruction and analysis of aspects of that learning. Crucially, insights were gained which would not have been afforded by a more orthodox approach. The article presents and analyses excerpts from the data which help to illustrate these insights. The discussion identifies potential benefits of employing these methods and also acknowledges factors which hampered fully effective joint implementation in this study. As well as suggesting improvements that could make the approach worth considering for any study exploring screen-mediated classroom learning, I hope to offer  researchers investigating similar settings some insight into the potential, pitfalls and limitations of attempting to combine these methods.

Dyslexia has an ambivalent relationship with learning technology. Any potential gains may be nullified if the technology is perceived to exacerbate stigma. This paper examines the use of an ‘everyday’ technology, Facebook, by a small group of sixth form students labelled as dyslexic. "Levelling the playing field" is a phrase the participants used often when discussing what they wanted from learning technology. As dyslexia is usually defined in terms of significant difficulties with literacy, we might reasonably anticipate that the participants would see Facebook as stigmatising rather than levelling the playing field, because of the very public literacy events that it demands. However, the data indicates that far from shying away from Facebook because of fears around exposing their difficulties with literacy, the participants enthusiastically embraced it.  The students saw Facebook as a desirable presence in their education, one which supported inclusion. For them, levelling the playing field with Facebook had five dimensions: keeping up to date and meeting deadlines; increased control over learning; developing metacognitive awareness; greater control over literacy process and demands; being experts and helpers.  The findings perhaps challenge some assumptions about dyslexia, literacy and learning, and may be of interest to teachers working with dyslexic students, or researchers studying learning in digitally-mediated social networks.

Defining and describing research methodologies is difficult. Methodologies have similarities and resonances, and overlapping characteristics (Freebody 2003).  The familiar labels of case study, action research and ethnography may not be adequate to describe new and creative approaches to qualitative research. Doggedly sticking to them risks limiting our understanding of the complexities of real life settings, if we simply transfer old ways to new contexts (Beneito-Montagut, 2011). The call to set aside old dualisms and devise new methodological approaches has been sounded (Pring, 2000; White, Drew & Hay, 2009). The voices of researchers studying digitally-mediated environments and processes have formed part of this chorus (e.g. Nixon, 2003; Williams, 2011). In this article I describe a methodology combining elements of action research and case study with an ethnographic approach. It was devised for a study of the use of Facebook as an educational resource by five dyslexic students at a Sixth Form College in north-west England. Its flexibility and attention to detail enabled multiple data collection methods. This range of methods helped me to capture and analyse much of the depth and complexity of the students’ online and offline interactions with each other and with Facebook as they co-constructed their group Facebook page.  I hope to contribute to the discourse on qualitative methodology and invite other researchers studying similar contexts consider a similar approach.

This article is derived from a study of the use of Facebook as an educational resource by five dyslexic students at a Sixth Form College in north-west England. Through a project in which teacher-researcher and student-participants co-constructed a group Facebook page about the students’ scaffolded research into dyslexia, the study examined the educational affordances of a digitally-mediated social network. An innovative, flexible, experiential methodology combining action research and case study with an ethnographic approach was devised. This enabled the use of multiple mixed methods, capturing much of the rich complexity of the students’ online and offline interactions with each other and with digital media as they contributed to the group and co-constructed their group Facebook page. Social perspectives on dyslexia (Cooper, 2006; Herrington & Hunter-Carsch, 2001) and multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Gee, 1996; Street 1984 & 2003) were used to help interpret the students’ engagement with the social network and thereby deduce its educational potential. The research concludes that as a digitally mediated social network, Facebook engages the students in active, critical learning about and through literacies in a rich and complex semiotic domain (Gee, 2004, 2005 & 2007). Offline dialogue plays a crucial role. This learning is reciprocally shaped by the students' developing identities as both dyslexic students and able learners. The findings suggest that social media can have advantageous applications for literacy learning in the classroom. In prompting learning yet remaining unchanged by it, Facebook can be likened to a catalyst.

This is a study of the use of Facebook as an educational resource by five dyslexic students at a Sixth Form College in north-west England. Through a project in which teacher-researcher and student-participants co-constructed a Facebook group page about the students’ scaffolded research into dyslexia, the study examines the educational affordances of a digitally-mediated social network. An innovative, flexible, experiential methodology combining action research and case study with an ethnographic approach was devised. This enabled the use of multiple mixed methods including participant-observation, interviews, video, dynamic screen capture and protocol analysis. This range of methods helped to capture much of the depth and complexity of the students’ online and offline interactions with each other and with Facebook as they contributed to the group and co-constructed their Facebook page. The philosophy and concepts of the New Literacy Studies and multimodality (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, Kress 2010), and rigorous qualitative analytical procedures are used to construct a substantive grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) of the students’ engagement with the social network and hence its educational potential. The study assesses the students' motivation to learn through literacy, the role of identities, and considers the pedagogical principles their use of the network evokes. It concludes that Facebook offers an affinity space which engages the students in active, critical learning about and through literacy (Gee, 2004 & 2007). Little if any research has apparently been documented on the potential of digital media to engage and motivate dyslexic students, nor to integrate models of dyslexia, radical perspectives on literacy and social models of disability (Herrington & Hunter-Carsch, 2001). This study begins to address this oversight and imbalance.