








































Georgia Journal of Literacy 
2023, Vol. 45(1), pp. 4–19 
https://doi.org/10.56887/galiteracy.103 
ISSN: 2833-7611 

Literature Review  

 
 

 

CONTACT Dr. Alexandra Lampp Berglund, Assistant Professor of Reading, Literacy, and Language; Department of 
Professional Learning & Innovation, Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, GA; email alexandra.berglund
@gcsu.edu. 
 

Diverging Ideologies of Disability: A Critique of 
Literature on Inclusive Literacy 
 
Alexandra Lampp Berglund 
Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, GA 

 
ABSTRACT 

Although the concept of literacy has continued to evolve through the work of 
innovative scholars and educators, conventional understandings of literacy still 
abound within published scholarship. Pushing past these traditional notions of 
literacy, a small subset of scholars has advocated for a broadened conceptualization 
of literacy. Labeled inclusive literacy, this relatively new approach to literacy draws 
from both socially and cultural situated literacy practices (Street, 1984) and 
multimodal literacy practices (Kress & VanLeeuwen, 2001), as it takes into account 
diverse symbol systems and acknowledges literacy’s part in daily practices. Further, 
inclusive literacy values all literacy experiences and works to include children with 
disabilities, a group that is so often overlooked in regard to literacy learning (Flewitt 
et al., 2009). Grounded in Critical Disability Studies and language ideology theories, 
this literature review seeks to explore the diverging disability ideologies found in 
research published on inclusive literacy practices and the ways researchers position 
students with disabilities. Specifically, this analysis examines the myriad ways 
scholars take up or fail to acknowledge the term disability as a means to understand 
the ways that language use is connected to disability ideologies (Irvine & Gal, 2000). 

KEYWORDS 

inclusive literacy;  
disability; Critical 
Disability Studies; 
language 
ideology 

 
eu et al. (2013) wrote that literacy “becomes new every day of our lives” (p. 1150). 
However, despite literacy’s continual evolution, understandings of literacy defined by only 
written and print text persist (Lawson et al., 2012). Taking note of literacy’s transformation 

and children’s literacy engagement in different social contexts, New Literacy Studies (NLS) 
theorists have advocated for a broadened conceptualization of literacy (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; 
Street, 1984). Particularly, NLS research has recognized the existence of multiple literacies and 
views literacy as the “socially recognized ways in which people generate, communicate, and 
negotiate meanings” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011, p. 33). A small subset of scholars has worked to 
expand the socially situated and multifaceted understanding of literacy first promoted by NLS. 
This expansion considers diverse symbol systems and the multiple modes involved in meaning 
making (Lawson et al., 2012). Labeling this approach inclusive literacy, these same scholars’ 
visions go further than those associated with NLS, as they have advocated for pushing against 
traditional notions of literacy and sought to include children with disabilities by valuing all literacy 
experiences (Flewitt et al., 2009). In this way, inclusive literacy promotes inclusivity in both the 
literacy practices and learners it supports. 

Promoting inclusivity, much of the published scholarship on inclusive literacy has 
presented diverging ideological constructions of disability. The ideologies infused within this 
research align with different models of disability and derive from varying theoretical positions. 

L 

mailto:alexandra.berglund@gcsu.edu
mailto:alexandra.berglund@gcsu.edu


Lampp Berglund 5 
 

These ideological differences have the potential to impact practicing educators’ understandings of 
inclusivity that ground these inclusive literacy practices. To uncover the array of ideologies of 
disability woven into research conducted on inclusive literacy, a critique of the literature is 
warranted. Specifically, a critical exploration that considers how scholars employ the term 
disability is needed to understand ideologies of disability.  

This pairing of inclusive literacy and disability promotes the collective goals of the field of 
Critical Disability Studies (CDS). CDS lies in ideological opposition to the “entrenched pseudo-
scientific foundations of special education” that dominate much of the available research on 
students with disabilities (Connor et al., 2014, p. 6). Highlighting research on inclusive literacy in 
the field of language and literacy education “provid[es] evidence” of CDS “at work,” and “in 
action” (Connor et al., 2014, p. 6). Additionally, analyzing the use of the term disability within the 
literature allows us to understand the ways that language use is inherently and deeply connected 
to ideologies of disability. This critique also draws on the scholarship of Irvine and Gal (2000), 
Cavanaugh (2020), and Hasselbacher (2018) situated within the field of language ideology, to 
continually enforce the important connections between literacy, language use, and ideology.  

Using a theoretical framework of CDS and language and ideology, the following research 
question guides this critique: In what ways do authors of scholarship on inclusive literacy employ 
the term disability? However, before examining the extant published research, the theoretical, 
historical, and cultural conditions that have sparked the creation of the concept of inclusive literacy 
must be explored. The following sections serve to situate the literature firmly within these contexts. 
First, the prominent influences that have shaped and informed inclusive literacy are reviewed. 
Additionally, this initial exploration of inclusive literacy is key in understanding inclusive literacy 
as a separate concept and how it differs from the influential tenets of NLS. Further, this explanation 
will help illuminate the ways that NLS does not serve as a grounding theory for this critique. 
Rather, NLS serves as a reference and starting point for introducing the history of inclusive 
literacy. Next, the theories that frame the review are discussed, as each section is guided by this 
theoretical alignment. Within the Theoretical Framework section, an intertwined view of CDS and 
language ideology is presented. Before presenting the findings of this review, the specific methods 
used to carefully craft this review are included. Finally, the findings reveal the multiple ways that 
disability both is and is not featured in the literature. Further, the findings highlight how this 
language use is inherently tied to ideologies of disability. Understanding these connections can 
have significant impacts on educators, and these implications are explored in the concluding 
section. 
 
What is Inclusive Literacy? 
The concept of inclusive literacy initially arose from educators’ quest to provide a quality 
education to students with disabilities, as “inclusive policies only find meaning in inclusive 
practices” (Nutbrown & Clough, 2009, p. 192). Instead of excluding students from literacy 
activities that can position literacy solely “as a curricular goal” and “the development of skills-
based reading and writing competences” (Flewitt et al., 2009, p. 212), educators have continually 
expanded the notion of literacy often promoted in their classrooms. Aligning with this expansion, 
inclusive literacy does not view literacy simply as a “set of technical skills concerned with reading 
and writing” but as “embedded in social practice” (Flewitt et al., 2009, p. 213). Drawing from 
Street’s (1984) socially and culturally situated literacy practices and Kress and Van Leeuwen’s 
(2001) concept of multimodal literacy, inclusive literacy offers a way to consider meaning making 
that moves beyond talk and written text to include “multiple ‘modes’ of communication, such as 



6 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(1)  
 

gesture, gaze, movement, body positioning, words, vocalizations, and alternative and 
augmentative communications systems, including sign, symbol, and formal programs” (Flewitt et 
al., 2009, p. 214). Through this broadened understanding of literacy, students can be provided with 
differentiated and inclusive instruction that meets the needs of all students, including those with 
disabilities (Milton, 2017b). 

To expand on the foundational concepts that frame inclusive literacy and how inclusive 
literacy generatively builds upon these influences, Street’s (1984) and Kress and Van Leeuwen’s 
(2001) groundbreaking research is briefly reviewed. Street (1984) presented an understanding of 
literacy as “a shorthand for the social practices and conceptions of reading and writing” (p. 1). 
Through this lens, literacy, again, is viewed as multiple practices, rather than a static, singular 
entity. In Street’s work, literacy encompasses practices that accomplish the same purposes of 
reading and writing but occur organically, both culturally and socially, as individuals communicate 
and make meaning in their daily lives. Inclusive literacy draws from this notion that literacy can 
be varied and is unique, based on context, and that knowledge is co-constructed in social contexts 
(Milton, 2017b).  

Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001), too, brought forward a broadened conceptualization of 
literacy with their theory of multimodality and highlight the multiple modes that people can and 
do use to make meaning. Building on Street’s (1984) influential research that explores the social 
nature of meaning making, Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001) explained that the different modes 
used by individuals to communicate are “forms within the various sign systems that carry the 
meanings that a social collective recognizes and understands” (Albers & Harste, 2007, p. 11). 
Further, as Jewitt et al. (2016) shared, multimodality “marks a departure from the traditional 
opposition of ‘verbal’ and ‘non-verbal’ communication” (p. 3). This view of literacy acknowledges 
the value that has been previously placed on verbal communication and upends the 
verbal/nonverbal binary. Inclusive literacy is built on the foundation of this acknowledgement, as 
it includes multiple modes that move past the singular mode of verbal communication and 
considers the various means of communication that students with disabilities use, far beyond 
verbal utterances.  

Inclusive literacy differs from Street’s (1984) and Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2001) theory 
of multimodality and research in the way that it specifically advocates for individuals with 
disabilities right to literacy. Further, inclusive literacy is grounded in the understanding that 
literacy is a human right, particularly for children as they grow, develop, and make meaning of the 
world around them in different and yet still powerful ways. Proponents of inclusive literacy seek 
to ensure that all students are granted these rights, specifically through the continual 
reconsideration of literacy and the quest to understand literacy’s complexities and all that it can 
entail. The emphasis placed on acceptance creates the unique concept of inclusive literacy.  

Educational stakeholders can foster inclusive literacy in a variety of ways. The 
consideration of multimodal literacy, first introduced by NLS scholars, serves as the first step 
toward inclusion. However, more than simply considering multimodal literacy is needed, as 
stressed by Flewitt et al., (2009). Flewitt et al. (2009) highlights that creating an inclusive 
environment, practicing consistency in activities, holding high expectations of students’ 
development, and building relationships are all crucial elements in supporting inclusive literacy. 
While the influences of NLS are notable in inclusive literacy, these additional critical behaviors 
set inclusive literacy apart from other scholarship within the field. 
 
 
 



Lampp Berglund 7 
 

Theoretical Framework 
CDS serves to uniquely frame this review of the literature on inclusive literacy, as CDS offers a 
view of disability that is tied to societal, historical, and cultural conceptualizations. Language 
ideology, or beliefs about language, connects language use and social organization (Hasselbacher, 
2018; Piller, 2015; Silverstein, 1979). CDS then provides a means to interpret and analyze these 
social organizations through the lens of varying models of disability. To understand the points of 
convergence between these two complimentary theories, each is explored, as is its relevancy to 
inclusive literacy. 
 
Critical Disability Studies (CDS) 

Disability studies, more broadly, draws from a range of disciplines, including psychology, 
education, sociology, and policy and cultural studies, and focuses on the phenomena of disability 
and ability in relation to political and social categorizations (Goodley, 2014). Within this larger 
field, CDS is a response to the critical turn coupled with disability activism and seeks to include 
new paradigms to continually reconceptualize the disability experience. These influences can be 
traced to postconventionalist, poststructural, postcolonial, feminist, queer, and crip theories. 
Similar to these schools of thought, CDS challenges scholars of disability theory to rethink material 
constructions of the body within society (Goodley et al., 2019; Shildrick, 2012). In addition to the 
influence of these prominent theories, one can see how CDS is infused with and informed by 
critical pedagogy, as the goal of CDS is to promote education as a means to resist preconceived 
societal norms surrounding disability (Goodley, 2014). The transformative understandings of 
embodiment within CDS position disability as “part of a multiplicity of possibilities,” rather than 
a marked difference or deficit (Shildrick, 2012, p. 31). 
 As CDS is a subfield within disability studies, the models within disability studies that have 
shaped disability into a complex and everchanging concept are important to consider. These 
differing models are represented in the literature on inclusive literacy included and serve as the 
basis for the subsequent analysis and organization of this critique. The medical model of disability, 
often viewed as the “normative” model of disability, employs medical discourse in which disability 
is read “solely through biological, genetic, hormonal, neurological, and physiological language” 
(Goodley, 2014, p. 4). Opposing this model, the social model of disability pushes against the 
concept of impairment constructed by the medicalization of disability. Further, the social model 
of disability attempts to break down the social, economic, and cultural barriers that are created to 
prevent those with perceived impairments from participating in a variety of social activities 
(Goodley, 2014). Simply put, the concept of a disabling society is problematized, rather than 
disability itself. Lastly, postconventional models of disability developed from postmodern and 
poststructural theory (Shildrick, 2012). These models deconstruct the epistemological and 
discursive forces that shape the lived disability experience.  

As these models of disability are reviewed, it is imperative to note that their progression is 
not mean to be presented in a linear way. Instead, as evidenced in the literature featured in this 
critique, these models all exist simultaneously and are taken up in a variety of settings. Many 
scholars, activists, and individuals within the disability community both champion and discourage 
the use of different models. No one model can serve as “final answers” to questions surrounding 
disability, because, as Shildrick (2012) asserted, “the work of critique is to keep alive the very 
process in which questions itself generates new potential” (p. 31). In this way, CDS, including its 
many varying models, is a means to examine why individual ideologies may be used in a particular 
context and what factors may have informed and shaped these ideologies.  
 



8 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(1)  
 

Language Ideologies 

Language ideology is commonly defined as a set of language beliefs and is infused with numerous 
connotations. As Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) shared, the use of the term ideology 
acknowledges the cultural, historical, and social influences exerted upon language and the inherent 
power of these forces. Moreover, following poststructural lines of inquiry, the term also reminds 
scholars that these same cultural, historical, and social forces are “partial, contestable and 
contested, and interest-laden” (Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994, p. 58). Interested specifically in 
language, Silverstein (1979) promoted that language ideologies are “sets of beliefs about language 
articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” 
(p. 193). Language ideologies help speakers understand the relationships between language and 
their use (Cavanaugh, 2020). 

While language is the predominant focus of much of the field of language ideology, a small, 
yet emergent, community of scholars call for an examination of the ways that literacy, in addition 
to language use, shapes ideologies (Bhattacharya & Sterponi, 2020; Hasselbacher, 2018; Ochs et 
al., 2005; Phuong, 2017; Volk & Angelova, 2007). These researchers have employed a critical 
approach that borrows features from discourse analysis to feature an understanding of literacy and 
language use that “is not limited to talk and text” (Phuong, p. 51) and “refers to any number of 
semiotic systems . . . rather than an individual’s ability to use one in particular” (Hasselbacher, 
2018, p. 72). This expansion doesn’t attempt to conflate literacy with language. Instead, these 
scholars hoped to emphasize the connection between language and literacy and the ways they 
generatively build upon and inform one another. Further, the consideration of literacy within 
language ideologies presents an exciting opportunity to weave together CDS and language 
ideology, because, as Phuong (2017) shared, CDS and language ideology “are rarely discussed in 
tandem,” despite disability and language ideology being similarly laden with cultural and social 
influences and struggles of power (p. 51). Further, so many within the disability community 
communicate in ways that stretch far beyond talk and text. In this critique, I align with this group 
of language ideology scholars that have promoted this inclusivity. 

Understanding various ideologies surrounding disability informs how disability is framed 
in multiple educational settings, including but not limited to literacy education and the research 
published within these fields. Throughout this critique of the literature on inclusive literacy 
practice, language ideologies ground the analysis of research on inclusive literacy, while CDS 
serves as a more specific way to examine why individual ideologies may be used in a particular 
context and how these ideologies are made evident through literacy engagement and language use. 
 
Conceptualizing the Complex 

Inclusion, literacy, and disability each do not have one commonly accepted definition. Instead, 
they are entities whose meanings change based on their context. To form my own understandings 
of these terms while critiquing the literature available, I use CDS and language ideologies as 
frameworks to define these complex terms. I begin with the term literacy to ground my work in 
the larger field of language and literacy education and then move on to the concept of inclusion to 
similarly situate my work among previous notable scholarship in CDS. Lastly, the continually 
evolving concept of disability is unpacked to introduce the ways that the term can and is employed 
across the literature published on inclusive literacy. 
 

Literacy. Leu et al. (2013) proclaimed that literacy “defines both who we are and who we 
shall become” (p. 115). Society collectively informs the ways that literacy is conceptualized, as 



Lampp Berglund 9 
 

needs for producing and consuming texts change and evolve. Literacy, in turn, also shapes who 
we are, as it defines the ways that we can and will communicate with others. Literacy has 
continually been linked with societal needs (Monaghan & Hartman, 2000), and, with each piece 
cited in this critique, a different view of society and, thus, a different ideology of literacy is 
presented. Each author and researcher whose work is featured understood and placed various 
degrees of importance on gender, race, class, and, obviously, ability, as literacy has long “been 
influenced by these shifting currents” (Monaghan & Hartman, 2000, p. 111). Woolard and 
Schieffelin (1994) echoed how ideologies of literacy have long relied on social institutions and 
that “the definition of what is and what is not literacy is always a profoundly political matter” (p. 
66). 

Scholars have made evident that no one understanding of literacy can be separated from 
the forces that have informed it. In this sense, my own definition of literacy is colored by the 
myriad forces that have shaped and formed it and is still continually evolving. Most noticeably, 
CDS and inclusive literacy have shaped the ways I view literacy. Within this work and in my own 
life, I define literacy not just as written text or spoken language. Literacy can encompass bodily 
movements and gestures, pictures drawn by hand or using computer software, and so much more. 
In this way, I view literacy as making meaning across multiple mediums, mirroring the underlying 
tenets of inclusive literacy. 
 

Inclusion. As the concept of inclusive literacy is explored, a focus on the term inclusion 
as it relates to educational and, more specifically, classroom practices, is crucial. Much of the 
research featured in this analysis of the literature focuses on the practical implications of inclusive 
literacy, so this consideration is key when unpacking the ideologies of scholars who support 
inclusive literacy. More specifically, inclusive education serves as a driving force of inclusive 
literacy. However, in different contexts, inclusion can be defined quite differently. Within the 
United States, the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975 
sought to guarantee that eligible students with disabilities are provided a “free and appropriate 
public school education in the least restrictive environment,” commonly abbreviated as FAPE and 
LRE (U. S. Department of Education, n.d.). IDEA, then, seeks to control how state and public 
agencies provide particular educational services to the disability community, including early 
intervention and special education programs. or equitable access and inclusion for all children 
within digital spaces. 

However, despite this widespread government support, local schools grapple with the 
interpretation and implementation of this legislation and the appropriateness of the services 
offered vary widely (Colker, 2013; Sack, 2000). With this ambiguity, teachers and administrators 
alike are left wondering how to best educate their students with disabilities and, ultimately the 
meaning of inclusion. This uncertainty is prevalent throughout published research on inclusive 
literacy. Researchers vary in their interpretations, and much of the research has viewed inclusion, 
particularly in regard to literacy, as a right (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2017; Flewitt et al., 2009; Kliewer 
et al., 2006; Lawson et al., 2012; Milton, 2017b), a way to reconceptualize literacy (Lacey et al., 
2007; Lawson et al., 2012, Milton, 2017a; Milton, 2017b; Oakley, 2017; Price-Dennis et al., 2015), 
and the outcome of desegregating classrooms (Barratt-Pugh et al., 2017; Milton, 2017b; Price-
Dennis et al, 2015). 
 
 Disability. As with inclusion, much legislation has sought to define disability. For instance, 
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a prominent piece of legislation in the United States, 



10 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(1)  
 

legally defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more 
major life activity” (ADA National Network, n.d., para. 2). Further, this definition includes 
disability can be either “recorded” or “regarded” (ADA National Network, n.d., para. 2). The 
ADA’s notion of “regarded as having a disability” aligns with the commonly accepted 
understanding of disability as a social phenomenon, and impairment serves as the central tenet of 
this definition. Contrastingly, having a “record of” a disability entails “that the person has a history 
of or has been misclassified as having a mental or physical impairment… even though the person 
does not currently have a disability” (ADA National Network, n.d., para. 1). Within my work, I 
use the ADA’s concept of a “regarded” disability. With this definition, I consider individuals own 
personal interpretation of their disability. 
 In addition to honoring the voices of the disability community in my definition of disability, 
I do the same with the discursive representation of disability. While many scholars often use the 
term dis/ability or (dis)ability to represent the postmodern or poststructural theories that informs 
their work, both scholars (Linton, 2017; Overboe, 1999; Shildrick, 2012; Titchkosky, 2006) and 
activists (Ableism Is Trash, 2022; Autistic Truth, 2022; Disability Reframed, 2021; Talk 
Disability, 2021; NeuroDifferent, 2022) within the disability community simply use disability. 
This decision aligns with one of the integral components of the disability rights movement: 
Nothing About Us Without Us (Charlton, 1998). With this alignment, I acknowledge and listen to 
the disability community on disability issues (Disability Reframed, 2021; Talk Disability, 2021). 
 
Research Methods 
To begin the process of gathering research on inclusive literacy, I sought to deeply understand the 
concepts that would serve as my primary search terms: inclusion, literacy, and disability. These 
keywords are relevant and were chosen with intent. Maxwell (2006) defined keywords as terms 
“that have important implications for the design, conduct, or interpretation of the study, not simply 
those that deal with the topic, or in the defined field or substantive area, of the research” (p. 28). 
Following Maxwell’s guidance, each of these keywords informed and subsequently guided the 
review of the literature.  
 After determining the keywords, literac* AND inclus*, I began my search of six electronic 
databases, including Academic Search Complete, EBSCOHost, Education Research Complete, 
ERIC, PsychINFO, and SOCINDEX with Full Text. I conducted this search in three different 
phases to discover how the term disability has been used within published research on inclusive 
literacy. Each phase was documented extensively by recording the results of each individual search 
and listing commonalities found among the pieces featured and noting studies of interest. The 
numerical results from this initial phase of the search presented 17,788 peer-reviewed journal 
articles. To narrow the search significantly and to bound the search within the field of education, 
the keyword educat* was added and produced significantly less results: 8,505 published pieces. 
During the third and final phase, the key word disabilit* was added to align the search with the 
research question posed. This search highlighted 1,121 peer-reviewed academic journal articles, 
with only 171 being research reports. 
 Sharing the results from these three searches provides a wider scope to this critique by 
highlighting the vast amount of research that has been conducted that focuses on inclusive literacy. 
Additionally, this presentation of data displays the significantly smaller amount of research that 
examines inclusive literacy that explicitly involve and include students with disabilities. The final 
search, with only 171 publications, provided a basis for the next step in the process of reviewing 
the available literature. I determined whether each article did, in fact, describe inclusive literacy 



Lampp Berglund 11 
 

and students with disabilities by completing a “quality screening” that helped me to “narrow the 
search by identifying the best available studies” for this particular review (Fink, 2014, p. 49). I 
then transferred the identifying information of each “quality” piece to a literature management 
system. This screening allowed me to narrow by focus by reviewing 10 studies in total. 

The goal in crafting an organizational scheme was to determine the types of research 
featured and to assist in the process of close reading. This system included the following: article 
citation, purpose, theoretical framework, methodology, definition of inclusion, definition of 
(dis)ability, findings and key arguments, and a “so what” category. The “so what” category 
allowed me to explicate what stood out in each piece and primary takeaways (Bhattacharya, n.d.). 
Additionally, by analyzing the research in this way invited me to “note differences in how a 
variable is measured across studies” (Galvin & Galvin, 2017, p. 73). In this critique, the variable 
measured across studies is the myriad ways that disability is employed in research published on 
inclusive literacy. 
 
Findings 
Employing the term disability is no simple task, as explored extensively in the sections above. 
Multifaceted and complex, disability, as a concept, actively resists the use of one specific label or 
definition that can be used in all contexts (Shildrick, 2012). Within the context of the literature 
reviewed, two common themes are found in the ways that researchers attempt to employ the term 
disability: omission of the term disability when identifying students and promoting the 
participation of students with disabilities. These themes speak to the institutional discourses found 
within the scholarship and the ways these discourses reflect larger societal beliefs or ideologies 
(Cavanaugh, 2020). 
 
Avoidance of the Term Disability 

First and foremost, no published pieces explicitly defined disability, but these same publications 
defined literacy, inclusion, and inclusive literacy. The scholars’ attention to clearly defining 
literacy, inclusion, and inclusive literacy may be attributed to their selected publication outlets and 
foci. Additionally, authors may have made assumptions of a shared understanding of what is meant 
by the term disability within a particular discipline. Many of the cited pieces were featured in 
journals originating in the fields of special education and inclusive education, and these disciplines 
often focus on issues surrounding disability but not literacy engagement. For instance, within the 
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, Lacey et al. (2007) acknowledged that, for 
students with disabilities, “conventional literacy could be seen as irrelevant” (p. 149). With this 
acknowledgement, Lacey et al. (2007) needed to define conventional literacy and how it differs 
from inclusive literacy. However, defining disability didn’t work toward achieving the goal of 
Lacey et al.’s (2007) research which was to seek out and share examples of teaching and learning 
practices that include students with disabilities. While these reasons for omission may align with 
disciplinary norms or authors’ intentions, the scholars’ exclusion of an explicit definition of 
disability is striking, as disability is inherently bound within definitions of inclusion and inclusive 
literacy. 
 Despite the absence of an explicit definition of disability, researchers’ language use signals 
their ideological positioning in regard to disability. While four scholars did employ the term 
disability (Barratt-Pugh, 2017; Flewitt et al., 2009; Kliewer et al., 2006; Milton, 2017a), five 
authors chose not to use the term disability in their work and instead used terms that still signal 
disability in various ways, either employing an asset-based or deficit lens (Lacey et al., 2017; 



12 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(1)  
 

Lawson et al, 2012; Oakley, 2017; Price-Dennis et al., 2015; Valtierra & Siegel, 2019). This 
avoidance is notable and aligns with the “underlying attitudes, values, and subconscious prejudices 
and fears that ground a persistent, albeit often unspoken intolerance” of people with disabilities 
that permeates society and, more specifically educational spaces (Shildrick, 2012, p. 35). The 
terms that were used to signal disability deficiently include the following: students with severe 
learning difficulties (SLD; Lacey et al., 2007; Lawson et al., 2012); learners with diverse needs 
(Oakley, 2017); and special education students (Price-Dennis et al., 2015). The term associated 
with an asset-based stance is academically diverse learners (Valtierra & Siegal, 2019). 
 Used most frequently in the literature, the term students with SLD derived from the 
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that divides literacy into five 
levels, ranging from the first level that includes “people with very poor skills” to levels four and 
five that seek to categorize “people who demonstrate command of higher-order information 
processing skills” (Lacey et al., 2007, p. 149). The OECD is an international organization that 
works alongside governments, policy makers, and citizens to establish “evidence-based 
international standards and find solutions to a range of social, economic, and environmental 
challenges” (OECD, n.d.). The data produced from literacy research conducted by the OECD has 
implications in 38 countries around the world, but not without criticism. Specifically, within the 
United States, the data is used to determine the need for additional educational opportunities and 
targeted instruction for students across grade levels. With its varying levels, the OECD’s literacy 
scale has created an international standard for literacy skills and employs a deficit-based lens that 
focuses on what students cannot do in regard to conventional literacy practices, rather than 
focusing on multimodal literacy engagement. This rating system excludes and sets students apart 
from their peers, and the specific words used to describe the literacy levels are connotative of the 
damaging discourses and normative views associated with the medical model of disability that 
sees disability as deficient (Haegele & Hodge, 2016). In the medical model, “it is the medical 
diagnosis (and not the individualized needs of the child) that determines the available placement 
for the child” (Haegele & Hodge, p. 196). Similar discourses circulate around high-stakes literacy 
assessments that inform literacy levels such as these that seek to uphold “normative” standards 
(Erevelles, 2012). Within the featured scholarship, students with SLD were understood simply as 
one level of a larger literacy scale, not as individual, capable learners who can and do enjoy 
engaging in literacy. By not acknowledging disability, the term students with severe learning 
difficulties (SLD) focuses on difficulties rather than the possibilities and potentiality that is bound 
within disability (Goodley et al., 2019). 
 Attempting to acknowledge the multidimensional nature of disability, diversity is often 
used as a placeholder for disability, as seen through the use of the terms, learners with diverse 
needs (Oakley, 2017) and academically diverse learners (Valtierra & Siegel, 2019). Oakley (2017) 
did not define what was meant by the term learners with diverse needs and instead cited that the 
focus of the piece was the benefits of using technology with students with disabilities. Oakley 
(2017) further shared, “A major use of technology has been drills and games for struggling children 
to ‘remedy’ their learning difficulties or close the gap in the basics of phonological awareness and 
letter sound correspondences” (p. 162). With this goal clearly presented, one can infer that Oakley 
equated learners with diverse needs with students with disabilities. Exploring the implications of 
the use of the term learners with diverse needs presents the opportunity to unpack the complicated 
history of the term special needs, as the two terms are similar in many ways. Special needs, once 
the preferred term by many within the disability community and beyond, has fallen from favor 
(Shildrick, 2012). Explaining this shift in discourse, Linton (2017) wrote that special “can be 



Lampp Berglund 13 
 

understood as a euphemistic formulation, obscuring the reality that neither the children or 
education are considered desirable and that they are not thought to surpass what is common” (p. 
164). Needs, as included in the term special needs and learners with diverse needs, is also complex 
and can work to position individuals as lesser than. Disability Reframed (2021) shared, “The needs 
of disabled people are not special. They are not extra, nor are they exceptional. They are human.” 
However, by employing the term learners with diverse needs, Oakley (2017) positioned particular 
students’ needs as exceptional, rather than focusing on required accommodations that must be 
provided to ensure disabled students’ full participation in literacy learning.  
 Valtierra and Siegel (2019) briefly explained their reasoning for using the term 
academically diverse learners. They used the term to encompass the variety of students featured 
in their study, one of which was a student with a diagnosed disability. Specifically, the students 
selected for the study were “one typically developing reader, one struggling reader receiving 
special education services, and one non-heritage English speaker,” and these students were chosen 
to emphasize the benefits of inclusive literacy for all learners, not just students with disabilities 
(Valtierra & Siegel, 2019, p. 115). This consideration regarding the language used is valuable, as 
is Valtierra and Siegel’s (2019) aim to “shift narrow, ability-oriented dispositions toward literacy 
to more expansive and inclusive conceptualizations” (p. 119). In this context, inclusivity values all 
learners, and inclusive literacy seeks to ensure an equitable and empowering education for all. 
 
Promoting the Participation of Students with Disabilities 

As evidenced in the previously cited studies, a noticeable group of scholars did not employ the 
term disability in their work. The scholars who did use the term disability did not define disability, 
despite the complexity disability presents as a concept. However, two of these same scholars did 
situate their work within CDS, particularly the social model of disability (Flewitt et al., 2009; 
Kliewer et al., 2006). This theoretical alignment signals the critical nature of their research, a stark 
contrast to the scholarship cited above. This criticality serves as the foundation of CDS and 
represents “a sense of self-appraisal” that seeks to reflect and assess where we, as a society, have 
come from, where we are at, and where we might we going (Goodley, 2013, p. 632). In particular, 
CDS “rethink[s] the conventions, assumptions, and aspirations of research, theory, and activism” 
regarding disability (Goodley, 2013, p. 632). The progression and evolution of the models of 
disability within CDS serves as an example of this reflection and reassessment. Transformative 
views of disability have continually given ways to new models of disability. For instance, the 
medical model is often positioned in contrast to the social model, while the social model has served 
as the foundation for postconventional models of disability (Haegele & Hodge, 2016). The 
literature on students with disabilities in the field of language and literacy education reflects these 
changes, as a growing body of research is grounded within the social model of disability (Flewitt 
et al., 2009; Kliewer et al., 2006). According to Goodley (2014) and Haegele and Hodge (2016), 
the social model of disability is the most prevalent model of disability and frequently employed 
by scholars across disciplines. 
 The popularity of the social model of disability can be seen in research published on 
inclusive literacy, as the social model of disability is only the theoretical model of disability evident 
in the scholarship (Flewitt et al., 2009; Kliewer et al., 2006). The use of the social model, in these 
contexts, is significant. In addition to being a well-known model of disability within CDS and 
disability activism, the social model of disability, as its name indicates, is primarily concerned 
within societal understandings of disability and brings issues of disability into conversations 
concerning social constructions, practices, and institutions (Kliewer et al., 2006). The social model 



14 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(1)  
 

of disability focuses on how society continually imposes the concept of disability on individuals 
with impairments (Haegele & Hodge, 2016). Specifically, when using this model, authors address 
the ways that disability has been set up “as a political category” and “the social, economic, and 
cultural barriers that prevent people with impairments from living a life like their non-impaired 
brothers and sisters” (Goodley, 2014, p. 7). Within this body of research, these social, political, 
economic, and cultural barriers include access to education, literacy, and communication 
opportunities (Flewitt et al., 2009). 
 Flewitt et al. (2009) framed their work within the social model of disability to align with 
the stance of NLS that situates literacy as a sociocultural practice. In this way, both disability and 
literacy are concepts that are formed by social and cultural perceptions. Focusing on early literacy 
experiences, this group of researchers sought to explore different understandings of literacy and 
how associated literacy practices could expand “young children’s participation in different social 
and communicative opportunities” found in the home and at school (Flewitt et al., 2009, p. 215). 
Kliewer et al. (2006), more broadly, addressed the larger social institutions for which 
reconceptualizing literacy can prove to be more difficult. Suggesting one way to combat 
oppressive social barriers, Kliewer et al. (2006) proposed that “presuming competence and rightful 
citizenship in areas such as literacy development and facilitated communication may promote 
understanding” (p. 170) among individuals both with and without disabilities. Presuming 
competence and literate citizenship both work in opposition to the social impositions that act as 
barriers for children with disabilities to fully participate in literacy practices. Presuming 
competence challenges educators to expand their understandings of competence and find multiple 
and new ways for students to demonstrate competence and engaging and connecting with others 
(Kliewer et al., 2006). Inherently connected to presuming competence, presuming literate 
citizenship ensures the literate visibility of individuals with disabilities so that they may fully 
participate in literacy-based activities that ultimately facilitate full participation in society, more 
broadly (Kliewer et al., 2006). As Kliewer et al. (2006) explained, literacy is a “critical tool of 
community participation” (p. 177). In order for individuals to make vital connections with others 
in their communities, they must be able to express themselves. Literacy facilitates this 
communication across multiple modes.  
 
Conclusion 
Although all the research included in this critique has the common goal of fostering inclusive 
literacy, diverging uses of the term disability and, thus, ideologies of disability exist in the 
scholarship. These differences are not surprising, as they are indicative of the contrasting 
conceptions of disability that exist within the field of language and literacy education and, largely, 
society. Understanding the complexities surrounding discourses of disability has widespread 
implications for educators, particularly those who are in the field and can readily apply the 
principles of inclusive literacy in their own unique contexts. The knowledge gained through this 
critical exploration of research on inclusive can inform language use and then, in turn, shape 
ideologies of disability. 

Most noticeably, understanding ideologies of disability, including our own and others’, can 
create educational spaces that are more inclusive and accessible sites where students with 
disabilities can participate more fully. Gardland-Thomson (2017) presented the concept of 
academic activism within the field of CDS. Academic activism is “the activism of integrating 
education” and creating inclusive learning environments for students with disabilities (p. 377). 
This concept is supported by the belief that “scholars and teachers shape the communal knowledge 



Lampp Berglund 15 
 

and the archive that is disseminated from kindergarten to the university,” and educational 
stakeholders serve as the grassroots movement working toward equitable education for students 
within the disability community (Garland-Thomson, 2017, p. 377). Through academic activism, 
educators can help to break down the cultural, social, economic, and historical barriers that 
students face when attempting to participate more fully in their classrooms and society, as 
highlighted by the concept of inclusive literacy. 

The presence of CDS, and, more specifically, the social model of disability, and the active 
acknowledgement of the complexity and diversity of the disability experience within the research, 
though, serves as a hopeful reminder that there are educators and scholars who think critically and 
carefully about their language use and the ways that language and power are intimately related 
(Cavanagh, 2020). As Sandoval Gomez and McKee (2020) shared, CDS can help educators 
“understand the ‘why’ of inclusive education and equality” and help them determine how to move 
forward and take action (p. 2). The actions that teachers can take vary based on a number of 
contextual factors, including grade level, administrative support, and the resources available. 
However, practical applications of incorporating CDS into one’s pedagogical practices and 
teaching philosophy include, first, reflecting on our own language use. This critique asks us to 
pause and ask the follow questions: Do I avoid using the term disability? How does my language 
use promote the participation of students with disabilities in my educational spaces? The answers 
to these introspections can, then, guide future language use.  

In addition to reflecting on and shifting the language and terms we use in regard to our 
students with disabilities, promoting CDS to colleagues and students through workshops and 
curriculum is critical. These opportunities can prompt deep, communal, and individual reflections 
on biases about disability and what larger social, cultural, political, economic, and historical forces 
have shaped these understandings (Schalk, 2017; Ware & Hatz, 2016). Third, teachers can presume 
competence in their students and their families. By presuming competence, teachers can push 
against deficient views of students with disabilities and broaden the scope of how students and 
their families participate in classroom communities and society more broadly (Kleekamp, 2020; 
Kliewer et al., 2006; Valtierra & Siegel, 2019). 

In addition to these applications of CDS, teachers can also listen to and center the voices 
of the disability community in their classroom materials and beyond through humanizing and 
accurate portrayals (Wong, 2020). However, as Wong (2020) asserts, “And yet while 
representation is exciting and important, it is not enough . . . We all should expect more. We all 
deserve more” (p. xxi; emphasis in original). While inclusion in materials is important, inclusion 
in regard to literacy engagement is paramount. Inclusive literacy, at its core, seeks to challenge 
social hierarchies that govern the ways that literacy is conceptualized, and the language used when 
writing about inclusive literacy should, too, seek to push against these long held institutions in 
regard to disability. 
 
References 
Ableism Is Trash. (2022, January 22). Stop deferring to nondisabled people about disability 

language [Instagram post]. https://www.instagram.com/ableismistrash/ 
Albers, P., & Harste, J. C. (2007). The arts, new literacies, and multimodality. English Education, 

40(1), 6–20. 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) National Network. (n.d.). What is the definition of 

disability under the ADA? https://adata.org/faq/what-definition-disability-under-ada 

https://www.instagram.com/ableismistrash/
https://adata.org/faq/what-definition-disability-under-ada


16 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(1)  
 

Autistic Truth. (2022, April 13). The current norm of representing nonspeaking autistics as 
“nonthinking” must end [Facebook post]. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=
488146536105751&set=a.212599933660414 

Barratt-Pugh, C., Rohl, M., & Allen, N. (2017). The first time I’ve felt included: Identifying 
inclusive literacy learning in early childhood through the evaluation of better beginnings. 
In M. Milton & C. Forlin (Eds.), Inclusive principles and practices in literacy education 
(Vol. 11; pp. 125–142). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-36362017
0000011009 

Bhattacharya, K. (n. d.). Literature review: Demystifying the process. Dr. Kakali Bhattacharya’s 
Academic Gems. https://drkakali.weebly.com/literature-review.html 

Bhattacharya, U., & Sterponi, L., (2020). The morning assembly: Constructing subjecthood, 
authority, and knowledge through classroom discourse in an Indian school. In M. J. 
Burdelski & K. M. Howard (Eds.), Language socialization in classrooms: Culture, 
interaction, and language development (pp. 181–199). Cambridge University Press. 
https://doi. org/10.1017/9781316946237.012 

Cavanaugh, J. (2020). Language ideology revisited. International Journal of the Sociology of 
Language, 2020(263), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2020-2082 

Charlton, J. (1998). Nothing about us without us: Disability, oppression, and empowerment. 
University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520925441 

Colker, R. (2013). Disabled education: A critical analysis of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814708101.
001.0001  

Connor, D. J., Valle, J. W., & Hale, C. (2014). Forum guest editors’ introduction: Disability studies 
in education “at work.” Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 5–13. 
https://www.rdsjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/87 

Disability Reframed. (2021, August 31). Y’all, it’s time we talked about the term “special needs” 
[Instagram post]. https://www.instagram.com/p/CTQsBVXslOC/  

Erevelles, N. (2012). “What…[thought] cannot bear to know”: Crippin’ the limits of 
“thinkability.” Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 35–44. 
https://rdsjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/90 

Fink, A. (2014). Conducting research literature reviews: From internet to paper. Sage. 
Flewitt, R., Nind, M., & Payler, J. (2009). “If she’s left with books she’ll just eat them”: 

Considering inclusive multimodal literacy practices. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 
9(20), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798409105587  

Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the social 
and behavioral sciences. Taylor & Francis. 

Garland-Thomson, R. (2017). Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. In L. J. Davis 
(Ed.), The disability studies reader (5th ed.; pp. 360–380). Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781003001201-22  

Goodley, D. (2013). Dis/entangling Critical Disability Studies. Disability and Society, 28(5), 631–
644. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.717884 

Goodley, D. (2014). Dis/ability studies: Theorising disablism and ableism. Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203366974-8   

Goodley, D., Lawthom, R., Liddiard, K., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2019). Provocations for Critical 
Disability Studies. Disability and Society, 34(6), 972–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09687599.2019.1566889  

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=488146536105751&set=a.212599933660414
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=488146536105751&set=a.212599933660414
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-36362017%E2%80%8C0000011009
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-36362017%E2%80%8C0000011009
https://drkakali.weebly.com/literature-review.html
https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2020-2082
https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520925441-toc
https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814708101.%E2%80%8C001.0001
https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814708101.%E2%80%8C001.0001
https://www.rdsjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/87
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTQsBVXslOC/
https://rdsjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/90
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798409105587
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003001201-22
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003001201-22
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.717884
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203366974-8
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1566889
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2019.1566889


Lampp Berglund 17 
 

Haegele, J., & Hodge, S. (2016). Disability discourse: Overview and critiques of the medical and 
social models. Question, 68(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1143849 

Hasselbacher, S. (2018). Introduction: Literacy ideologies. Language & Communication, 61, 71–
74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.09.002 

Irvine, J., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), 
Language regimes: Ideologies, politics, and identities (pp. 35–84). School for Advanced 
Research Press. 

Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing multimodality. Routledge. 
Kleekamp, M. C. (2020). “No! turn the pages!”: Repositioning neuroqueer literacies. Journal of 

Literacy Research, 52(2), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x20915531 
Kliewer, C., Biklen, D., Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2006). Who may be literate? Disability and 

resistance to the cultural denial of competence. American Educational Research Journal, 
43(2), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002163  

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes of media of 
contemporary communication. Hodder Arnold. 

Lacey, P., Layton, L., Miller, C., Goldbart, J., & Lawson, H. (2007). What is literacy for students 
with severe learning difficulties? Exploring conventional and inclusive literacy. Journal of 
Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(3), 140–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-
3802.2007.00092.x  

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). The new literacies: Everyday practices and social learning 
(3rd ed.). Open University Press. 

Lawson, H., Layton, L., Goldbart, J., Lacey, P., & Miller, C. (2012). Conceptualizations of literacy 
and literacy practices for children with severe learning difficulties. Literacy, 46(2), 101–
108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-4369.2011.00603.x  

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual-level 
theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. Alvermann, N. 
Unruh, & R B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (8th ed., pp. 
1150–1181). International Reading Association. https://doi.org/10.1598/0710.42  

Linton, S. (2017). Reassigning meaning. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The disability studies reader (5th ed.) 
(pp. 161–172). Routledge. 

Maxwell, J. (2006). Literature reviews of, and for, educational research: A commentary on Boote 
and Beile’s ‘Scholars before researchers.’ Educational Researcher, 35(8), 28–31. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x035009028 

Milton, M. (2017a). Inclusive literacy for students from other language backgrounds. In C. Forlin 
(Ed.), International perspective on inclusive education (Vol. 11; pp. 249–265). Emerald 
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-363620170000011016  

Milton, M. (2017b). Literacy and inclusion: Current perspectives. In C. Forlin (Ed.), International 
perspectives on inclusive education (Vol. 11; pp. 3–18). Emerald Publishing. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-363620170000011001  

Monaghan, E. J., & Hartman, D. K. (2000). Undertaking historical research in literacy. In M. L. 
Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research 
(Vol. III, pp. 109–121). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

NeuroDifferent. (2022, April 12). To anyone who wishes to represent non-speaking people 
[Twitter post]. https://twitter.com/Neuro_Different/status/1513469117923315715 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1143849
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.09.002
https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296x20915531
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002163
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00092.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00092.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-4369.2011.00603.x
https://doi.org/10.1598/0710.42
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x035009028
https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-363620170000011016
https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-363620170000011001
https://twitter.com/Neuro_Different/status/1513469117923315715


18 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(1)  
 

Nutbrown, C., & Clough, P. (2009). Citizenship and inclusion in the early years: Understanding 
and responding to children’s perspectives on ‘belonging.’ International Journal of Early 
Years Education, 17(3), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760903424523  

Oakley, G. (2017). Engaging students in inclusive literacy learning with technology. In M. Milton 
& C. Forlin (Eds.), Inclusive principles and practices in literacy education (Vol. 11; pp. 
159–176). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-363620170000011011  

Ochs, E., Solomon, O., & Sterponi, L. (2005). Limitations and transformations of habitus in child-
directed communication. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 547–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461445605054406  

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (OECD). (n.d.). Who we are. OECD. 
https://www.oecd.org/about/ 

Overboe, J. (1999). “Difference in itself”: Validating disabled people’s lived experience. Body and 
Society, 5(4), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x99005004002 

Phuong, J. (2017). Disability and language ideologies in education policy. Working Papers in 
Educational Linguistics, 32(1), 47–66. https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol32/iss1/3 

Piller, I. (2015). Language ideologies. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international 
encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1–10). John Wiley & Sons. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463 

Price-Dennis, D., Holmes, K. A., & Smith, E. (2015). Exploring digital literacy practices in an 
inclusive classroom. Reading Teacher, 69(2), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1398  

Sack, J. L. (2000, December 6). Schools grapple with reality of ambitious law. Education Week. 
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2000/12/06/14idea.h20.html 

Sandoval Gomez, A., & McKee, A. (2020). When special education and disability studies 
intertwine: addressing educational inequities through processes and programming. 
Frontiers in Education, 5, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.587045 

Schalk, S. (2017). Critical Disability Studies as methodology. Lateral, 6(1), 5–8. 
https://csalateral.org/issue/6-1/forum-alt-humanities-critical-disability-studies-
methodology-schalk/ 

Shildrick, M. (2012). Critical Disability Studies: Rethinking the conventions for the age of 
postmodernity. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of 
disability studies (pp. 30–41). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203144114-9  

Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. R. Clyne, W. F. Hanks, 
& C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 
193–248). Chicago Linguistic Society. 

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. 
Talk Disability. (2021, November 6). Listen to disabled people on disability issues [Instagram 

post]. https://www.instagram.com/p/CV8IX4TM5Ae/  
Titchkosky, T. (2006). Policy, disability, reciprocity. In M. A McColl & L. Jongbloed (Eds.), 

Disability and social policy in Canada (pp. 54–71). Captus Press. 
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). About IDEA. IDEA: Individuals with disabilities education 

act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/ 
Valtierra, K. M., & Siegel, L. N. (2019). Dispositions for inclusive literacy: Fostering an equitable 

and empowering education for academically diverse learners. Journal of Curriculum and 
Teaching, 8(3), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v8n3p111  

https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760903424523
https://doi.org/10.1108/s1479-363620170000011011
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054406
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054406
https://www.oecd.org/about/
https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034x99005004002
https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol32/iss1/3
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1398
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2000/12/06/14idea.h20.html
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.587045
https://csalateral.org/issue/6-1/forum-alt-humanities-critical-disability-studies-methodology-schalk/
https://csalateral.org/issue/6-1/forum-alt-humanities-critical-disability-studies-methodology-schalk/
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203144114-9
https://www.instagram.com/p/CV8IX4TM5Ae/
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/
https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v8n3p111


Lampp Berglund 19 
 

Volk, D., & Angelova, M. (2007). Language ideologies and the mediation of language choice in 
peer interactions in a dual-language first grade. Journal of Language, Identity, & 
Education, 6(3), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348450701454205  

Ware, L., & Hatz, N. (2016). Teaching stories: Inclusion/exclusion and disability studies. Bank 
Street Occasional Paper Series, 36(11), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.58295/2375-3668.1161 

Wong, A. (Ed.). (2020). Disability visibility: First person stories from the twenty-first century. 
Vintage Books. 

Woolard, K., & Schieffelin, B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 
55–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415  

 
 
Received: January 4, 2023 | Accepted: March 6, 2023 | Published: April 3, 2023 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15348450701454205
https://doi.org/10.58295/2375-3668.1161
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.000415

	What is Inclusive Literacy?
	Theoretical Framework
	Critical Disability Studies (CDS)
	Language Ideologies
	Conceptualizing the Complex

	Research Methods
	Findings
	Avoidance of the Term Disability
	Promoting the Participation of Students with Disabilities

	Conclusion
	References

