Papers by James Sheldon
In this article, I bring feminist theories, queer theories, and disability studies into dialogue ... more In this article, I bring feminist theories, queer theories, and disability studies into dialogue with critical pedagogy by exploring the ways in which Freire constructs receptivity on the part of students as undesireable. Using Freire’s schema of objectification, I first look at how disabled people are objectified and then use this as a springboard for exploring Freire’s figuration of the student as a passive receptacle of knowledge. Making an analogy between Freire’s receptacle-students and its roots in Plato’s theory of the receptacle, I draw upon feminist theorists in order to challenge prevailing conceptions of the receptacle and to argue for tactically claiming receptivity as a subject position. Rather than merely taking on an active, masculine role, I suggest that both students and teachers need to be receptive to the Other and to the possibilities of being changed by the knowledge that they receive. Finally, I use these ideas of receptivity to explore the possibility for disabled subject positions within critical pedagogy.
In this article, I explore the potential for people with disabilities to conduct research about d... more In this article, I explore the potential for people with disabilities to conduct research about disability in
education. Drawing upon Rasmussen (2006), I consider whether merely sharing one aspect of identity with
participants is enough to gain an emic (insider) perspective when doing research. I argue that not only should
we problematize our own identity, but that research should change the researcher’s own identity and that the
degree to which research promotes this change is an essential aspect of formal validity of the research. Finally,
I propose some practical implications and offer some advice for researchers conducting research on disability.
A commonly proposed, but naïve approach to solving the debates over curriculum and pedagogy would... more A commonly proposed, but naïve approach to solving the debates over curriculum and pedagogy would be to merely go with what the research says " works, " but educational debates are not so easily solved. Educational decisions are at the heart value judgements, and to claim that research can tell us what to do represents an ethical and moral " cop-out " to these crucial decisions. The term " evidence, " as well, tends to mean randomized, controlled, experimental studies; there are myriad other forms of evidence that we encounter in schools that gets pushed to the side. Ultimately, this white paper concludes, research can only tell us what did work; the only way to know " what works " is to look at what is working for a given teacher in the context of their own classroom.
A book review of a collection of 14 chapters that tell the story of Railside High School, a schoo... more A book review of a collection of 14 chapters that tell the story of Railside High School, a school where mathematics teachers successfully transformed their mathematics department to create classrooms in which all the students could successfully tackle challenging mathematics.
His research draws upon queer theory and disability studies to explore how students are construct... more His research draws upon queer theory and disability studies to explore how students are constructed as low-achieving and how teachers can move from looking at individual deficits to models of curriculum and pedagogy based on Complex Instruction.
Conference Presentations by James Sheldon
This paper explores how the ideology of compulsory able-bodiness functions in special education. ... more This paper explores how the ideology of compulsory able-bodiness functions in special education. The apparatus of special education, this paper contends, applies a bureaucratic gaze to students from historically oppressed groups (e.g. students of color and working class students) and, finding them deficient, interpellates them as disabled. They are compelled by the logic of rehabilitation to submit to interventions designed to make them non-disabled, denied any ability to articulate their own needs and goals, and are denied any kind of collective identity or ability to articulate a confrontational position.
Once trapped in this logic of rehabilitation, the paper observes, students "with mathematics disabilities" are denied the opportunity to engage in mathematical problem solving and conversation and instead are relegated to performing rote operations, the very thing that they struggle with. These rote operations are not really prerequisite skills for problem solving, but are often seen as such by special educators. When the students are allowed to participate in problem solving, the paper argues, they are basically given the methods and answers and don't get to apply their own creativity and reasoning.
This paper offers an alternative queer reading of mathematics disability, one that accounts for radical difference. It concludes by offering a vision of a mathematics that takes all students' ideas seriously and of a special education apparatus that accounts for and celebrates radical difference.
Books by James Sheldon
Relationships are a prominent topic in queer studies today; the notion of queer challenges the no... more Relationships are a prominent topic in queer studies today; the notion of queer challenges the norms of how we interact and the ways in which we relate to each other, both in everyday life, but also (I suggest) within the classroom. Queer pedagogy, in particular, has been fascinated with the role of the teacher within the educational process. Some suggest that in order to do queer pedagogy, we should take the teacher entirely out of the process, symbolically killing the Lacanian Father and freeing us from the rules of society and of language. A professor of mine in graduate school, upon hearing that my research area was queer pedagogy, conjectured that the queerest pedagogy of all would be to not show up to class at all, and put a sign on the door saying " no professor is coming; you'll have to teach yourselves. " From this chaos, I suppose, students would create their own chaordic leadership and then teach themselves the course material. 1 In this fantasy, teacher/student hierarchies would be abolished (as there would no longer be an instructor) and other educational hierarchies would evaporate as well. In reality, students would likely establish their own new hierarchies , even without the teacher/Father present.
Uploads
Papers by James Sheldon
education. Drawing upon Rasmussen (2006), I consider whether merely sharing one aspect of identity with
participants is enough to gain an emic (insider) perspective when doing research. I argue that not only should
we problematize our own identity, but that research should change the researcher’s own identity and that the
degree to which research promotes this change is an essential aspect of formal validity of the research. Finally,
I propose some practical implications and offer some advice for researchers conducting research on disability.
Conference Presentations by James Sheldon
Once trapped in this logic of rehabilitation, the paper observes, students "with mathematics disabilities" are denied the opportunity to engage in mathematical problem solving and conversation and instead are relegated to performing rote operations, the very thing that they struggle with. These rote operations are not really prerequisite skills for problem solving, but are often seen as such by special educators. When the students are allowed to participate in problem solving, the paper argues, they are basically given the methods and answers and don't get to apply their own creativity and reasoning.
This paper offers an alternative queer reading of mathematics disability, one that accounts for radical difference. It concludes by offering a vision of a mathematics that takes all students' ideas seriously and of a special education apparatus that accounts for and celebrates radical difference.
Books by James Sheldon
education. Drawing upon Rasmussen (2006), I consider whether merely sharing one aspect of identity with
participants is enough to gain an emic (insider) perspective when doing research. I argue that not only should
we problematize our own identity, but that research should change the researcher’s own identity and that the
degree to which research promotes this change is an essential aspect of formal validity of the research. Finally,
I propose some practical implications and offer some advice for researchers conducting research on disability.
Once trapped in this logic of rehabilitation, the paper observes, students "with mathematics disabilities" are denied the opportunity to engage in mathematical problem solving and conversation and instead are relegated to performing rote operations, the very thing that they struggle with. These rote operations are not really prerequisite skills for problem solving, but are often seen as such by special educators. When the students are allowed to participate in problem solving, the paper argues, they are basically given the methods and answers and don't get to apply their own creativity and reasoning.
This paper offers an alternative queer reading of mathematics disability, one that accounts for radical difference. It concludes by offering a vision of a mathematics that takes all students' ideas seriously and of a special education apparatus that accounts for and celebrates radical difference.