Disability's Place in the College Institution's Codified Composition
Start Date
2023 3:20 PM
Location
Alter Hall 206
Abstract
This study, in exploring the intersectionality of disability studies and composition in the classroom, investigates how educational policy regarding disability shapes students’ rhetoric and attitudes towards people with disabilities and towards the school they attend. Surveys inquire on the student's perspective of the effectiveness of disability services or their peers’ access to disability services, as well as the students (disabled and non-disabled) perception of how inclusive a campus is versus how inclusive the rhetoric (on campus, in syllabi, through services, in writing) surrounding disability is. Syllabi on two different college campuses, alongside the surveys, contribute to the study’s analysis by comparing the student experience or perception of a campus’s disability inclusivity practices with the breakdown and measurement of educational policy and how disability inclusive (or not) it is. A disparity in the student experience compared to the codified disability-inclusive (or non-inclusive) policy is an indicator of a college institution’s ability, efforts, or lack thereof, to address the needs of students with disabilities through composition. Furthermore, student perception that doesn’t match up with how inclusive or non-inclusive educational policy is is an indicator of the composition of a college institution’s impact on how student rhetoric and attitude towards people with disabilities may be shaped.
Disability's Place in the College Institution's Codified Composition
Alter Hall 206
This study, in exploring the intersectionality of disability studies and composition in the classroom, investigates how educational policy regarding disability shapes students’ rhetoric and attitudes towards people with disabilities and towards the school they attend. Surveys inquire on the student's perspective of the effectiveness of disability services or their peers’ access to disability services, as well as the students (disabled and non-disabled) perception of how inclusive a campus is versus how inclusive the rhetoric (on campus, in syllabi, through services, in writing) surrounding disability is. Syllabi on two different college campuses, alongside the surveys, contribute to the study’s analysis by comparing the student experience or perception of a campus’s disability inclusivity practices with the breakdown and measurement of educational policy and how disability inclusive (or not) it is. A disparity in the student experience compared to the codified disability-inclusive (or non-inclusive) policy is an indicator of a college institution’s ability, efforts, or lack thereof, to address the needs of students with disabilities through composition. Furthermore, student perception that doesn’t match up with how inclusive or non-inclusive educational policy is is an indicator of the composition of a college institution’s impact on how student rhetoric and attitude towards people with disabilities may be shaped.
