重思學習障礙之定義與鑑定：一個特殊教育社會學的觀點
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2021-09-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立臺灣師範大學教育學系
Department of Education,National Taiwan Normal University
Department of Education,National Taiwan Normal University
Abstract
本研究延續批判教育學傳統，揭露教育理念與學校實務間的矛盾，聚焦於學習障礙類之定義與鑑定，採取社會學的觀點，檢視學習障礙如何是社會建構的產物。資料來源以訪談為主、文件檔案為輔。結果歸納三點發現：一、製造學習障礙：從無到有再到高出現率；二、灰色地帶：學習障礙與低成就難以切割；三、特殊教育需求：文化刺激不足不易排除。進而提出三點討論：一、教育相關體系生產特殊教育需求；二、特殊教育需求反映健全常規預設；三、健全常規預設強化缺陷思維。最後做成結論、提出反思：一、學習障礙乃一需求／供應鏈體系；二、「需求」與「缺陷」是一體兩面；三、反映健全常規預設以及對人口品質的焦慮。本研究呼籲重新省思學習障礙類別之定義與鑑定，以免背離實現教育機會均等、尊重多元文化差異之政策與願景。
Following the tradition of critical education, this study investigates the contradiction between educational ideals and school practices, focusing on the definition and identification of learning disability (LD) and examining how it is socially constructed. Using data from interviews and documents, this study found how LD is manufactured from non-existing, occurring, to being highly-visible, how LD is hard to tell solely from low achievement of students, and how LD is difficult to exempt from lacking of adequate cultural stimuli. Three points were then formulated for discussion. First, special education needs are produced from the entire educational system. Secondly, the assumption of ableist normativity is also required for special education. Finally, ableist normativity reinforces deficit thinking. This study concludes with three statements: 1. LD exhibits a system of demand and supply chain. 2. Needs and deficits are two sides of the same coin. 3. It mirrors the assumption of ableist normativity and an anxiety about population quality. It is important therefore to reconsider the definition and identification of LD for fear of contravening the policy and vision of equal education opportunity and cultural diversity.
Following the tradition of critical education, this study investigates the contradiction between educational ideals and school practices, focusing on the definition and identification of learning disability (LD) and examining how it is socially constructed. Using data from interviews and documents, this study found how LD is manufactured from non-existing, occurring, to being highly-visible, how LD is hard to tell solely from low achievement of students, and how LD is difficult to exempt from lacking of adequate cultural stimuli. Three points were then formulated for discussion. First, special education needs are produced from the entire educational system. Secondly, the assumption of ableist normativity is also required for special education. Finally, ableist normativity reinforces deficit thinking. This study concludes with three statements: 1. LD exhibits a system of demand and supply chain. 2. Needs and deficits are two sides of the same coin. 3. It mirrors the assumption of ableist normativity and an anxiety about population quality. It is important therefore to reconsider the definition and identification of LD for fear of contravening the policy and vision of equal education opportunity and cultural diversity.