ABSTRACT
The chapter begins by noting key features of our approach to ‘dyslexia’. We then introduce the concept of lexism to illustrate the ways in which our text-rich society has constructed and maintained dyslexia as a disability. We go on to argue that a social model of literacy, together with the emergence of new literacy practices
which are frequently socio-technologically mediated, prompt reconsideration of the relationship between dyslexia, literacy and learning. To do so, we draw on the philosopher Gilbert Ryle’s classic (1949) work The concept of mind and his observations on the distinction between propositional knowledge (which includes literacy) and other ways we might defi ne intelligence, and the importance of not confusing or confl ating the two. Ryle calls this distinction ‘Knowing how and knowing that’. We show how this work both enables us to unpick dominant conceptualisations of literacy (and hence what underpins lexist attitudes), and helps illustrate the shifting emphasis on procedural over declarative knowledge which some attribute to the expansion of Web 2.0 technologies (Dede, 2008; Kress, 2010; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). We contend that defi cit models of dyslexia and literacy can be explained through conceptual confusion between the ‘knowing how’ and ‘knowing that’ of literacy, meaning that too often educators focus on the technicalities of literacy and correcting perceived skill defi cits, forgetting that literacy is a social act whose primary function is to allow us to communicate and develop knowledge of other things. We then present evidence from an empirical classroom study of fi ve dyslexic students’ educational Facebook use which suggests that rather than being defi ned and constrained by perceived literacy defi cits related to ‘knowing that’, the dyslexic students can be seen to be highly motivated and adept in learning the ‘knowing how’ necessary for developing critical digital literacies. In the actions of the fi ve dyslexic students in this study, we fi nd support for Meyer and Rose’s (2005, p. 1) claim that:
students ‘on the margins,’ for whom current curricula are patently ineffective, can actually lead the way to true reform because they help us understand weaknesses in our educational system and curricula that impede teaching and learning for all. The needs of diverse learners who have until now been disenfranchised in a print-centric world can drive us to discover, develop, and apply the astonishing power of new media to expand educational opportunities.
