Teachers' Perceptions Toward De-Brailling Of

TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS TOWARD DE-BRAILLING OF WORK BY STUDENTS WITH VISUAL IMPAIRMENT IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS FOR VISUALLY IMPAIRED LEARNERS IN KENYA

OBADO HESBON OTIENO E55/28084/2013

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION (SPECIAL NEEDS EDUCATION) TO THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

DECEMBER, 2019 DECLARATION Student’s Declaration I confirm that this thesis is my original work and has not been presented in any other university/institution for consideration for any certification. This thesis has been complemented by referenced sources duly acknowledged. Where text, data (including spoken words), graphics, pictures or tables have been borrowed from other sources, including the internet, these are specifically accredited and references cited using current APA system and in accordance with anti-plagiarism regulations.

Signature………………………….……… Date………..………………..…………...

Obado Hesbon Otieno

Registration Number: E55/28084/2013

Department of Special Needs Education.

Supervisors’ Declaration

This thesis has been submitted for appraisal with our approval as University

Supervisors.

Signature………………………….……… Date………..………………..…………...

Dr. Chomba Wa Munyi

Department of Special Needs Education

Kenyatta University

Signature………………………….……… Date………..………………..…………... Dr. Jessina Muthee Department of Special Needs Education Kenyatta University

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my loving wife, Lencer; my adorable children,

Maimuounah, David-Herbert, Laurah, Shantelle and Sharleen; and my assiduous and caring parents, Mr. Samwel Obado Omito and Mrs. Conslata Atieno Obado.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study was a protracted journey whose success depended on the precious in-put of numerous institutions and people, to whom I am honestly grateful. My appreciation goes to Kenyatta University for granting me an opportunity to study and improve my life and those of others. I am genuinely indebted to my knowledgeable and highly helpful supervisors, Dr. Chomba Wa Munyi and Dr. Jessina Muthee who walked with me every step of the research proposal and thesis writing; lecturers in the Department of Special Needs Education for imparting invaluable knowledge, skills, attitudes and advice; and lecturers from the School of Education whose lectures and insights were utterly indispensible. I am also indebted to all the administrators in the study locales and all the research respondents.

Special and sincere gratitude goes to the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) for giving me study leave. In particular I thank Mrs. Catherine Olwande for her seminal role in signing my documents for study leave. She felt that I deserved professional development.

I would like to appreciate the late Leo Obado Kanga for introducing me to the world of books at a tender age. He provided an opportunity for me to make my friends books and books my friends (Ben Jonson, English Playwright, 1572-1637). To my family: spouse, children, parents, siblings and the larger Kajwang’ family, your love, patience and support have been immense.

Those whose names appear here are a mere representative of those whose enviable contribution made this search for truth a success. I will ever remain utterly indebted and passionately grateful to you. May God bless you and grant you the desires of your heart.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ...... ii DEDICATION ...... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS...... v LIST OF TABLES ...... viii LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... x ABSTRACT ...... xi

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXTUALIZATION OF THE STUDY ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Background to the study ...... 1 1.3 Statement of the problem ...... 8 1.3.1 Purpose of the Study ...... 8 1.3.2 Research Objectives ...... 9 1.3.3 Research Questions ...... 9 1.4 Significance of the Study ...... 9 1.5 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ...... 10 1.5.1 Limitations ...... 10 1.5.2 Delimitations ...... 11 1.6 Assumptions ...... 11 1.7 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ...... 12 1.7.1 Theoretical Framework ...... 12 1.7.2 Conceptual Framework ...... 14 1.8 Operational Definition of Terms ...... 16

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 17

2.1 Introduction ...... 17

2.2 Comparing the Original and de-brailled Texts ...... 17 2.3 Professional Qualifications for de-brailling Personnel ...... 24 2.3.1 Teachers’ Qualifications ...... 25 2.3.2 Access Assistants’ Qualification...... 29 2.4 Challenges in de-brailling ...... 35 2.5 Competence of de-brailling Personnel ...... 42 2.6 Summary of the Review...... 51

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ...... 54

3.1 Introduction ...... 54 3.2 Research Design...... 54 3.3 Research Variables...... 55 3.3.1 Independent Variables ...... 55 3.3.2 Dependent Variables ...... 55 3.4 Location of the Study ...... 55 3.5 Target Population ...... 56 3.6 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size ...... 56 3.6.1 Sampling Techniques ...... 56 3.6.2 Sample Size ...... 57 3.7 Research Instruments ...... 58 3.7.1 Questionnaires: ...... 58 3.7.2 Interview Schedules ...... 59 3.8 Piloting the Study ...... 61 3.8.1 Validity ...... 61 3.8.2 Reliability ...... 62 3.9 Data Collection Techniques ...... 62 3.10 Data Analysis ...... 63 3.11 Logistical and Ethical Considerations ...... 64

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION ...... 65 4.1 Introduction ...... 65 4.2 General and Demographic Information of Respondents ...... 65 4.1.1 Response Rate ...... 65 4.1.2 Demographic Information of Respondents ...... 66 4.3 Comparing the Original and de-brailled Texts ...... 76 4.4 Professional Qualifications for de-brailling Personnel ...... 81 4.5 Challenges in De-brailling ...... 91 4.6 Competence of De-brailling Personnel ...... 100

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 107 5.1 Introduction ...... 107 5.2 Summary of the Findings ...... 107 5.3 Conclusions ...... 110 5.4 Recommendations ...... 110 5.5 Suggestions for Further Studies ...... 111

REFERENCES ...... 112

APPENDICES ...... 125 Appendix ia: Questionnaire for Teachers ...... 125 Appendix ib: Interview Schedule for Former De-Braillists ...... 132 Appendix ic: Interview Schedule for Teachers in Charge of Braille ...... 133 Appendix ii: Research Authorization and Permit ...... 134 Appendix iii: Authorization Letter from NACOSTI ...... 135 Appendix iv: Research Permit from NACOSTI ...... 136

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Target Population and Sample Population ...... 57 Table 4.1 Response Rate ...... 66 Table 4.2 Gender of Teachers ...... 67 Table 4.3 Age of the Respondents ...... 67 Table 4.4 Trained in Special Needs Education (SNE) ...... 70 Table 4.5 Specialization in Visual Impairment...... 71 Table 4.6 Trained in Braille ...... 72 Table 4.7 Literate in Braille in Respondents’ Teaching Subjects ...... 73 Table 4.8 Trained by KNEC or KEMI as a KCSE examiner ...... 74 Table 4.9 Trained by MOEST or any other organization in Braille or VI assessment . 75 Table 4.10 Comparison between the original and the de-brailled texts ...... 77 Table 4.11 Qualifications/Requirements for de-brailling Personnel ...... 82 Table 4.12 Challenges likely to affect De-brailling ...... 91 Table 4.13 Enhancing competence of de-brailling personnel14 ...... 101

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework ...... 14

Figure 4.1 Teaching Experience ...... 68

Figure 4.2 Teachers Academic Qualifications ...... 69

Figure 4.3: Highest Level of Training in SNE ...... 71

Figure 4.4 Self-rating of Braille Literacy Level in Respondents’ Teaching Subjects .. 73

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BEC Botswana Examination Council CWDs Children with Disabilities CWVI Children with Visual Impairments EFA Education for All GCSE General Certificate of Secondary Education ICEVI International Council on the Education of People with Visual Impairment JCQ Joint Council for Qualifications KCPE Kenya Certificate of Primary Education KCSE Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education KICD Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development KNEC Kenya National Examinations Council LWDs Learners with Disabilities LWVI Learners with Visual Impairment MDGs Millennium Development Goals MOEST Ministry of Education Science and Technology SEN Special Educational Needs SNE Special Needs Education UEB Unified English Braille UNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities VI Visual Impairment/Visually Impaired WBU World Blind Union

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions toward de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya. The study sought to establish teachers’ perceptions toward relationship between original Braille work and de-brailled work, the qualifications of de-brailling personnel, challenges involved in de-brailling, and strategies that can enhance competence of de-brailling personnel. The study was based on the evaluation theory by Michael Scriven (1967). Descriptive research design was used. Piloting was done using 5 teachers of learners with visual impairment at St Francis Secondary School for the Visually Impaired, Kapenguria, in West Pokot County. The study was conducted in four secondary schools for learners with visual impairment and nationally. The target population was 102 teachers and former de- braillists of KNEC. A sample of 34 respondents: twenty-six subject teachers, four teachers in charge of Braille from the schools and four former de-braillists of KNEC derived. Schools and teachers in charge of Braille were purposively sampled while 26 subject teachers were sampled through stratified random sampling. The former de- braillists were sampled through snowballing. Questionnaires and interviews were used to collect data. Interview schedules were organized for the former de-braillists of KNEC and teachers in charge of Braille. Quantitative data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and results presented in tables, charts and graphs. Data from interviews were analyzed qualitatively by thematic analysis and the results presented in narrative form. Findings revealed that the original Braille work and de-brailled work were utterly different owing to errors associated with the de- brailling process, the de-braillists or the student. Findings also revealed that the de- brailling personnel should have professional qualifications, training and other vital qualities that they need to effectively play their roles: be trained and certified, have knowledge of Braille and skilled in presenting various types of test materials, accuracy and subject knowledge/training. The findings further showed that major challenges involved in de-brailling were the competence of the personnel de-brailling students’ work coupled with qualifications that did not match their competence, inadequate or lack of Braille personnel, complexity of the Braille code, lack of clear Braille standards in the country among others. Finally, it was established that there was a difference between qualification and competence and there existed low levels of braille proficiency among teachers which called for further frequent professional trainings and refresher courses. From the findings, the following recommendations were made: Institutions that train personnel in SNE (visual impairment) and especially in Braille should ensure adequate resources: both human and material; the Teachers Service Commission to ensure that qualified and competent teachers of the VI are posted to secondary schools for learners with visual impairment; the de- braillists/teachers should be subjected to frequent training and refresher courses to enhance their competence in Braille; the teachers in institutions for learners with VI should ensure high standards of Braille among learners right from pre-braille skills; and teachers should mark students’ Braille work and assignments in their original Braille form.

CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXTUALIZATION OF THE STUDY

1.1 Introduction

This chapter gives a clear picture of what is in the study starting with the background to the study, statement of the problem as well as the purpose, objectives and the research questions. It then looks at the significance of the study, limitations and delimitations, assumptions and the theoretical- and conceptual frameworks. Finally, the chapter considers the operational definition of terms.

1.2 Background to the study

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that of all the 61 million that do not attend school, 27% are children with disabilities (CWDs) and only 10% of CWDs and children with visual impairment (CWVI) attend school (Brown, 2013; World Blind

Union [WBU], 2015). Brown decries the shocking statistics. CWVI need to be given their inalienable right to education as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (United Nations [UN], 1949). This, however, may not be realized due to some challenges facing the learner who is visually impaired (Orangah, 2012). Of valuable interest are the factors connected with the formative and summative evaluation of learners with visual impairment (LWVI) at the secondary school level.

Many stakeholders affirm the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1949), the

UNESCO Flagship initiatives on Education for All (2004) and the United Nations

Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – UNCRPD (UNCRPD, 2006).

The International Council for the Education of People with Visual Impairment

(ICEVI) is one of the stakeholders that campaign for equal access for suitable education for children and youth with VI. ICEVI (2014) argues that children and youth with VI can learn virtually everything and realize their full potential so long as the curriculum is accessed in an alternative format. These alternative literacy ways are, but not limited to Braille, enlarged print and both optical low vision devices (OLVDs) and non-optical low vision devices. ICEVI labels children and youth with VI as twice exceptional – they grapple with educational, health, social and stereotypical challenges. The relative low educational achievement by learners with visual impairment in their final secondary school examinations have been noted globally.

Chanfreau and Cebulla (2009) and Stewart (2014) concur that a study commissioned by the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) in England, Wales, Northern

Ireland and Scotland, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) had the objective to improve our understanding of the effect of visual impairment on educational attainment in secondary education. The study scrutinized data regarding: learners with visual impairment only; pupils with no visual impairment; students with

VI and additional Special Educational Needs (SEN); and learners with other SEN. The principal focus of the research was to examine attainment at General Certificate of

Secondary Education (GCSE) level (Key Stage 4, KS4) in England, Wales and

Northern Ireland and the Standard Grade Level in Scotland. These examinations are taken at around age 16. In both England and Wales, learners with no SEN recorded the highest level of achievement: children with VI only achieved slightly lower than those without SEN; and a larger gap was evident between these two groups and learners with VI and additional SEN and those with other SEN: they achieved the lowest

2 results. Chanfreau and Cebulla (2009) and Stewart (2014) reveal that in Northern

Ireland, the standard measure of attainment (five or more GCSEs graded A* to C) was used to gauge academic achievement. Pupils with no SEN achieved the highest level, followed by learners with VI only. Students with VI and additional SEN achieved the lowest. Lower performance by school leavers with VI in Scotland was blamed on data collection arrangement in the country. VI reduced the likelihood of a school leaver attaining five or more Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) Level 5 qualifications. Similar attainments were got by Bassett (2010) among English primary school pupils Year 2, 6 and 9 in 2008/09.

In Botswana’s Kgaleng District, a study done by Habulezi, Batsalelwang and Malatsi

(2017) on factors influencing the poor academic performance of learners with visual impairment in science subjects found that several factors as responsible for the learners’ dismal performance. These factors included: large class sizes, shortage of human (special education teachers) and material resources and attitude of learners and teachers. The study also found out that inadequate adaptation of teaching and learning resources, teaching methods and large teaching loads were additional contributors to bad academic achievement by learners with visual impairment. From the study, there was no mention of de-brailling as a factor.

At the national level in Botswana, the Botswana Examinations Council (BEC) makes arrangements for transcripts (de-brailling) for candidates that write their responses in

Braille (BEC, 2009). The transcripts are later marked together with the rest, the examination scripts written in ink.

In the Anglophone West African countries of Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, the

Gambia and Liberia, the council in charge of the West Africa Senior School

Certificate Examinations (WASSCE) is the West African Examinations Council

(WAEC). Alhaja, Kolajo and Oyediran (2008) and The World Bank Group (2001) assert that equity implies that candidates with similar ability are awarded a similar grade. However, inequities place some individuals at a disadvantage owing to some variables unique to those the examination targets to assess. Even though certain inequities may be evident in the general education setup, others may be linked to the examination process itself. Dery (2015) indicated concern among stakeholders on the marking of WASSCE Examinations especially in Ghana. It was not clear how the

Braille examination scripts were handled by the examination body in Ghana. It was observed that some of the best candidates with VI in the 2014 WASSCE examinations scored E8s and F9s, 40% - 44% and 0% - 39% respectively. After applying for remarking they had A1s (80% - 100%).

In Zambia, Chilala (2003) argues that there is no clear methodology or policy with regard to the summative evaluation of learners with visual impairment to ensure inclusivity in the education system. Candidates with VI write their responses in Braille at Grade 9 and school certificate levels. Resource teachers and/or Braille experts at all levels, Grade 9, 12 and tertiary, transcribe the responses into handwritten or print (de- braille) responses and shaded answer cards. The transcribed responses are verified by specialists before the processing of results. This, however, raises a number of issues.

Errors on the transcribed scripts and the illegibility of the handwriting of the

4 transcribing personnel are some of the issues that touch on the validity of the scores candidates with VI get in their national examinations.

In Kenya, Kaburia (2006) in looking at Attitudes and Policies in Achieving Equality in

Access to Education for Learners with Visual Impairments, Kenya Experience, emphasizes the goal of education in relation to vulnerable members of the society:

The goal of education is to provide equal opportunities to all children including those with special needs. Education is a human right and therefore each society must be sensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable of their citizen especially the very young, old and those with special needs (Kaburia, 2006:1). This goal may remain a pipe dream to learners with visual impairment in the Kenyan schools partly because much as KNEC provides the syllabi both regular and adapted for use by sighted and low vision students on one hand and blind students on the other hand, the Council fails in giving guidelines on matters that touch directly on learners with visual impairments. These critical road maps include, but not limited to the

Braille code to be adhered to, standards to be considered during de-brailling and examination reports that would help teachers of learners with visual impairment prepare their learners for future KCSE examinations (KNEC, 2014a, 2018). In addition, even though the examination body embraces de-brailling, this practice is disadvantageous to learners it is supposed to help. Kaburia further states that though de-brailling is done by experts in Braille transcription and writers, critics have found it wanting owing to the likelihood of introduction of errors; the reader may correct students’ errors during transcription or even introduce punctuations that lacked in the original script; change of information may occur due to differences in the form of

Braille Grades; and the reader and the writer may be from different linguistic backgrounds and this may affect the way each perceives pronunciation of words.

The practice of de-brailling has been taking place in the Kenyan secondary schools for learners with visual impairment, especially during internal examinations, tests and related work. It is favoured by teachers who feel incompetent in marking directly students’ examinations scripts or work written in Braille. Chomba (2017) on analyzing teachers’ perceptions on instruction of Braille literacy in primary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya reports lack of standardized Braille curriculum. His study further finds that the respondents had negative attitudes towards Braille and lacked both commitment and competence.. The situation led to teachers being opposed to learning Braille Grade Two. This eventually led to formation of clubs and friends who mark Braille homework, assignments and exam for them. The study reported that at that level teachers did not only seek assistance from colleagues but also from learners who “knew” Braille. The question is: does the same happen at secondary school level when de-brailling happens and what variables do such teachers consider since there are issues of subject specialization, and so on.

This, however, happens against the backdrop that in Kenya, the government has embraced affirmative action with regard to LWDs. This is seen in several policy documents: Children’s Act 2001; the declaration of Free Primary Education (FPE)

2003; Disabilities Act 2003; Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2005; Kenya National

Examinations Council (KNEC) Rules 2009; Constitution of Kenya 2010; Basic

Education Act 2012, 2015; and National Special Needs Education Policy Framework

2009. The Kenya National Examinations Council conducts academic, technical and other examinations in Kenya and awards certificates and diplomas in such examinations (Republic of Kenya [ROK], 2012a, 2012c; Otieno, 2010). It has put in measures to ensure that examinations are accessible to LWDs. Adaptations for candidates with VI are: exams in Braille, extra time, large print, among others (KNEC,

2009; Mundi, n.d.). Muthiora (2016) notes KNEC’s efficiency in the preparation of examinations syllabi and in setting and moderation. However, KNEC still has a daunting task in the printing, delivery, administration, marking, data entry and standardization of the examinations. In addition, scholars have lamented the low grades in national examinations (KCSE), low transition rates, premature exit from the system and very low participation in economic activities by LWVI (Mugambi, 2011;

Mugo, Oranga & Singal, 2010; Mundi, n.d.; Orangah, 2012). This state of affairs is directly connected to exam related (teaching and learning) activities, and in particular, de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment in special secondary schools of such learners.

In Kenya, for instance, marking has ever since been done after de-brailling (ICEVI,

2014). Atkins (2012) and Clapper, Morse, Thompson and Thurlow (2006) maintain that the problem of de-brailling is change in meaning. The consequence of this is wrong or subjective evaluation. There is often a link between what students and teachers do during formative evaluation and the results the learners get during summative evaluation (Andala, & Kamande, 2014; Odongo, 2014). The process has culminated in these learners failing to get matriculated into competitive courses at the university and other tertiary institutions.

1.3 Statement of the problem

Several studies reveal that learners with visual impairment have been performing badly in the national examinations. The poor performance by learners has been directly attributed to the practice of de-brailling in both Zambia and Kenya. While in

Zambia de-brailling is done at Grade 9, Grade 12 and tertiary level, the Kenya

National Examinations Council does it at the KCSE level, an examination that marks the end of the secondary school course. In Kenya, analysis of teachers’ perceptions on instruction of Braille literacy in primary schools for learners with visual impairment, has cast aspersions on the attitude and commitment of teachers in such schools towards Braille and their competence in Braille (Chomba, 2017; Kimeto, 2010;

Nzoka, 2011).

In view of limited research on this subject, the current study sought to investigate teachers’ perceptions toward de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya.

1.3.1 Purpose of the Study

The study sought to investigate teachers’ perceptions toward de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya.

1.3.2 Research Objectives

The objectives of this study are to:

1. Establish teachers’ perceptions toward relationship between original Braille

work and de-brailled work.

2. Explore teachers’ perceptions toward the qualifications of de-brailling

personnel.

3. Investigate teachers’ perceptions on challenges involved in de-brailling.

4. Determine teachers’ perceptions toward strategies that can enhance

competence of de-brailling personnel.

1.3.3 Research Questions

The study endeavoured to answer the following research questions derived intrinsically from the already mentioned research objectives:

1. What are the teachers’ perceptions toward the relationship between original

Braille work and the de-brailled work?

2. What are the teachers’ perceptions on the qualifications of de-brailling

personnel?

3. What do teachers feel about challenges involved in de-brailling?

4. What are the teachers’ opinions on strategies that can enhance competence of

de-brailling personnel?

1.4 Significance of the Study

This study was intended to benefit several stakeholders. The primary beneficiaries would be learners with visual impairment (LWVI). This is based on the fact that their

9 methodologies and resources for instruction and evaluation would improve leading to better performance in assignments, tests, internal examinations and KCSE examinations. Amelioration in performance would possibly lead to better approaches in selection, placement and certification. This would have a domino-effect on social, economic and political independence hence mitigating the burden of dependence on parents, guardians, friends, relatives and the larger community. The Ministry of

Education, Science and Technology would get invaluable insight into areas pertinent to education and evaluation of LWVI. This would guide policy formulation in the area of the VI. KNEC would be another beneficiary since the proposed research would make it improve on the manner it assesses LWVI. This step would make it be viewed concerned and responsive to the issues affecting LWVI.

Another likely beneficiary would be the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development

(KICD). KICD would get vital ideas in order to develop, review and improve programmes, curricula and curriculum support materials for SNE and specifically the education of LWVI. The study would offer contribution to the already existing body of knowledge. Scholars and researchers would find important information in this study.

1.5 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study

1.5.1 Limitations

These were the limitations of this study:

1. Establishing the respondents’ bias was the first limitation. Often in research,

some respondents are inclined to giving socially acceptable answers. This

challenge was solved by having both questionnaires and interviews for data

collection. The involvement of the former de-brail lists of KNEC was essential

in helping mitigate this limitation.

2. Time constraint was the second limitation. The researcher had limited time to

carry out the study. Other than using research assistants, some of the

interviews were done by mobile telephone after consulting with the specific

respondents and arriving at a consensus.

1.5.2 Delimitations

The study concentrated on secondary schools and their formative evaluation since virtually all the papers in Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) are multiple-choice items so is the nature of their formative evaluation. The Kenya

Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) papers are either structured or essay-type questions. The research did not deal with integrated schools or units since they had fewer or negligible number of teachers trained in SNE and Braille and curriculum resource materials. The study did not seek the views of LWVI and KNEC officials because they were ignorant on evaluation matters and utterly secretive respectively.

1.6 Assumptions

The study has the following assumptions:

1. The respondents would be available and willing to respond to the research

instruments.

2. The study locales had adequately trained personnel who understood issues

around de-brailling, formative as well as summative evaluation of learners with

VI in Kenya.

3. There is a link between errors made while writing Braille (Brailling) and some

errors that appear in the de-brailled script.

4. The researcher is not privy to the respondents’ perceptions toward the topic

under research.

1.7 Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

1.7.1 Theoretical Framework

The study was based on the Evaluation Theory by Michael Scriven (1967). This theory is also commonly referred to as Scriven’s Theory of Evaluation Practice or simply Theory of Evaluation Practice (Alkin & Christie, 2004; Trochim, 1998).

Scriven holds that evaluation is the science of valuing and like Einser (1998) asserts that evaluation concerns making value judgements about the quality of some object, situation or process (Alkin & Christie, 2004). Scriven (1986) posits: “Bad is bad and good is good and it is the job of the evaluators to decide which is which”. This in essence gives us Scriven’s view of what evaluation is and the role of the evaluator without addressing what happens after evaluation. However, what appears of interest is his identification of the secondary effects and unintended consequences. Scriven later introduced what he termed the Modus Operandi or ‘MO’:

The MO of a particular cause is an associated configuration of events, processes, or properties usually in time sequence which can often be described as “the characteristic causal chain” (or certain distinctive features of this chain) connecting the end cause with effect (Scriven, 1974:71).

The causal effect phenomenon seems to be emphasized in Trochim’s paper (1998) in defining evaluation. Their only point of departure is that Trochim develops cold feet in giving an authoritative definition. He, however, defines evaluation as:

A profession that uses formal methodologies to provide useful empirical evidence about public entities (such as programmes, products, performance) in decision making contexts that are inherently political and involve multiple often conflicting stakeholders, where resources are seldom sufficient and where time pressures are salient (Trochim, 1998:248).

The main aim of de-brailling students’ work is to mark it. Marking is an act of assigning value to a piece of work.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the teacher is the evaluator whose role, according to

Scriven, is to assign value but it is apparent that the value so assigned may fail to reflect the true value of the student Braille work/script or the student being evaluated.

This may finally culminate in making inappropriate decision, changing the life of the student irrevocably. What Scriven refers to as the characteristic causal effect is seen in the relationship between the students’ original Braille work and the de-brailled work, professional qualifications of the de-brailling personnel, challenges in de-brailling and the competence of the de-brailling personnel that interact to make a student and/or his or her Braille work get the right, fair or appropriate value.

1.7.2 Conceptual Framework

Teachers’ perceptions toward

relationship between original

braille work and de-brailled

work or exam scripts

Teachers’ perceptions toward

the qualifications of de-brailling personnel

De-brailling of students’ work Teachers’ perceptions on challenges involved in de- brailling

Teachers’ perceptions toward strategies that can enhance competence of de-brailling

personnel (Independent Variables) (Dependent Variables)

Figure 1.1: Conceptual Framework [Source: Adapted from the Assessment Question Model by McLaughlin and Lewis (1994)]

In Figure 1.1 above, teachers’ perceptions are hypothesized to affect the de-brailling of students’ work or Braille scripts. There are a number of factors that come into play before the subject teacher (the evaluator) and the candidate – his or her Braille work or scripts (the consumer, product) interact. The study considered the independent variables: relationship between original Braille work and de-brailled work, teachers’ perceptions toward the qualifications of de-brailling personnel, teachers’ perceptions on challenges involved in de-brailling and teachers’ perceptions toward strategies that can enhance competence of de-brailling personnel.

All these independent variables will affect the de-brailling of students’ work, which is the dependent variable.

1.8 Operational Definition of Terms

Blind: An individual having a visual acuity of 20/70 or less in the better eye with best correction by glasses or peripheral vision of <20◦ (Mogk & Goodrich, 2005).

Braille: An established system of raised dots designed to permit ‘Blind’ people to read (Goldberg & Swan, 2011).

Braillist: A person who reads and writes Braille (Wells-Jensen, Schwartz & Gosche, 2007).

De-braille: Translate Braille script into ink print text (Tobin & Hill, 2015).

KCSE: Exam marking end of secondary school learning in Kenya; a sieving tool in making transitional judgements (Were, 2012).

Learners with visual impairment: Learners who are ‘blind’ or have low vision (Bell, 2010).

Low vision: A visual acuity between 20/200 and 20/70; although not categorized as ‘blind’, could use optical aids (Mogk & Goodrich, 2005).

Perceptions: These are particular ways of understanding or thinking about something; the ability to understand and make good judgement about something; a personal opinion or belief about a particular situation or subject (Chomba, 2017). In this study perceptions could as well represent views, opinions, judgement and/or beliefs by an expert.

Response transcription: A type of response accommodation where answers written by a candidate are transferred to the answer sheet by someone else (Allman, 2013).

Transcriber: A person that changes ink print texts into Braille and vice versa; a person who makes a transcript; response transcriber (BEC, 2009).

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction

This chapter examines relevant literature in line with the study objectives. The areas covered include: comparing the original and de-brailled texts, professional qualifications for de-brailling personnel, challenges in de-brailling and competence of de-brailling personnel.

2.2 Comparing the Original and de-brailled Texts

This sub-section will look at literature that is related to the comparison of the original

Braille script and the de-brailled script.

Texts are compared using error analysis. Several studies have compared how texts differ from the original or the intended. An error or slip in linguistics is an utterance or portion of text differing from its target in a systematic way (Fromkin, 1973, 1980).

McLaughlin and Lewis (1994) assert that error analysis in special and remedial education can be traced to Monroe’s 1930s procedure for the study of oral reading. All errors are noted and then sorted into meaningful patterns/categories: additions, omissions, substitutions, repetitions, etc. They noted, however, not all error patterns are easily discerned due to being implicit, unique or random. Error analysis, however, is a subjective technique: dependent on the teacher’s judgement and categorization.

Cooper (1983) had all domains of errors or slips into anticipations/a unit appearing too early; perseverations/a recurring element; metatheses/exchanges of elements; substitutions/one element for the other; addition; deletion; and movement.

In Zambia, a study titled Assessment and Monitoring of Pupils Achievement in an

Inclusive set up: An Analysis of Current Practices and Challenges whose findings were presented in the Sub-Regional Conference on Assessment: Learner Assessment for Improved Educational Quality, an Exchange of Current Ideas and Best Practices,

Chilala (2003) gives an insight into the issue of de-brailling. Chilala argues that there is no clear methodology or policy with regard to the summative evaluation of learners with visual impairment to ensure inclusivity in the education system. Candidates with

VI write their responses in Braille at Grade 9 and school certificate levels. Resource teachers and/or Braille experts at all levels, Grade 9, 12 and tertiary, transcribe the responses into handwritten or print responses and shaded answer cards. The transcribed responses are verified by specialists before the processing of results. This, however, raises a number of issues. Errors on the transcribed scripts and the illegibility of the handwriting of the transcribing personnel are some of the issues that touch on the validity of the scores candidates with VI get in their national examinations.

Kaburia (2006) states that although, de-brailling is done by experts in Braille transcription and writers, critics have found this practice by the Kenya National

Examinations Council wanting. The reason advanced by the proponents of this view is the likelihood of introduction of errors; the reader may correct students’ errors during transcription or even introduce punctuations that lacked in the original script; change of information may occur due to differences in the form of Braille Grades; and the reader and the writer may be from different linguistic backgrounds and this may affect the way each perceives pronunciation of words. These same bottlenecks have been emphasized by Kaburia and Kashu (2006) when investigating fairness and equity in

18 assessment with respect to learners with special needs. The Koech Report (ROK,

1999), however, faulted improper contractions. The Report stressed that the students that used Braille in the national examinations performed poorly because of contracting their words in an unconventional manner. This observation touched on the quality of

Braille that the students used during their own class work, assignments and internal examinations and later on in the national examinations. Similarly, Rukwaro (2011) had reservation about the Braille competency and literacy since majority of learners changed to using Braille once they joined secondary school. This can be a major challenge to teachers who de-braille their work.

In another study in Kenya, teachers’ competence in de-brailling was put into question.

The study by Nzoka (2011) used different achievement tests to ascertain the respondents’ proficiency in three key subject areas. The subjects tested were English,

Kiswahili and Mathematics. The study participants were given texts in the three subjects to de-braille or ‘transcribe’ as the researcher in that study sometime referred to it. The study established that only 5.71%, 13.89% and 19.12% of the respondents were proficient de-braillists in Kiswahili, English, and Mathematics respectively. On the other hand, majority of the respondents could not attain the minimum grade for proficiency as postulated by the researcher. This was seen in the 94.29%, 86.11% and

80.88% of the respondent who scored 69% or less in Kiswahili, English, and

Mathematics respectively in the de-brailling tests. It is crucial to mention that in the above mentioned study, the identified errors were the ones used to score the achievement tests done by the various respondents. The research participant with the most number of errors scored the least. The study however failed to identify the types

19 of errors made in de-brailling, neither did it specify the type of error that was common, either in the specific subjects or across all the three key subjects that the tests were in.

Considering the stated tests the study concluded that the teachers’ general proficiency in Braille was wanting and more specifically, their competence in de-brailling was completely inadequate.

Most of the study findings clearly demonstrate errors do occur in the de-brailled scripts or work. Much as these errors are linked to the de-braillists, a few find linkage to the student, the Braille writer. A few studies shade some light on this. Wells-Jensen,

Schwartz and Gosche (2007) confirm that the subject of errors made while writing

Braille has not received a great deal of study. It is argued that when discussed, Braille errors tend to be viewed as students’ incompetence in spelling or language-art topics; problems with the system itself; or students’ failure to master the system (Koenig &

Ashcroft, 1993).

In a study by Hong and Erin (2004), most students with VI were identified with orthographic errors, mostly with contractions. The study found and analyzed spelling errors: homonym errors related to Braille contractions and unsuccessful attempts at full spellings of contractions, among others. The Braille errors were: character-level errors, word-level contraction errors, interword-level errors and miscellaneous Braille related errors. Similar findings on contractions had earlier been revealed by Ashcroft

(1960) and ROK (1999).

Argyropoulos and Martos (2006) in a study analyzed Braille spelling errors by 16

Greek students with VI who used the Greek Braille code. The respondents were aged

11 – 18 in elementary school, high school and college. These researchers noted that spelling was a more complex task for students with VI (Arter, 1997). Empirical evidence shows that children with VI are more likely to have difficulty in achieving the levels of accuracy in spelling of their sighted peers (Arter, 1997; Koenig &

Holbrook, 2000; Lamb, 1996; MacCall, 1999).

In a study by Wells-Jensen, Schwartz and Gosche (2007), the aim was to recast the analysis of Braille errors as a result of generalizable cognitive processes (Mattson &

Baars, 1992) similar to those that account for errors in speech (Fromkin, 1973, 1980;

Stemberger, 1983) or typing (Cooper, 1983; Grudin, 1981; MacKay, 1993; Shaffer,

1975). The analysis was based on a collection of 1600 errors in writing Braille made between 1998 and 2004 by a skilled adult braillist. The writing was spontaneous, not text transcription. Errors and targets were recorded and transferred to a data bank. As in speech error research and typing error research, each error was grouped and analyzed according to unit involved: Dot(s) errors – 46.1%; character errors, – 27.7%

(majority errors were dot-character errors – 92%); morpheme errors; lexical

(entire/whole word) errors – 4.0%: very few and therefore congruent with Grudin

(1981); and sentence errors.

It was established that most errors (dot errors) were predominant at the lowest level in

Braille writing model, the lowest most mechanical level of writing. Finding was in unison with, first, speech error research: majority of errors are made with the

21 individual sounds rather than with meaningful units (Nooteboom, 1973). Second, research in typing where most errors involved misplaced key strokes, rather than whole words. The findings revealed presence of more tasks involving finger movement for the writer to carry out (Levelt, 1989). Wells-Jensen, Schwartz and

Gosche (2007), therefore, found contextual errors (57.2%): dots, characters, parts of words or whole words, that are present in the string and which can reappear in the nearby cells.

Reappearance can be seen as anticipations, perseverations, metatheses, misorderings and (some) additions. The first two appear as a result of ‘finger inertia’. Non- contextual errors involved: deletions – 55.5%; substitutions – 33.5% and additions –

11%. There were cases of double perseverations. Millar (1997) demonstrated that in reading Braille, the density of the dots was more important for recognition than the overall shape of the Braille cell. How the shape of the Braille cell is stored in the brain, its manipulation and the assignment of fingers is likely to lead into two additional errors. One, mirroring occurs when letters or characters are flipped so that they are written backwards. Two, raises/lowering happen when characters to be written on the upper part of the cell are produced on the lower part, and vice versa.

The researchers demonstrated that words are stored in the mental lexicon with their contractions in place. However, uncontracting these words was a possibility.

Apart from the errors on the de-brailled work by students, other aspects of de-brailling that make scripts different are handwriting (illegibility) and organization or format

(Chilala, 2003; Kaburia & Kashu, 2006). These are likely to affect the marking of the scripts or work as the following studies in marking handwritten work show.

One, studies done by Massey (1983) and Baird (1998) found out that untidiness or handwriting, prose complexity and prose accuracy did not affect scoring. However,

Emaikwu (2014), Meadows and Billington (2005) and Morris (2014) opine that different judges concentrated on different facets: length, legibility, grammar, structure, communicative effectiveness, tone, vocabulary, spelling, content, task realization, and punctuation. Some of these are affected by de-brailling and can complicate matters further for Braille work or scripts.

Two, the effects of bad handwriting on scores were compared with the effects of recording quality on scores. The findings were, tapes perceived to be imperfectly audible were more severely judged than perfectly audible tapes (Meadows &

Billington, 2005). Handwriting affected scoring, compared to teacher’s experience, professional level, age or student characteristic. Hart (2010) asserts that poor handwriting, deplorable punctuation, missed capital/small letter(s), wrong spacing and nonsensical sentences would cost a candidate marks. Misinterpretation would arise from misunderstanding a word or sentence. It was further argued that neatness influenced scoring and poor handwriting complicated marking. The candidates that presented neat work earned marks, so were longer stories in neat handwriting

(Connelly, Dockrell & Barnnet, 2005; Henry, 2012).

Experienced examiners (teachers), however, were found to value content rather than handwriting and presentation (Meadows & Billington, 2005). Presentational effects could be reduced by a well-defined marking scheme and coordination meetings.

Typing the answers seems not to be the solution to sloppy handwriting and presentation.

In summary, studies have revealed that the original and the de-brailled work or scripts are different. Available studies have also confirmed that error introduction, error correction, punctuation omission, handwriting illegibility, work organization, Braille

Grade disparity, divergent linguistic backgrounds and improper contractions are some of the salient factors that cause the difference in the stated scripts. It has also been established that some of the differences are attributed to the de-brailling personnel or the student. Reviewed literature has shown that the mentioned factors are likely to affect the marking of those scripts, especially in the national examinations. Despite all this, no study has been done in the study locales to establish the difference in these scripts and the errors that can be made during the de-brailling process. Furthermore, no research has been carried out to establish the perceptions of teachers on the nature of errors that appear in the de-brailled scripts of students in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya.

2.3 Professional Qualifications for de-brailling Personnel

The study scrutinized literature on the professional qualifications for the de-brailling personnel. The researcher developed a two-pronged approach towards understanding this phenomenon. First, to look at the professional qualifications teachers who are de-

24 braillists would need to perform their duties. And two, it was not lost to the researcher that de-brailling, in the global context, in most cases is done by paraprofessionals, people that may not be necessarily teachers of the VI but have some minimum requirements and or skills needed for one to carry out the task of de-brailling. So, in this case, literature on Readers’ and Scribes’ qualifications was examined as well.

2.3.1 Teachers’ Qualifications

It has been argued that if teachers that teach learners with visual impairment have to teach, they are expected to teach Braille and other related skills, they must learn the requisite skills in their pre-service training (Allman, 1998; Chomba, 2017). This is what entails professional qualifications. Chomba (2017) further posits the advantages of Braille literacy and proficiency. He states that Braille proficiency is associated with higher employment rates and educational levels, self-sufficiency, independence, self- esteem and feelings of competence. These professional trainings (and in-service) have positive impact on the tutors’ knowledge, pedagogical skills and competency. The quality of education and training to a greater extent is dependent on the teachers’ academic qualification, professional training, commitment and dedication (Chomba,

2017; Mugambi, 2011).

In a descriptive study of standards and criteria for competence in Braille literacy within teacher preparation programmes and the specific role played in the achievement of proficiency in Braille literacy by university teacher training preparation programmes in blindness and visual impairment, Amato (2002) gives an insight into the whole phenomenon of teachers of the VI training in the United States of America.

The study found a great link between the training a teacher of the VI gets and his or her competence in the various vital skills needed after graduation. In 42% of the programmes under study, minimum competence was considered by the university ‘as a grade in the C range’. The study, however, maintained that even though these university students had attained a minimum entry-level competence in Braille when they leave the stated teacher preparation programmes, unless they got the opportunity to use Braille, their skills were likely to deteriorate. The study further observed that teachers of Braille needed to be teachers of reading and writing, and the Braille code as well. A similar view had earlier been shared by Wormsley and D’Andrea (1997).

The study further emphasized that university teacher training programmes endeavour to ensure that all university students who will become teachers of learners with visual impairment demonstrate high minimum level of competence in Braille transcription and the conversion of Braille into print (de-brailling) using the Braille codes.

It has been articulated that the teaching-learning subsector requires pre-service teacher training, continuous professional development, and supportive teacher policies

(Machio, 2012). The author reports that this can be enhanced through opportunities and scholarships, local and international benchmarking and rewarding of excellent teachers. In line with this, High Ridge Teachers’ College was established, training teachers in VI, HI and intellectual disabilities (ID) (Chomba, 2008). In 1986 KISE was established as a centralized institute for training specialists in SNE (Chomba, 2008).

The institute offers Diploma and short courses through fulltime and distance learning modules (Chomba, 2008; Kimeto, 2010; Mugambi, 2011). It also conducts in-service residential courses.

At the university level, Kenyatta University, Maseno University and Methodist

University offer Bachelor of Education courses and postgraduate programmes in SNE

(Chomba, 2008; Kimeto, 2010; Mugambi, 2011; Njue, 2009). Other universities offering SNE courses and programmes include: Moi University, The University of

Nairobi, Mount Kenya University and Kisii University. There are, in addition, several teachers’ training colleges (TTCs) specialized in training teacher trainees with special needs. All this is done to respond to what Mazrui calls “limited competence in addressing diverse needs of learners with disabilities teacher inability to respond to diversity in the classroom” (2014:120). Shortage of competent teachers of the VI however, cannot be overemphasized, contrary to Njue’s (2009) and Mugambi’s (2011) findings.

Lack of and/or inadequate professionals in the area of VI and Braille in particular have been confirmed (Kimeto, 2010; Mbithi, 2012; Mwangi, 2009; Okungu, 2004).

Mwangi (2009) contends that Braille teachers ought to have taken courses in Braille, or had experience in teaching Braille, mark and correct Braille assignments. In her study the researcher foresaw greater achievements if subject teachers also scrutinized

Braille errors. This perspective is in unison with ROK (1999) and NFB (2009) recommending a policy that one willing to teach learners with VI undergoes thorough training in Braille literacy and be certified as proficient prior to appointment. A corresponding position is held by Anderson, Hiebert, Scot and Wilkinson, (1985) and

Nzoka (2011) on the benefits of Braille proficiency to a teacher. Such proficiency enables the teacher of the VI to motivate learners to develop its mastery; communicate directly and competently; mark Braille exams confidently; develop positive attitude

27 towards Braille and learners; and transcribe (and also de-braille) material when necessary. Other additional advantages of Braille proficiency are: encourage learners’ creativity; teacher independence; effective assessment of work; and relate all work with Braille.

In a study by Kimeto (2010) which was an initial investigation of challenges to effective learning of English Braille in Bomet, Kenya, it is noted that lack of adequately trained personnel for learners with VI is among the biggest obstacles in learning how to read and write. The study further observed that the respondents who had a certificate in SNE were inadequately prepared to teach such learners owing to the three month duration within which the course was offered at the Kenya Institute of

Special Education (KISE). The study concluded:

That implied that those teachers were not adequately trained to teach Braille as the duration of the given course was limited to cover adequately the scope of Braille syllabus. Thereby, leaving the teachers half-baked graduates who in turn can neither Braille nor de-braille (Kimeto, 2010:60).

The above mentioned study held the view that even though majority of the respondents (60%) had a Diploma in SNE, many (both certificate and Diploma holders) were not professionally qualified and were at the time of the study inexperienced to teach learners with visual impairment and Braille.

In a study that analyzed determinants of transition of students with visual impairment to post-secondary in Bomet and Narok, Kenya, the descriptive study by Milimu (2018) revealed that there was a link between teachers’ negative attitude towards learners with VI and their lack of requisite skills and knowledge in teaching learners with VI in

28 inclusive classes. If the said teachers were equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge, there would be improvement in transition to post-secondary institutions.

The study concurred with an earlier research by Masikonde (2015) which held that most teachers in special education, although with long teaching experience, only a few had the required qualifications to teach special education. The study recommended inclusion of special needs components, more particularly visual impairment skills in teacher training.

In another research study by Amato (2002), a number of skills and knowledge areas were listed as necessary for a teacher of the VI that was graduating from the university. The skills and knowledge areas were prioritized by the respondent as follows: transcription with a braillewriter; conversion of Braille into print (de- brailling); transcription using a slate and stylus; proofreading-interlining; Nemeth

Code transcription; teacher-made materials; observe Braille user; Braille reading method; identify resource; Braille access technology; review journal articles and recent research; observe master Braille teacher; and evaluate curricula. The first two items on the list received 100% agreement each. This meant that transcription and de- brailling were at the centre of requisite skills and knowledge, at least, in the perceptions of the study respondents in that study.

2.3.2 Access Assistants’ Qualification

Examination Boards worldwide use contracted professionals – examiners and access assistants, among others, in processing examination scripts. There are certain minimum qualifications and experience that these personnel have to meet (Meadows

& Billington, 2005; Ng’ang’a, 2014; Ofqual, 2014; Suto & Nadas, 2008). This is true for examiners in the Botswana GCSE (BEC, 2013) and the KCSE examinations in

Kenya (KNEC, 2014).

In the United States of America (USA), Clapper, Morse, Thompson and Thurlow

(2005, 2006) contend that guidelines for access assistants such as readers, scribes and sign language interpreters could be adapted to other access assistants – page turners, paraphrasers, language translators and response transcribers.

Clapper, Morse, Thompson and Thurlow (2005, 2006) in their study in the USA argue that students that need certain accommodations may also need human assistance commonly called ‘access assistants’: scribes, readers, sign language interpreters as well as transcribers, among others. These are personnel who administer test accommodations in line with set exam procedures to provide access to test content or serve as intermediaries between a student and his/her mode of response. Clapper,

Morse, Thompson and Thurlow (2006) opine that the use of these personnel introduces human variability into the examination context, the potential for obstacles to the validity and comparability of resulting scores is greatly increased. The authors argue further that lack of standardized guidelines for the access assistants, construct- irrelevant variance is introduced that may invalidate test scores. This is the same thing that is likely to happen when students’ work is de-brailled.

Several studies and reports have, however, been produced touching on guidelines on their qualifications, training and other vital qualities that they need to effectively play

30 their roles. The equivalents of these access assistants in special secondary school for learners with visual impairment in Kenya are the teachers who are involved in de- brailling students’ work. One becomes a reader and the other teacher, a scribe (The

Chief Executive Officer of KNEC, personal communication, July 6, 2016). In most cases either of them, the reader or the scribe or both may not be qualified teachers in the subject they are de-brailling.

Heriot-Watt University (2012, 2015), The Oasis Academy Lord’s Hill (2015) and

Regents of the University of California (2015) in searching for a Reader and/or Scribe for Examination and Assessment Candidates, the requisite qualifications include: effective communication skills and fluency in English diction and pronunciation, previous experience in the exam process and as a reader/scribe, and the ability to adhere to rules, ethical standards and integrity policies. In addition, Heriot-Watt

University and Regents of the University of California consider accuracy and confidentiality as crucial. Reasonable handwriting or (touch) typing speed (Berrisford,

2013; Herriot-Watt University, 2012, 2015) and handwriting legibility (Berrisford,

2013; Herriot-Watt University, 2012, 2015; The Oasis Academy Lord’s Hill, 2015) are vital. Berrisford and Regents of the University of California emphasize subject knowledge and knowledge of words, phrases, symbols and the test jargon. Other important qualifications are: previous Reader/Scribe training, Level 2 English and

Mathematics qualification (GCSE A – C or equivalent), being approachable, reliable, being trustworthy as well as ensuring equality to students (The Oasis Academy Lord’s

Hill, 2015). Finally, Regents of the University of California add, as necessary requirements for the access assistant: 3.0 GPA and the ability to be meticulous, clear,

31 write verbatim and have time and self-management skills and appreciate different learning abilities.

Reports and studies in the USA have addressed the topic on access accommodations and the need for access assistants (Clapper, Morse, Lazarus, Thompson & Thurlow,

2005; Clapper, Morse, Thompson & Thurlow, 2005, 2006). The National Center on

Educational Outcomes (NCEO) researched state policies and guidelines on accommodations, tracing their evaluation since 1992 (Clapper, Morse, Lazarus,

Thompson & Thurlow, 2005; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Silverstein, 1993). In the 2005 study, the web search targeted documents with procedures for access assistants

(Readers, Scribes and Sign Language Interpreters), roles or duties of access assistants and who could serve in these roles. The target information was: their qualifications, available training and other information that would help in competent SNE professionals or an individual serve in the position.

In the findings, guidelines were available for all the three in 10 states; scribes only, 8 states; readers only, 2 states; and scribes and readers only, 1 state. The qualification for scribes included: demonstrate experience in scribing in the subject area tested; adequate word processing skills; and very legible handwriting. The readers were to exhibit clarity in reading, at normal speed, with accurate English pronunciation; familiarity with vocabulary used in the test; patience; and possess the qualifications of a scribe if he/she is playing the dual role. In addition to highlighting the specific roles of each personnel the studies also enumerated the general qualification any access assistant would have. These were: trained; certified staff member or teacher;

32 familiarity with the student; familiarity with the test vocabulary; not a parent, school volunteer, peer tutor or other student (in state tests); not a private consultant paid by the candidate or his/her family; and understand the difference between the helping role of the teacher or teacher assistant and the technical role of the access assistant

(Clapper, Morse, Thompson & Thurlow, 2005, 2006). Generally, very few states provided specific guidelines for each of the access assistant. The studies identified a clear need for greater attention for written guidelines for these personnel.

Computer-based testing does not require any transfer/response transcription since the process occurs as part of the computer testing programme. Allman (2013) and Joint

Council for Qualifications (JCQ, 2015) postulate guidelines for academic achievement tests to ensure that transfer of information is performed appropriately. The response transcriber must possess confidentiality (JCQ, 2015), knowledge of Braille (if transcribing Braille responses), neutrality and accuracy. The audio presentation of print materials is a presentation accommodation allowing for all or part of a test to be presented on a cassette tape, CD, computer, and specialized screen reading or text reader or read aloud to a student. In the light of this, whoever reads a Braille script to a scribe should adhere to same guidelines. The reader must be skilled in presenting various types of test materials, e.g. familiarity with mathematical symbols required for the correct delivery of higher level mathematics formulas and equations; good voice quality, appropriate regional dialect, pronunciation, speed and tone; integrity with voice inflection; good use of pronunciation dictionaries; appropriate pause; and patience in reading parts of passages, or items.

The Chief Executive Officer of KNEC (personal communication, July 6, 2016) says that the examination council contracts de-braillers (de-braillists) and transcribers during the marking of examinations. According to KNEC, de-braillers are teachers possessing a minimum of a Diploma in Special Needs Assessment (Visual

Impairment). The de-braillers de-braille examination scripts of candidates before marking is done by regular examiners marking scripts of sighted candidates. On the other hand, KNEC uses transcribers who write only for de-braillists who are visually impaired and therefore unable to use a pen. The minimum qualification of the writers is a certificate in Braille from recognized institutions. KNEC, however, admits the limited use of transcribers, who may not be needed anymore.

There is empirical support for the various professional qualifications that a teacher of the VI needs. Reviewed literature emphasize that the requisite qualifications are got from higher level pre-service training and/or long in-service training. Among the many qualifications and skills noted are: competence in the C range (Amato, 2002); be teachers of reading and writing (Amato, 2002; Chomba, 2017; Wormsley &

D’Andrea, 1997); ability to Braille (transcribe) and de-braille in different codes

(Amato, 2002; Kimeto, 2010; Mwangi, 2009; Nzoka, 2011); experience in teaching

Braille (Kimeto, 2010; Mwangi, 2009); developed positive attitude towards learners with VI (Milimu, 2018; Mwangi, 2009); and ability to read Braille and scrutinize errors or proofread Amato, 2002; Mwangi, 2009).

The reviewed literature documents, however, do not isolate professional qualifications the teacher of the VI needs from those professional qualifications that a de-braillist

34 requires. The available research does not look at the knowledge and skills that a teacher or personnel that de-brailles in Kenyan special secondary school for the students with VI needs either.

In addition, a look at the literature documents reviewed under this sub-section reveals that most studies and reports have given an elaborate repertory of skills and other professional qualifications needed by access assistants, in our case, readers and scribes

(de-brailling personnel). Most of the reviewed studies have dealt with personnel either in high-stake examinations (GCSE and KCSE) or in institutions of higher learning, universities. No study, however, has scrutinized the professional qualifications for the de-brailling personnel in Kenyan secondary schools for learners with visual impairment.

2.4 Challenges in de-brailling

Braille reading and writing has been a subject of research by the stakeholders (Ferrel,

2007; Lisa, 2015). Since de-brailling involves reading of students’ work, assignments and examination, the study concentrated on the challenges associated with Braille reading and/or writing.

Gentle, Steer and Howse (2012) enumerate reasons for cessation from the British

Braille System used in Australia: changing needs of blind students; computer Braille translation; and unorthodox Braille code by young professionals with VI. The use of this hybrid code culminated in the British Braille code with American capitalization,

Australian Braille code for mathematics and chemistry as well as the American

35 computer Braille code. To solve the resultant inefficiencies and complexities, the new international Braille code, the Unified English Braille (UEB) was inaugurated by the

General Assembly of the International Council of English Braille (ICEB) in 2004

(Jolley, 2006; Maguire, 2005). Professional learning programmes and training materials had to be prepared (Gentle, 2008a, 2008b; Howse, 2006a; Round Table on

Information Access for People with Print Disabilities, 2005).

In Kenyan secondary schools for learners with visual impairment the students who are most likely to present work in their own Braille code are not only those who were taught Braille in primary school level, but also those who switched medium upon joining secondary school. This would be a challenge to the teachers that de-braille their work. Rukwaro (2011:53) stated categorically that “This raises the question on the level of their Braille competency and literacy”.

The speed of reading, as stated by Ryles (1996) and Tobin and Hill (2015) is a major concern for Braille readers of all ages especially for learners and their teachers.

According to research, people with VI generally, have slower reading pace compared to their non-VI counterparts and that reading speed varies from an individual to individual bearing in mind the sight condition, text format, and experience of reading in a given format (Atkins, 2012; Cryer & Gunn, 2008; Stanfa & Johnson, 2015; Tobin,

1994; Tobin & Hill, 2015). Gonzalez Garcia (2004) and Tobin (1994) concur that learning to read using Braille later in life affected the speed of reading. Similar findings were established in Kenyan primary special schools for learners with visual impairment and in integrated programmes by Nzoka (2011). One of the respondents

36 who had used Braille for a protracted interlude was conspicuously ahead of the rest in terms of reading Braille. The late learners (who were adventitiously blinded), however, had improved haptic tasks (Miller, Skillman, Benedetto, Holtz, Nassif, &

Weber, 2007).

Cognitive ability is also related to reading pace. Gentle, Steer and Howse (2012) and

Miller et al. (2007) argue that unlike reading print, reading Braille entails accumulation of linguistic forms in the short term memory before they are retrieved serially. This means that reading Braille texts is affected by the cognitive ability.

Reading continuous passages of prose is phenomenally slower in Braille than in print.

Earlier studies in the UK were by Lorimer (1962, 1977) and Tooze (1962). Greaney,

Hill and Tobin (1998) did a new standardization of the Braille version, with the normative data being based on a single cross-sectional selection of school age braillists of different ages. Both Greaney and Lorimer confirmed the slower pace.

Similar findings have been replicated in similar one off, cross-sectional studies. Hill,

Hill and Tobin (1999) involved 100 adult respondents, reporting vocal reading pace of

68 words per minute (wpm) and silent speeds of 78wpm. Early starters averaged

98wpm, comparing with 35wpm for late starters.

In trying to find out the reading speed of his respondents, Nzoka (2011) also discovered that the speed of reading Braille texts differed from participant to participant, depending on experience and gender. While a few (14.29%) were remarkably able to read at a speed of between 100wpm and 107wpm, some of the

37 remaining respondents could only manage less than 50wpm. The speed of reading may not be quite relied upon in case the ‘Reading Speed Test’ involved aspects of comprehension. This is based on the fact that during de-brailling, the reader is not required to comprehend. Furthermore, the reader is not supposed to clarify whatever he has read. In case of lack of clarity in the reading, he is expected to reread. Allman

(2013) states that readers must pause at appropriate intervals to allow for opportunity to complete writing; avoid answering the scribe’s question on clarification of the testing content; encourage the scribe to listen the statement again; and read multiple times the passages, parts of passages, or items. A study into Braille reading proficiency in Arabic reported average reading speed of 60wpm for continuous passages of prose (Jarjoura, 2012; Tobin & Hill, 2015).

There are also cognitive and perceptual factors underlying proficiency in reading

Braille. Braille letters do not have the same degree of ‘redundancy’ as ink print code

(Millar, 1975, 1984, 1985, 1997). Braille has low level of redundancy. What this means is: a slight error in addition or omission of a dot or any other change will greatly affect the reading and hence the interpretation of the Braille dot, Character or word. Two coded messages in print and Braille were used to illustrate this. The print text had some of the letters and words back-to-back and the most experienced print readers had little difficulty deciphering it. They simply applied perceptual and cognitive skills and experience in reading print text. The Braille version was the same message written in reversed, but standard contracted Braille. The results were virtually an unintelligible string of signs. At the practical level, Tobin and Hill (2015) contend,

38 the low level of redundancy can lead to errors in the production and reading of Braille causing major problems.

The complexity of the Braille code is another pertinent area. Standard English contracted Braille has 26 letter sign; 26 corresponding stand-alone Wordsigns; 77 abbreviations; many compound signs; Final Contractions and Final Punctuation Signs; and manuals and rules for these contractions (Ashcroft, Henderson, Sanford &

Koenig, 1994; Cryer, Home & Morley-Wilkins, 2011; Englebretson, 2008; Herzberg,

Stough & Clark, 2004; Howse, 2006a, Millar & Rash, 2001; Njue, Njoroge & Chege,

2014; Risjord, 2009; Tobin & Hill, 2015).

Chomba (2017) found that his respondents in primary schools for learners with visual impairment (45.3%) did not attach much importance to complexity of the Braille code as a factor that contributes to decline in Braille literacy. The participant in his research, however, felt that increase in population with multiple disabilities, pupil- teacher ratio, emphasis on vision utilization among learners with low vision, inadequate teacher preparation and teacher attitudes were among the key factors that contributed to decline in Braille literacy. While investigating the efficiency of teachers of the blind in Braille, Nzoka (2011) established that the complexity of the Braille code affected most of the study respondents. He states that a lot of errors were made while transcribing Braille to print (de-brailling) owing to participants confusing

Braille Mathematics code and literary Braille code. There are also instances of students/candidates having their own unconventional Braille codes that they end up using in their work, assigments and examinations (Gentle, Steer & Howse, 2012).

Chomba (2017) makes a grim observation as far as the learners’ use of own Braille code is concerned:

Despite their training as specialist teachers for students with visual impairment, many teachers in primary schools for learners with visual impairment are reluctant to learn and teach Braille as a result to which they are soliciting assistance from their blind colleagues and students to read for them Brailled class assignments and examinations. Consequently, students have taken advantage of this reluctance of their teachers and have resulted in writing unconventional Braille, where they are using their own Braille contractions contrary to accepted Braille rules and standards of Universal English Braille (UEB) code (Chomba, 2017:12).

This is likely to cause a grave academic danger if it is established in secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya. This intricacy is compounded further by the different codes for Mathematics and Sciences, Music Braille notation, French

Braille code, and so on. In this regard, therefore, studies have found that reading contracted Braille is intellectually more daunting a task, than does reading uncontracted Braille (Herzberg, Stough & Clark, 2005; Troughton, 1992).

Another set of related challenges in Braille is format and limited scanning strategies.

Tobin and Hill (2015) assert that ink print books have many ways of segmenting and highlighting key themes and emphasis. The strategies involve altering text size, blocking, underlining, italicizing and varying spacing between sentences and paragraphs. The same are instantaneously visible to a print reader. The authors argue that some of these elements are available in Braille but are not immediately perceptually available to the touch reader. Similarly, ink print readers have various scanning strategies, which can be used to access different elements on a page.

Braillists are limited in this respect – one reading finger becomes stationary and the

40 other finger does the scanning. Tobin and Hill (2015) see possibility of losing one’s place. This may complicate the task of referring back or forth to a word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, in case a reader is required to do so during de-brailling.

Furthermore, several studies have confirmed inadequate and/or lack of qualified

Braille personnel (Amato, 2002; Argyropoulos & Martos, 2006; Cryer, Home &

Morley-Wilkins, 2011, 2011a, 2011b; Mbithi, 2012; Oliphant, 2008) and inadequate

Braille personnel or teachers trained in special needs (Karugu, 1994; Kimeto, 2010;

Mazrui, 2014). Additional set of challenges that directly affect transcribers (in education) was identified by Cryer, Home and Morley-Wilkins (2011). The stated challenges which to a greater extent may affect the de-brailling of students’ work include: having to work tight deadlines; original format of information; lacking electronic version of the information; determining correct interpretation; and lack of clarity on the right way to transcribe things.

Available literature emphasizes lack of and/or inadequate Braille professionals, coupled with issues of incompetence. There is empirical evidence on the various challenges associated with Braille. Are the available teachers in secondary schools for learners with visual impairment feel that the mentioned challenges in reading Braille texts would affect de-brailling? There is, however, no study that has been carried out to investigate the perceptions of teachers toward challenges involved in de-brailling students’ work in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in

Kenya. This study was carried out to fill this gap.

2.5 Competence of de-brailling Personnel

Rao (2012) admits the thin line between qualification and competence. Qualification is a result of proven development of understanding the theoretical concepts while competence is a product of the practical application of the theoretical concepts.

Qualifications are, therefore, attained after undergoing training and/or the educational process while competence is obtained at the work place. Competence in Braille (both

Brailling and de-brailling) is the ability to use Braille (Amato, 2002). Several studies have been done with respondents from special schools and integrated programmes to ascertain the competence of the teachers in Braille.

A study by Nzoka (2011) on establishing Braille proficiency among primary school teachers of learners who are blind in Kenya had the purpose of investigating primary school teachers’ abilities to read and write English and Kiswahili Braille Grade II,

Braille mathematics notation and the creation of tactile graphics which aid teaching and learning of learners who are blind. The study targeted 268 teachers in special primary schools of learners with visual impairment and integrated programmes in the five former provinces in Kenya (Coast, Central, Nairobi, Rift Valley and Nyanza).

Data was collected from 89 teachers by the use of questionnaires, an observation schedule, achievement tests and Focus Group Discussions. The main finding in this study by Nzoka was that teachers in the study locales were generally incompetent in

Braille, leading to poor academic performance of the blind learners.

The achievement tests administered in the above mentioned study required the respondents to Braille (write into Braille some printed texts) and later transcribe (write

42 into print, that is ‘de-braille’) some texts written in Braille. The study participants’ achievement in the two practical tests was diametrically dismal, a paltry 5.7% of them managed to score above 70/100. Against this backdrop of poor performance, the sampled teachers performed worse in de-brailling. The respondents however argued that they had not been trained in Braille but only learnt the skill from their colleagues.

This position is similar to one by Braille specialists in the UK (Cryer, Home &

Morley-Wilkins, 2011, 2011a, 2011b), a study that will be looked at much later.

Owing to the findings by Nzoka (2011), the study recommended serious effort to be made to train teachers in Braille so that learners who are blind are enabled to perform better in academics.

In another study, by Milimu (2018) titled Determinants of Transition of Students with

Visual Impairment to Post-secondary in Narok and Bomet Counties, Kenya which had the purpose of determining and analyzing determinants of transition of students with visual impairment to post-secondary institutions in Narok and Bomet Counties. The first objective was to explore teachers’ perception on transition of students who are visually impaired to post-secondary. The target population was 97 students with visual impairment and their teachers. Data was collected using questionnaires, interview schedule, students rating scale and texts. The study established that teachers’ attitude towards students with visual impairment was negative and it was further noted that their attitude towards these learners was affected by lack of necessary skills on how to deal with learners with visual impairment in an inclusive class. Milimu (2018) concluded that there was urgent need to equip teachers with necessary skills to enable them handle learners with special needs (visual impairment). This conclusion elicited

43 the recommendation that teacher training should include components of special needs, particularly the visual impairment skills. This would ensure transition to post- secondary institutions by learners with visual impairment.

Kimeto (2010) was interested in investigating challenges to effective learning to read and write English Braille in Bomet District in Kenya. The study targeted 65 respondents: education officers, co-ordinating itinerant teachers, head teachers, subject teachers and learners with visual impairment in Class Three to Eight in integrated primary schools. Research questionnaires, interview schedule, observation checklist and researcher made Braille reading and writing test were used to collect data. The study found that many teachers in the study locales were not professionally qualified to teach learners with visual impairment. The study faulted the short-term Certificate training by Kenya Institute of Special Education (KISE), seminars organized by the

Ministry of Education and the Kenya Society for the Blind for inadequate training:

That implied that those teachers were not adequately trained to teach Braille as the duration of the given course was limited to cover adequately the scope of Braille syllabus. Thereby leaving the teachers half-baked graduates who in turn can neither Braille nor de-braille (Kimeto, 2010:60).

A study on perceptions of teachers was done by Chomba (2017) and was titled:

Analysis of Teachers’ Perceptions on Instruction of Braille Literacy in Primary

Schools for Learners with Visual Impairment in Kenya. The study wanted to primarily address the problem of decline in Braille literacy as a result of teachers’ reluctance to learn and teach Braille in the stated research locales: five (5) primary schools for learners with visual impairment. The target population was 132 with a sample of 58 respondents (teachers and head teachers). The study employed the use of a

44 questionnaire and an interview schedule to collect its data. The perceptions of teachers were sought for on a number of issues including, but not limited to factors influencing

Braille literacy, professional preparation in Braille literacy instruction, teaching contracted and/or uncontracted Braille as well as situation of Braille literacy in those schools.

Chomba (2017) observed that finding competent teachers (in Braille) is a challenge both to principals and administrators. He concurred with Mugambi (2011) that professional training and in-service improve teachers knowledge, pedagogical skills and competency. He, however, noted that teachers’ attitude towards Braille and competence in the same was wanting. When teachers were asked if they believed that

Braille refresher courses should be required for teachers who teach students with visual impairment, slightly less than half agreed. The research participants were reluctant to embrace Braille refresher courses. This lack of skills and competence had been attributed to negative attitude towards Braille and hence disadvantageous to learners with visual impairment (Kimeto, 2010; Wittenstein and Pardee (1996). In another study in the UK by Bindman and Greenaway (2011) it was established that few respondents felt well prepared to teach Braille literacy and most admitted to having difficulty maintaining Braille skills with only 11% regarding their level of

Braille proficiency as “very efficient” and 70% finding that it would be important to improve their Braille skills to teach children they were working with. The results further revealed a significant difference in the training and qualifications of those teaching Braille in the classroom, a wide variation in the children’s Braille attainment and a big difference in the amount of Braille instruction they received. Nzoka (2011)

45 had found similar situation and recommended training for these teachers to improve learners’ academic achievement.

In Taiwan, a study by Hui-Ying Hung (2008) on teachers’ perspectives about Braille literacy in Taiwan investigated the state of Braille literacy. While most respondent felt competent, majority lacked adequate knowledge in early childhood SNE.

Amato (2002) in a landmark study on perceptions of 1,663 teachers elaborated on the competence of teachers of learners with visual impairment. Although admitting the fact of complexity of the Braille code, her study noted that competence in transcribing

Braille using reference materials was a job-relevant, content rated skill that a teacher of students with visual impairment was expected to have. To test competency of a teacher in Braille (Brailling and de-brailling), some (38%) of the respondents held the philosophical belief that Braille knowledge and skills should be immediately retrieved from teachers memory without relying on outside factors such as other teachers and reference materials. However, majority (98) of the respondents noted that refresher courses were indispensible, either at regular intervals or when a teacher felt the necessity to refresh his or her skills. The study also noted that competence at the time of graduating depended on continuous Braille practice and teachers’ competence was based on their ability to use Braille. The study by Amato (2002) further stipulated that experience, however, was inadequate. Retention of Braille skills depended on opportunity for further professional development and provision of Braille refresher courses. The study emphasized the fact that students graduating from university in

Special Needs Education, VI were expected to demonstrate competence:

University teacher training programmes strive to ensure that all university students who will become teachers of students who are visually impaired demonstrate a high minimum level of competence in Braille transcription and the conversion of Braille into print in the Braille codes (Amato 2002:151).

Global study on the competence of Braille personnel has received much attention.

Several studies in the UK in an attempt to better understand the transcription industry, brought transcribers (from diverse work settings) together (Cryer, Home & Morley-

Wilkins, 2011, 2011a, 2011b). It was revealed that most training was informal with many of them being self-taught; learning from colleagues, as in the study by Nzoka

(2011) and in-house production manuals; getting feedback from end-users; and using online information. Few reported getting trained by the Royal National Institute for the

Blind (RNIB), especially their staff, and product-specific training by the software/hardware suppliers. In these studies, the respondents differed, however, on the importance of further training for professional development. Some displayed ignorance on the existence of formal transcription guidance: instruction manuals for transcription; published guidance on producing accessible formats; Braille Manuals; as well as guidance on producing audio and DAISY (Digital Accessible Information

System) format. Informal guidance such as in-house manuals, were used.

Many felt the need for a community of transcribers for sharing knowledge, good practices as well as resources. Having an external assessment scheme was found to have benefits to both the transcribers and the end-users. The key issue was getting an opportunity for professional development, getting a professional qualification.

In a later research study, Cryer, Home and Morley-Wilkins (2013) admit complexity in the identification of Braille stakeholders: an adult Braille reader, student, teacher or transcriber, ending up with almost confusing subsets. Their target population was, however, Braille readers, transcribers and proofreaders: a group initially opposed to the Unified English Braille (UEB) code in the UK (Bogart & Koenig, 2005). The respondents were sent samples to read (without any prior training, use of reference materials or list of symbols) in the UEB and the Standard English Braille (SEB) and then comment. The participants reported ability to read and comprehend the UEB, albeit constraints. While some observed too much difference, others could hardly tell the difference in the two codes. One of the implications of the implementation of the

UEB code was the (re)training of transcribers, teachers and support staff (Wetzel &

Knowlton, 2006). It is vivid that even though the respondents were able to read and understand the new Braille code (UEB), competence demands (re)training. These findings by Cryer, Home and Morley-Wilkins (2013) are a true reflection of those by

Nzoka (2011) who found that although the scores in de-brailling were phenomenally low, the respondents were able to recognize the Braille symbols and then de-braille easier than Brailling a text from print.

In the United Kingdom, Tobin and Hill (2015) acknowledge the importance of competency with regard to the establishment of the UEB. They report on efforts to improve competency of Braille specialists by the Royal National institute for the Blind

(RNIB). The RNIB is conducting training or familiarization courses nationally for teachers, transcribers and other professionals with responsibilities in this area. The content of training includes: UEB literary and technical codes and the introduction of

UEB by examination Boards responsible for school subject examinations, among others. With computer-based technology in the area of translating print texts into

Braille, emphasis has shifted from the need for expert transcribers to recruitment of an enlarged cadre of Braille teachers or trainers. In the Kenyan special primary and secondary schools for learners with visual impairment and in the integrated programmes there is still need, however, for these expert transcribers owing to lack of basic teaching and learning materials (Chepkwony, 2013; Mwangi, 2013; Njue,

Njoroge & Chege, 2014; ROK, 2012).

Griffin-Shirley and Matlock (2004) scrutinized the emergence, in the USA, of paraprofessionals, assistants who were not certified special education teachers but would work under a supervising teacher. Paraprofessionals were hired to solve the problem of shortage of teaching personnel. The authors dealt with the findings of a survey by the Association of Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually

Impaired (AER) that gathered information on the paraprofessionals. The information was about their salaries, hours of work, description of their job titles, responsibilities and roles, training and further training. Mackenstadt (2002) observes that initially, their skills, duties and educational background were not explicitly defined. Title 1, one of the programmes in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) lists the duties/requirements of paraprofessionals (National Education Association, 2003).

First, those who were translators or played parental roles had to possess a secondary school diploma or similar qualifications. Second, those whose duties involved educational instructional support or hired after 8/1/02 ought to have completed two years of study at an institution of higher learning; obtained an associate’s (or higher)

49 degree or met a rigorous standard of quality and be able to demonstrate (NFB, 2009), through a formal state, or a local academic assessment, knowledge and the ability to assist in the instructing, reading, writing and mathematics (or as appropriate various teaching readiness skills).

A look at the reviewed literature in this sub-section shows that incompetence in Braille by the teachers of students with visual impairment is contributed by among other factors lack of skills (Amato, 2002; Nzoka, 2011); negative attitude (Milimu, 2018); negative attitude towards Braille (Chomba, 2017); and the general lack of professional competence. The literature reviewed has established that this incompetence affects

Braille reading and writing, de-brailing and the learner with visual impairment

(Chomba, 2017; Kimeto, 2010; Mwangi, 2009; Wittenstein & Pardee, 1996). Other global studies on the competence of paraprofessionals in the area of VI have attested to this inadequacy in skills and qualifications in the area or field of VI. The result is indubitably poor academic performance by learners with visual impairment.

Several of the reviewed studies have suggested ways and/or strategies of overcoming the stated bottlenecks. Some of the identified strategies include: training teachers in

Braille (Milimu, 2018; Nzoka, 2011), professional training of teachers, professional development and/or retraining (Cryer, Home & Morley-Wilkins, 2011), attending long-term courses (Kimeto, 2010; Griffin-Shirley & Matlock, 2004), going for in- service/refresher courses (Amato, 2002; Bindman & Greenaway, 2011; Chomba,

2017; Cryer, Home & Morley-Wilkins, 2011; Tobin & Hill, 2015).

There is no empirical data to show how competence or incompetence of teachers in

Braille in secondary schools for students with visual impairment in Kenya manifests itself. There was further no evidence on studies about strategies that can be used to overcome challenges in Braille reading and writing as well as de-brailling.

2.6 Summary of the Review

As has been seen in the literature review, limited research has been conducted on the proposed study not just in Kenya but also in other countries. This has led to some identified gaps. First, studies have revealed that the original and the de-brailled work or scripts are different. Available studies have also confirmed that error introduction, error correction, punctuation omission, handwriting illegibility, work organization,

Braille grade disparity, divergent linguistic backgrounds and improper contractions are some of the salient factors that cause the difference in the stated scripts. It has also been established that some of the differences are attributed to the de-brailling personnel or the student.

Reviewed literature has shown that the mentioned factors are likely to affect the marking of those scripts, especially in the national examinations. Despite all this, no study has been done in the study locales to establish the difference in these scripts and the errors that can be made during the de-brailling process. Further, no research has been carried out to establish the perceptions of teachers on the nature of errors that appear in the de-brailled scripts of students in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya.

Secondly, there is empirical support for the various professional qualifications that a teacher of the VI needs. Reviewed literature emphasize that the requisite qualifications are got from higher level pre-service training and/or long in-service training. Among the many qualifications and skills noted are: competence in the C range; be teachers of reading and writing; ability to Braille (transcribe) and de-braille in different codes; experience in teaching Braille; developed positive attitude towards learners with VI; and ability to read Braille and scrutinize errors or proofread. The reviewed literature documents, however, do not isolate professional qualifications the teacher of the VI needs from those professional qualifications that a de-braillist requires.

The available research does not look at the knowledge and skills that a teacher or personnel that de-brailles in Kenyan special secondary school for the students with VI needs either. In addition, a look at the literature documents reviewed under this sub- section reveals that most studies and reports have given an elaborate repertory of skills and other professional qualifications needed by access assistants, in our case, readers and scribes (de-brailling personnel). Most of the reviewed studies have dealt with personnel either in high-stake examinations (GCSE and KCSE) or in institutions of higher learning, universities. No study, however, has scrutinized the professional qualifications for the de-brailling personnel in Kenyan secondary schools for learners with visual impairment.

Thirdly, available literature emphasizes lack of and/or inadequate Braille professionals, coupled with issues of incompetence. There is empirical evidence on the various challenges associated with Braille. There is, however, no study that has been

52 carried out to investigate the perceptions of teachers toward challenges involved in de- brailling students’ work in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya. Finally, a look at the reviewed literature in this chapter shows that incompetence in Braille by the teachers of students with visual impairment is contributed by among other factors lack of skills; negative attitude; negative attitude towards Braille; and the general lack of professional competence. The literature reviewed has established that this incompetence affects Braille reading and writing, de-brailing and the learner with visual impairment. Other global studies on the competence of paraprofessionals in the area of VI have attested to this inadequacy in skills and qualifications in the area or field of VI. The result is indubitably poor academic performance by learners with visual impairment.

Several of the reviewed studies have suggested ways and/or strategies of overcoming the stated bottlenecks. Some of the identified strategies include: training teachers in

Braille; professional training of teachers, professional development and/or retraining, attending long-term courses, going for in-service/refresher courses. There is no empirical data to show how competence or incompetence of teachers in Braille in secondary schools for students with visual impairment in Kenya manifests itself.

There was further no evidence on studies about strategies that can be used to overcome challenges in Braille reading and writing as well as de-brailling. From the identified gaps, there was need to study teachers’ perceptions toward de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter starts by looking at the research design, research variables and location of the study. The target population, sampling techniques, sample size and research instruments are examined as well. It also discusses data collection techniques, data analysis and ultimately logistical and ethical considerations.

3.2 Research Design

The study used descriptive survey research design to allow for generalization. Muthee and Wambiri (2010) contend that the method: is cost-effective, uses a variety of research instruments and the results can be generalized. This research was interested in teachers’ perceptions toward de-brailling and hence, the design is appropriate since it is often applied in collecting information about people’s feelings, perceptions, attitudes, opinions, habits or a range of other socio-educational matters (Orodho,

2009). The research approach used was mixed method for complementarity of data.

This approach was appropriate since the study sought to deal with an issue on programme, practice and policy. Bak (2011) supports this by arguing that mixed method is depended upon to assess the efficacy of education programmes, practices and policies that help learners with VI realize the objectives of improving learning.

This approach was supported by Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) who asserted that the use of questionnaires and interviews improves validity by reducing personal biases caused by a single methodology.

3.3 Research Variables

3.3.1 Independent Variables

The independent variables were the teachers’ perceptions toward relationship between original Braille work and de-brailled work, teachers’ perceptions toward the qualifications of de-brailling personnel, teachers’ perceptions on challenges involved in de-brailling and teachers’ perceptions toward strategies that can enhance competence of de-brailling personnel.

3.3.2 Dependent Variables

The dependent variable was the de-brailling of students’ work.

3.4 Location of the Study

The study was done in four secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in

Kenya. These schools were: Thika High School for the Blind, Thika, in Kiambu

County; Kibos Special Secondary School, Kisumu, in Kisumu County; St Lucy’s High

School for the Visually Impaired, Nkubu, in Meru County; and Nico Hauser Special

Secondary School for the VI, Bondo, in Siaya County. These schools were selected for this study since they had presented candidates with visual impairment for KCSE examinations and that most teachers were Braille-literate: they were knowledgeable about de-brailling, transcription, proofreading and teaching of Braille. However, it is in these same schools that de-brailling took place among some teachers. Former de- braillists of KNEC were sought for nationally owing to their personal experience in de-brailling at more advanced and serious level of evaluation. This latter group of respondents was involved to give further insight into the whole phenomenon of de-

55 brailling because of their de-brailling link with KNEC as well as institutions that teach learners with visual impairment.

3.5 Target Population

The target population was 102: eighty-two secondary school teachers from special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya and twenty former de- braillists nationally.

3.6 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size

3.6.1 Sampling Techniques

The secondary schools for learners with visual impairment were purposively sampled, since they deal with learners who are visually impaired, some of whom used Braille.

The study used stratified random sampling to sample the subject teachers teaching various subjects. The researcher however concentrated on the four areas: Languages,

Mathematics and Sciences, Humanities and the Technical and Applied subjects. This ensured a proportionate representation with the three schools other than Thika High

School for the Blind having a respondent in each of the identified subject area. The division into the four subject areas also ensured that the distinct Braille code emphasized and used in each subject area was considered. It was generally considered that these teachers were knowledgeable and competent in the Braille of their teaching subjects and hence de-brailling.

Teachers in charge of Braille in these schools were purposively sampled. The teachers in charge of Braille have a crucial role to play as far as teaching and learning of Braille

56 is concerned. In the school setting, they would be like Heads of Departments. As

Heads of Departments, Otieno (2010a) states that these teachers perform such roles as: promoting efficiency in the teaching processes in the Department with regard to syllabus grasp; schemes of work formulation, maintenance of records of work and records of tests and examinations. They also maintain and use records of Continuous

Assessment Tests and examinations and external examinations files in order to improve subject teaching and learning. These roles, therefore, put the Head of

Department Braille at the centre of this research as one of the key respondents. Former de-braillists of KNEC were sampled by snowball technique since they were knowledgeable about de-brailling but were neither well known nor easily accessible.

3.6.2 Sample Size

Table 3.1: Target Population and Sample Population

Study locale Target population Sample population

braillists

- -

de de

- -

Ex Teachers in charge of Braille Subject teachers Total Ex braillists teachers charge of Braille Subject teachers Total Thika High School for 0 1 38 39 0 1 14 15 the Blind

St Lucy’s High School 0 1 14 15 0 1 4 5 for the VI

Kibos Special Sec. 0 1 14 15 0 1 4 5 School Nico Hauser Special 0 1 12 13 0 1 4 5 Sec. School for the VI

Entire Kenya 20 0 0 20 4 0 0 4 Total 20 4 78 102 4 4 26 34 Source: Teachers and Personnel in the study locales, 2015

A total of 34 (33%) respondents were sampled for the study as demonstrated in Table

3.1 above.

3.7 Research Instruments

The study employed the use of the following two instruments:

3.7.1 Questionnaires:

A questionnaire was developed and used to collect data on teachers’ perceptions toward de-brailling of students’ work in the study locales. The researcher used the questionnaire (applying a self-made opinion scale in consultation with the supervisors) to get data from teachers who were teaching in the study locales.

This instrument was appropriate because the study targeted a larger sample and it was hoped that the numerical data (responses) got would be easier to compare and analyze.

This tool was also easier to administer and respond to hence saving the researcher’s and respondents’ time respectively.

The questionnaire had various parts. First was the ‘Introduction’ that emphasized the purpose of gathering the data, need for anonymity of the respondents, guarantee for confidentiality and request for the respondents’ input and/or participation. Second was

Part I which had background information eliciting demographic responses: the items were virtually closed-ended questions on gender, professional qualifications and other questions on the respondents’ Braille status among other concerns. Part II of the questionnaire was an Opinion Agreement Scale based on the 5-level Likert Scale. In

58 these matrix questions, there were items that shared the same set of response categories (Orodho, 2009). The statements sought the respondents’ perceptions toward de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment. They were to read and indicate by the use of a tick [√] their level of agreement or disagreement on each statement by using the following response guide: 5 = Strongly Agree (SA), 4 = Agree

(A), 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree (N), 2 = Disagree (D), 1 = Strongly Disagree

(SD).

Part A of the questionnaire which was related to Objective 1 had five (5) statements on texts comparison. Part B of the questionnaire which was linked to Objective 2 of the study consisted of eighteen (18) statements on qualifications for de-brailling personnel. Part C of the questionnaire which had congruity with the third objective of the research study had eleven (11) statements on challenges in de-brailling. Lastly,

Part D of the questionnaire had eight (8) statements which were in line with the fourth objective of this study. Finally, the questionnaire had an unstructured open-ended question which gave the respondents an opportunity to give their own suggestion, opinion or view on the issues that had been addressed by the questionnaire.

3.7.2 Interview Schedules

Semi-structured interview schedules were used to get the views of the former de- braillists of KNEC nationally and the teachers in charge of Braille in each of the schools that formed the study locales. The interviews elicited detailed feedback on issues around teachers’ perceptions toward de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment. Interview schedules were selected for this study since it was

59 believed that the face-to-face interaction would yield rich data and insights into the perceptions of teachers of students with visual impairment regarding de-brailling of these students’ work. The research instruments, interview schedules were able to give room for immediate clarification hence allowing in depth exploration into the topic of study with reference to the respondents’ perceptions on the matter of de-brailling students work, assignments and examination. The study was, in addition, in a better position to understand both the affective and cognitive behavioural aspects of this research study. The interview schedules, in essence, therefore enriched the quality of data gathered.

In the interview schedule for the former de-braillists of KNEC, the first two questions were to help strike a rapport with the respondents and also establish whether the study respondents engaged in de-brailling and also understood de-brailling as a concept.

Question 4 was connected to the first objective of the study. Two other questions were related to the second objective of the study: three of the questions touched on

Objective 3; and about four questions elicited responses connected to Objective 4. At the time of the interview, it however emerged that certain aspects of the questions asked were so much intertwined that the respondents kept repeating or alluding to earlier responses.

On the other hand, interview schedule for teachers in charge of Braille had more questions than the interview schedule for former de-braillists of KNEC. However, the first two questions, like in the first interview schedule were to assist in establishing a rapport with the respondents and also ascertain that the study participants understood

60 the concept of de-brailling. As it always happens in semi-structured interviews, the questions were asked in no specific order but the researcher was cognizant of the objective that was tested by each question. Question 4 was related to Objective 1; three other questions were linked to Objective 2; another set of three questions were associated with Objective 3; and about six questions elicited responses to Objective 4.

Similar to the first interview schedule, there were times when certain questions at some point of the interview attracted responses that appeared repetitive, had close affinity to earlier responses or at certain times superfluous.

3.8 Piloting the Study

Piloting was done using 5 teachers of learners with visual impairment at St Francis

Secondary School for the Visually Impaired, Kapenguria, in West Pokot County.

Neither the school, nor its teachers were engaged in the real research. The questionnaires were handed out to four different teachers and the interview schedule administered to the teacher in charge of Braille. An interview schedule was also administered to a former de-braillist of KNEC, at a different location in the country.

The school had been chosen for piloting since it shared most characteristics with the study locales, saved for the geographical location.

3.8.1 Validity

Validity refers to the extent to which the study instruments measure what they are targeted to measure (Golafshani, 2003; Orodho, 2009). Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) affirm that validity shows how accurately the data obtained in the study represents the variables. The tools were developed according to the study objectives to ensure

61 content validity. The research instruments were subjected to experts in the field, supervisors, experts in the Department of SNE and statisticians to comment on their validity. The necessary and appropriate adjustments and improvements were made on the instruments following informed decision and expert advice. The use of the three instruments also helped improve validity.

3.8.2 Reliability

Reliability is the replicability or repeatability of results or observations (Golafshani,

2003). Other scholars agree that it is the consistency of an instrument in producing reliable or similar results (Orodho, 2009; Runo, 2014). The test-retest method was employed by the researcher albeit its problems. Such shortcomings include: sensitization of respondents, change in extraneous influences such as attitudinal change and availability of limited behaviour sample. The researcher did test-retest procedure by sample selection, test administration, test re-administration with constant conditions within a two-week duration in the locale for piloting.

3.9 Data Collection Techniques

The data collection procedures entailed conducting a reconnaissance, piloting the instruments and finally collecting data using the mentioned instruments. Five research assistants had been trained by the researcher prior to data collection. Questionnaires were distributed to the respondents by trained research assistants and collected within

24 hours in each study locale. Interviews were generally carried out over an eighteen week duration. The interviews for the teachers in charge of Braille took place when the questionnaires were being administered. These covered a one-week interlude from

30th January, 2017 to 6th February, 2017. The interviews for the former de-braillists of

KNEC, however, covered the time between 14th November, 2016 and 15th March,

2017.

The protracted interlude in the latter case was as a result of challenges in great distances involved as well as some respondents having reservations about sharing such information on the agreed date, time and venue. Some declined to be interviewed altogether. Tracing the contacts of the said respondents was an uphill task since some had contacts that were unreliable. Each interview respondent was allocated 30-60 minutes. The semi-structured interviews were done by the researcher asking all the respondents the same questions and additional or supplementary questions added depending on the response from an individual participant (Merriam, 2001). The interviews were recorded digitally and/or manually by research assistants and ultimately, the digital versions transcribed.

3.10 Data Analysis

Data from questionnaires were analyzed quantitatively by organizing, cleaning, coding, and finally analyzing the data using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS). The last portion of the questionnaires, however, was analyzed qualitatively by thematic analysis. The results were presented in tables, charts and graphs depicting frequencies and/or percentages, mean and standard deviation. Data from interviews were analyzed qualitatively by thematic analysis. The results from the qualitative data were presented in narrative form.

3.11 Logistical and Ethical Considerations

Orodho (2009) contends that logistical considerations are activities the researcher has to consider prior to doing the research for success while ethical issues are right strategies to persuade respondents to co-operate and be certain of the protection of their rights. The researcher ensured that all these activities were adhered to, to ensure successful completion of this research. The researcher sought a research permit from

National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) through the Dean, Graduate School at Kenyatta University. After securing the permit the researcher moved to each of the study locales to first meet the County Commissioners, the County Directors of Education and the principals. The researcher traced adequate number of former de-braillists of KNEC and he was able to explain to the personnel and the potential research participants the basics of the study and finally book research appointments. The researcher further sought for informed consent and assured the respondents of adherence to confidentiality and the fact that the data so gathered was to be used solely for the study. Participants were issued with Consent Forms to indicate their voluntary acceptance to be involved in the study.

CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction This chapter entails data analysis, presentation of findings, interpretations and discussion according to the study objectives and research questions. As stated in

Chapter One, these objectives of the study were:

1. Establish teachers’ perceptions toward relationship between original Braille

work and de-brailled work.

2. Explore teachers’ perceptions toward the qualifications of de-brailling

personnel.

3. Investigate teachers’ perceptions on challenges involved in de-brailling.

4. Determine teachers’ perceptions toward strategies that can enhance

competence of de-brailling personnel.

Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics techniques. A total of thirty-four respondents were sampled for the study.

4.2 General and Demographic Information of Respondents

4.1.1 Response Rate

The study sampled a total of 34 respondents. Four teachers in charge of Braille, twenty-six subject teachers and four former de-braillists of KNEC took part in this study. The respondents were from Thika High School for the Blind, Kiambu County;

Kibos Special Secondary School, Kisumu County; St Lucy’s High School for the

Visually Impaired, Meru County; and Nico Hauser Special Secondary School for the

Visually Impaired, Siaya County. Former de-braillists were also sought for nationally.

Table 4.1 gives a summary of the response rate.

Table 4.1 Response Rate Frequency Percentage Response 34 100 Non-response 0 0

Total 34 100 Source: Author, 2017

From Table 4.1, one hundred percent response rate was attained. All the 26 questionnaires issued were filled and returned. All the eight (8) respondents who were also scheduled for the interviews were also available on the interview dates, time and venue as agreed. There were, however, some respondents that were interviewed by mobile telephone.

4.1.2 Demographic Information of Respondents

Several demographic factors were considered which were important in interpretation of the questionnaires responses given. The factors included: gender of the teachers, age, academic qualifications, teaching experience, professional training in Special

Needs Education (SNE) and its level. The study further sought to establish whether respondents were trained in VI and especially so in Braille literacy as well as find the

Braille literacy level in teaching subjects. Other factors considered were: whether trained as a KCSE examiner and if indeed attended in-service training in Braille or VI

Assessment.

The teachers’ gender from the study schools was sought for. Table 4.2 displays the results obtained for gender of teachers

Table 4.2 Gender of Teachers Gender Respondents Percentage Male 13 50 Female 13 50 Total 26 100 Source: Author, 2017

According to Table 4.2, the respondents were distributed equally between the genders.

This clearly showed that the gender balance rule was strictly adhered to, first in accordance with research standards and second, in accordance with the Constitution of

Kenya (ROK, 2010).

The teachers’ age and teaching experience were studied and the results were presented in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.1 respectively. The teachers’ age and teaching experience can determine the teachers’ effectiveness on perceptions toward de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya.

Table 4.3 Age of the Respondents Age (years ) Respondents Percentage 18 – 25 2 7.69 26 – 30 4 15.38 31 – 35 4 15.38 36 – 40 1 3.85 41 – 45 6 23.08 46 – 50 4 15.38 51 and above 5 19.24 Total 26 100 Source: Author, 2017

Table 4.3 reveals that nearly a quarter of the respondents were between 41 and 45 years; nearly one fifth were 51 years and above; almost half of the respondents, were equally distributed among the three age groups: 26 – 30, 31 – 35 and 46 – 50 years; two were between 18 and 25 years; and only one was between 36 and 40 years. From the collected data, the average age of the entire respondents was 40 years. More than half of the respondents involved in the study were at least 41 years. This implies that the respondents’ responses were credible enough since they had interacted with special needs learners for a relatively substantial period of time.

19% 35%

19%

27%

<3 3-10YRS 11-20YRS 21-30YRS

Figure 4.1 Teaching Experience 2 Source: Author, 2017

Figure 4.1 shows that about half of the respondents had taught for between 21 and 30 years; slightly more than one quarter had an experience of between 11 and 20 years; and the rest of the respondents had equally taught for either less than 3 years or between 3 and 10 years. This clearly showed that majority of the teachers had taught

68 for at least three years. This implies that these teachers qualified to be recruited for training by KNEC as examiners (KNEC, 2014). Majority of the respondents had also met the minimum requisite professional experience.

The study looked at the teachers’ highest academic qualification. Teacher’s academic qualification and their professional background were looked into to evaluate how it affects perceptions toward de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment.

This was also to point out whether the teachers had specific knowledge in handling learners at secondary school level in Kenya. The study thus sought to determine the level of education of the teachers. Figure 4.2 presents the results.

12% 19%

69%

DIPLOMA BACHELORS MASTERS

Figure 4.2 Teachers Academic Qualifications Source: Author, 2017

Figure 4.2 shows that slightly more than two thirds of the respondents were

Bachelor’s degree holders; nearly one fifth of the study participants were Master’s degree holders; and the rest were Diploma holders. The findings depict all the

69 respondents as having attained at least a Diploma in Education hence meeting the minimum requirement for a teacher to qualify to teach at that level in Kenya as stipulated by the Teachers Service Commission – TSC (www.tsc.go.ke).

The study further sought to establish whether the respondents who were involved in this study had undergone training in Special Needs Education (SNE). Table 4.4 below displays the results.

Table 4.4 Trained in Special Needs Education (SNE)

Response Frequency Percentage

Yes 20 77 No 6 23 Total 26 100 Source: Author, 2017

From Table 4.4, findings revealed that more than three quarters of the respondents were trained in SNE whereas the remaining, almost a quarter of them had not been trained in SNE. This means that most of the respondents teaching in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya were professionally qualified to teach learners with disabilities effectively and they understood the issues affecting such learners.

The study further sought to establish the highest level of training by those respondents that had trained in SNE. The results are in Figure 4.3 below.

60 55%

40 35%

percentage 20 10% 10

0 certificate diploma undergraduate postgraduate level of training

Figure 3.3: Highest Level of Training in SNE Source: Author, 2017

In Figure 4.3, for those respondents who had undergone training in Special Needs

Education, more than half of them did it at certificate level. Slightly more than one third of them did it at degree level whereas the rest trained at postgraduate level.

The study sought to establish whether the respondents who had undergone training in

Special Needs Education had specialized in Visual Impairment. The results were tabulated in Table 4.5 below.

Table 4.5 Specialization in Visual Impairment

Response Frequency Percentage

Yes 19 95 No 1 5 Total 20 100 Source: Author, 2017

From the findings in Table 4.5, almost all the respondents had specialized in visual impairment whereas only one respondent had specialized in area(s) other than visual impairment. The findings imply that majority of the respondents were valuable in giving the right feedback as far as the study was concerned.

The study sought to establish whether the respondents who took part in this study had been trained in Braille. Table 4.6 depicts the results.

Table 4.6 Trained in Braille 2 Response Frequency Percentage

Yes 22 88 No 3 12 Total 25 100 Source: Author, 2017

From Table 4.6, it is clear that most of the respondents had been trained in Braille whereas a few had not. This concurs with Amato (2002) and Kimeto (2010) who viewed Braille as a “learned skill which was enhanced by years of experience in the field as well as the opportunity to use these skills with students”. This perception is further supported by Chomba (2017) and Lamb (1996) who emphasize that children who learn to read and write Braille ought to be taught by teachers who have experience in Braille and should not only be familiar with special skills for tactual reading but should be better placed to implement the said skills in the whole language approach to literacy.

The study sought to establish whether the respondents who took part in this study were literate in Braille in their teaching subjects. Findings were put in Table 4.7 below.

Table 4.7 Literate in Braille in Respondents’ Teaching Subjects

Response Frequency Percentage Yes 26 100 No 0 0 Total 26 100 Source: Author, 2017

Table 4.7 reveals that all of them were literate in Braille of their teaching subjects.

This implies that they were able to write, read, give and mark their assignments and internal examinations (formative evaluation) and give appropriate feedback.

The study sought to establish the respondents’ perceptions on the level of Braille literacy in their respective teaching subjects. Figure 4.4 has the findings.

70 62% 60 50 40 30 27% percentage 20 11% 10 0 proficient good average poor very poor level of braille literacy

Figure 4.4 Self-rating of Braille Literacy Level in Respondents’ Teaching

Subjects

Source: Author, 2017

From the findings in Figure 4.4, majority of the respondents felt proficient. Slightly more than one quarter of them rated themselves as good whereas the rest perceived their Braille literacy level to be average. This high rating could be attributed to their frequent use of Braille. These findings seem to concur with Herzberg (2010) who observed that teachers were likely to overrate their level of proficiency in Braille even though those that do not use Braille on regular basis are likely to lose competence with time. A teacher in charge of Braille in one of the study locales also acceded thus:

I can say that their level is average. I believe this is a more objective response since if you were to ask individually, they may give you a skewed view . . . Majority of teachers do not know Braille – no one is willing to learn Braille after graduation (Teacher in Charge of Braille II, Interview, 1st February, 2017).

The study also sought to establish whether the respondents who took part in this study had been trained by KNEC or KEMI as KCSE examiners. Table 4.8 shows the findings.

Table 4.8 Trained by KNEC or KEMI as a KCSE examiner Response Frequency Percentage

Yes 9 35 No 17 65 Total 26 100 Source: Author, 2017

From the findings in Table 4.8, the respondents who had not been trained as KCSE examiners were almost double those that had been trained. Studies have found that teachers that have been trained as examiners often are better placed in guiding their learners on writing appropriate answers. Ng’ang’a (2014) postulated that an apt solution for bias in marking lay in providing (the examiner with) a detailed evaluating

74 criteria. The detailed criteria, is not just in the marking scheme but also in standard ways of marking that have been imparted by KNEC or KEMI through training. KNEC is the only body in Kenya that trains examiners for the examinations whose syllabi it prepares, sets and moderates. In addition, KNEC prints, delivers, administers, marks, makes data entry and standardizes these examinations (Muthiora, 2016). Their role in training became controversial in the year 2012 when Kenya Education Management

Institute (KEMI) asserted its constitutional mandate to train teachers. These findings are in line with Andala, Digolo and Kamande (2014) who found that very few teachers were trained examiners.

The study sought to establish whether the respondents who took part in this study had been trained by MOEST or any other organization in Braille or Visual Impairment

Assessment. Table 4.9 bears the results of the findings.

Table 4.9 Trained by MOEST or any other organization in Braille or VI assessment

Response Frequency Percentage Yes 6 23

No 20 77 Total 26 100 Source: Author, 2017

From the study findings in Table 4.9, nearly one quarter of the respondents had been trained whereas the remaining majority, slightly more than three quarters had not. This puts into question KNEC’s assertion that the examination body engages de-braillers

(de-braillists) who were teachers having a minimum of a Diploma in Special Needs

Assessment, Visual Impairment (personal communication, July 6th, 2016). The training of these teachers by KNEC would be critical since they would acquire requisite skills and knowledge in making objective judgement of students’ work. The training would further help the teachers avoid concentrating on the aspect or aspects of the answer that are not related to the key response.

4.3 Comparing the Original and de-brailled Texts

The first objective of this study was to establish teachers’ perceptions toward relationship between original Braille work and de-brailled work. This objective was to be achieved by answering the research question: What are the teachers’ perceptions toward the relationship between original Braille work and the de-brailled work? In order to answer this question, the researcher employed the use of both research instruments. Part ‘A’ of the questionnaires administered to the 26 respondents had five statements on a five-level Likert Scale as seen in the Table 4.10 below.

Table 4.10 Comparison between the original and the de-brailled texts

Statements on texts SA A N D SD Tota Mea S.D comparison % % % % % l % n The de-brailled script 8 4 4 42 42 100 1.92 1.16 would exactly resemble 4 original script.

Some errors in the de- 61 27 0 4 8 100 4.31 1.19 brailled script would be 2 associated with the de- braillist.

Most errors in the de- 19 54 23 0 4 100 3.85 0.88 brailled script would be 1 related to dot-character errors.

Contextual errors would 35 31 23 11 0 100 3.88 1.03 contribute to majority of 3 nonsensical words in the de-brailled script.

Some transcriptions 15 50 23 4 8 100 3.62 1.06 would be complex to 1 classify/associate the type with the student or the de-braillist.

Standard Deviation = 1.0662 Source: Author, 2017

In Table 4.10, the scale adopted on the general rating was as follows: (1-1.4) –

Strongly Disagree; (1.5-2.4) – Disagree; (2.5-3.4) – Neither Agree nor Disagree; (3.5-

4.4) – Agree; (4.5-5) – Strongly Agree.

In assessment of relationship based on semblance, the respondents generally disagreed with the fact that the de-brailled script would have the exact semblance to the original/student’s script as indicated with a mean of 1.92. The respondents generally

77 agreed with the remaining four statements on semblance with means that ranged between 3.5 and 4.4.

The general rating of the relationship between original and de-brailled scripts based on the five comparison statements differed significantly among the respondents as reflected in the standard deviation of greater than one (Std. Dev. >1.0).

The study sought to establish the responses on statements regarding the relationship between original and de-brailled scripts from the respondents who took part in this study. From the findings, majority of the respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the fact that the de-brailled script would have the exact semblance to the original/student’s script. A few of them were neutral (they neither agreed nor disagreed), whereas the rest either agreed or strongly agreed with the same statement in the ratio 1:2. Majority of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that some errors in the de-brailled script would be associated with the de-braillist, not the student/original script, slightly more than one quarter of them agreed with the same statement, whereas the rest either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statement in the ratio1:2.

Slightly more than half of the respondents agreed with the fact that most errors in the de-brailled script would be related to dot-character errors or level; misplaced key strokes. Nearly one fifth of them strongly agreed with the same statement, slightly less than one quarter of them were neutral, whereas the rest strongly disagreed with the same statement. Slightly more than two thirds of the respondents strongly agreed

78 with the fact that contextual errors (anticipations, perseverations, metathesis/ exchanges, misorderings and some additions) in the original script would contribute to majority of nonsensical words in the de-brailled script. Nearly one third of them agreed with the same statement, nearly one quarter of them were neutral, whereas the rest disagreed with the same statement. A half of the respondents agreed with the fact that some transcriptions would be complex to classify/associate the type with the student or the de-braillist. Less than one quarter of them strongly agreed with the same statement, almost one quarter of them were neutral, whereas the rest either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statement in the ratio 1:2.

From the interviews conducted on semblance of the de-brailled script to the original exam script, a majority of former de-braillists indicated that there was exact semblance between the de-brailled script and the original exam script. However, this was not the case for teachers in charge of Braille: all of them responded in the negative. Although one of the former de-braillists had an affirmative view on semblance, his later statement appearing in the course of the interview was somewhat self-defeatist:

Then . . . familiarity. One knowing the other person made this work to be imperfect. They pick on some people who are not very perfect in that area . . . they are not conversant. For example there is a KNEC officer who knows someone in an institution . . . they convince the KNEC officer that they are competent yet in the real case you know, the KNEC officer does not know these things. He or she is chosen, not on merit, but on favouritism (Former De- braillist IV, Interview 15th March, 2017).

The contradictory responses given by the said respondent might have been as a result of firstly, wanting to give a socially acceptable answer and the thought that national

79 examinations are high-stake. Secondly, the participant might have had some memory lapse in relation to his initial response, early in the interview.

The general perception from the findings is that the de-brailled script had no exact semblance to the original Braille work. These findings are congruent with Clapper,

Morse, Thompson and Thurlow (2006) who observed that the use of these personnel introduces human variability into the examination context, the potential for obstacles to the validity and comparability of resulting scores is greatly increased. They argued further that lack of standardized guidelines for the access assistants, construct- irrelevant variance is introduced that may invalidate test scores. The perception that some errors in the de-brailled script would be associated with the de-braillist was supported by several studies (Chilala, 2003; Clapper, Morse, Thompson & Thurlow,

2006; Kaburia, 2006; Kaburia & Kashu, 2006; Kimeto, 2010; and Nzoka, 2011). In some of these studies, the exact errors associated with the de-braillist were stated and documented. The other view that most errors in the de-brailled work were related to dot-character were identified by studies done by Argyropoulos and Martos (2006),

Hong and Erin (2004) and Wells-Jensen, Schwartz and Gosche (2007).

This is what one respondent observed regarding whether the de-brailled script would have the exact semblance to the original work by a student:

As to whether the de-brailled script will have the exact semblance to the examination original script, this is dependent on the understanding of the actual meaning of the candidate’s work – the de-braillist does his work as a copy-typist. He should do the work without errors – without intentional omissions (Teacher in Charge of Braille IV, Interview 6th March, 2017).

While the perception of the above respondent could be true and justified, Braille and print are two different media of writing. There are, however, certain signs that might appear in Braille at the time the student writes his work that lack their print equivalent.

This was clearly captured in the words of another research participant:

Even if you were to recopy a handwritten text into print chances are that you will make errors. The situation becomes more difficult when you are changing Braille texts into print. How would one account for some meaningless dots that appear in the work of a student that uses Braille? There are times, the de- braillist simply guesses for the student. In the case of correcting the de- braillist might ignore the version the teacher or examiner wanted and write own interpretation. For example, he would write “ever” instead of “e’er”; “both” instead of “those”; “kwa nini” instead of “kwani”; or“nyinyi” instead of “ninyi” (Teacher in charge of Braille I, Interview 30th January, 2017).

This problem could be more complex in mathematics and sciences where the Braille code is different.

Another respondent had these sentiments:

Most ghost dots are produced are not intentional and are as a result of speedy writing, finger muscle or bone weakness, the status of the Braille writer, emotional status of the student or candidate and so on. For example dot 5 /st/ in a certain context would be understood to mean ‘some’ since there is no such contraction in literary Braille (Former De-braillist I, Interview 14th November, 2016)

The above concern by the respondent points to a major challenge in interpreting some of the dots that appear in the original Braille work whose meaning might not be immediately or totally understood by the de-brailling personnel.

4.4 Professional Qualifications for de-brailling Personnel

The second objective of this study was to explore teachers’ perceptions toward the qualifications of de-brailling personnel. In attaining this objective, the study asked the question: What are the teachers’ perceptions on the qualifications of de-brailling

81 personnel? In order to answer this question, the researcher employed the use of part

‘B’ of the questionnaires to the 26 respondents which had eighteen (18) statements on a five-level Likert Scale as seen in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11 Qualifications/Requirements for de-brailling Personnel

Qualifications/requirements SA A N D SD Total Mean S.D % % % % % % Qualifications, training and 80 20 0 0 0 100 4.81 0.402 other vital qualities that they need for effectiveness. Effective communication 65 23 4 8 0 100 4.46 0.905 skills and fluency.

Previous experience in the 50 35 11 4 0 100 4.31 0.838 exam process and as a reader/scribe.

The ability to adhere to 81 15 0 0 4 100 4.69 0.838 confidentiality. Accuracy. 81 15 0 4 0 100 4.73 0.667 Reasonable handwriting 73 23 4 0 0 100 4.69 0.549 speed. Handwriting legibility. 69 27 0 4 0 100 4.62 0.697 Subject knowledge/training 77 19 0 4 0 100 4.69 0.679 and familiarity with terminology, etc. Previous Reader/Scribe 54 42 4 0 0 100 4.50 0.583 training. GCSE A – C or equivalent; 39 42 15 4 0 100 4.15 0.834 KCSE C [Plain] and above. Trustworthy qualities. 61 39 0 0 0 100 4.62 0.496

Ability to be meticulous. 50 42 4 4 0 100 4.38 0.752 Ability to appreciate different 57 31 4 4 4 100 4.35 1.018 learning abilities. Training and certification as 54 31 11 4 0 100 4.35 0.846 staff member of the school or teacher.

Familiarity with the student. 31 23 12 15 19 100 3.31 1.543

Understanding technical role 27 50 11 8 4 100 3.88 1.033 of the access assistant. Braille knowledge and skills in 88 8 0 4 0 100 4.81 0.634 presenting various test materials (symbols, formulas and equations.) Good use of pronunciation 46 27 19 4 4 100 4.08 1.093 dictionaries. Standard Deviation = 0.8004 Source: Author, 2017

In Table 4.11, the scale adopted on the general rating was as follows: (1-1.4) –

Strongly Disagree; (1.5-2.4) – Disagree; (2.5-3.4) – Neither Agree nor Disagree; (3.5-

4.4) – Agree; (4.5-5) – Strongly Agree.

A cursory look at the findings shows that the respondents generally strongly agreed with half of the listed qualifications/requirements that they felt these de-brailling personnel should possess. This was indicated by means of between 4.5 and 5. Of the remaining half the stated qualifications/requirements, only one (familiarity with the student) had a neutral response with a mean of 3.31. The respondents seem to have generally agreed with the other eight statements as reflected in the means between 3.5 and 4.4.

The general rating of the respondents’ perceptions toward the qualifications/requirements for the de-brailling personnel based on these statements does not differ significantly among the respondents as reflected in the standard deviation of less than one (Std. Dev. <1.0).

The study sought to establish the responses on statements regarding the qualifications/requirements for the de-brailling personnel from the respondents who took part in this study. From the findings in Table 4.11, most of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should possess required qualifications and trainings and other vital qualities that they need to effectively play their roles while the remaining one fifth agreed with the same statement. From the findings, nearly two thirds of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de- brailling personnel should possess effective communication skills and fluency in

English diction and accurate pronunciation: good voice quality, appropriate regional dialect, speed and tone and integrity with voice inflection, almost one quarter agreed with the same statement, and the rest were either neutral or disagreed in the ratio 1:2.

The findings also indicated that, half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should possess previous experience in the exam process and as a reader/scribe, slightly more than one third agreed with the same statement, some were neutral, whereas the remaining very few disagreed with the same statement.

From the findings, majority of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de- brailling personnel should possess the ability to adhere to confidentiality, rules, ethico- moral standards and integrity policies, less than one quarter agreed with the same statement, whereas very few strongly disagreed with the same statement. The findings also indicated that, most of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de- brailling personnel should possess accuracy, less than one quarter agreed with the same statement, whereas very few disagreed with the same statement. From the

84 findings, nearly three quarters of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de- brailling personnel should possess reasonable handwriting or (touch) typing speed or adequate word processing skills, almost one quarter agreed with the same statement whereas the rest were neutral. The findings also indicated that, slightly more than two thirds of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that the handwriting of the de- brailling personnel should be legible, slightly more than one quarter agreed with the same statement whereas the rest disagreed with the same statement. From the findings, slightly above three quarters of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de- brailling personnel should have subject knowledge/training and familiarity with terminology, vocabulary, words, signs and symbols specific to the test content, slightly less than one fifth agreed with the same statement, whereas the rest disagreed with the same statement.

The findings also indicated that, more than half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should possess previous Reader/Scribe training, less than half agreed with the same statement whereas the rest were neutral.

From the findings, nearly two fifth of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should possess Level 2 English and Mathematics qualification (GCSE A – C or equivalent; KCSE C [Plain] and above), slightly more than two fifth agreed with the same statement, less than one quarter of them were neutral, whereas the rest disagreed with the same statement.

The findings also indicated that, almost two thirds of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should be approachable, reliable and possess

85 trustworthy qualities: ensuring equality and/or neutrality to students whereas the remaining nearly two fifth agreed with the same statement. From the findings, half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should possess the ability to be meticulous, clear, write verbatim and have time and self- management skills, slightly more than two fifth agreed with the same statement, while the remaining few were either neutral or disagreed with the same statement. The findings also indicated that, more than half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should possess the ability to appreciate different learning abilities: patience in reading parts of passages, phrases or items, nearly one third agreed with the same statement, while the rest were equally neutral, disagreed with or strongly disagreed with the same statement.

From the findings in Table 4.11, slightly more than half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should undergo training and certification as staff member of the school or teacher, nearly one third agreed with the same statement, some of them were neutral whereas very few disagreed with the same statement. The findings further indicated that, almost one third of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should possess familiarity with the student: neither a parent, school volunteer, peer tutor or other student (in state tests) nor one that would be paid by the candidate or his/her family, nearly one quarter agreed with the same statement, slightly more than a quarter were either neutral or disagreed with the same statement and the remaining nearly one fifth strongly disagreed with the same statement.

From the findings, slightly more than one quarter of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should possess the understanding of the difference between the helping role of the teacher or teacher assistant and the technical role of the access assistant, half agreed with the same statement, the rest were neutral, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statement. The findings also indicated that, almost all the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de-brailling personnel should be knowledgeable in Braille and have skills in presenting various types of test materials, e.g. familiarity with mathematical symbols required for the correct delivery of higher level mathematics formulas and equations, the rest either agreed or disagreed with the same statement in the ratio of 2:1. The findings also demonstrated that nearly half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that de- brailling personnel should possess good use of pronunciation dictionaries, slightly more than one quarter agreed with the same statement, nearly one fifth of them were neutral, whereas the rest either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statement.

Interviews findings generally showed mixed perceptions regarding the question on the qualifications and/or requirements that the debrialling personnel should possess.

While questionnaires respondents generally agreed with the qualifications that the de- braillists should have, the respondents in the interviews seem not to emphasize these areas. However, several studies and documents had found them necessary. These qualifications were: effective communication skills (Clapper, Morse, Thompson &

Thurlow, 2005; Herriot-Watt University, 2012, 2015; JCQ, 2015; The Oasis Academy

Lord’s Hill, 2015; Regents of the University of California, 2015), previous experience in the exam process (Clapper, Morse, Thompson & Thurlow, 2005; Herriot-Watt

University, 2012, 2015; The Oasis Academy Lord’s Hill, 2015; Regents of the

University of California, 2015), reasonable handwriting speed (Berrisford, 2013;

Clapper, et al., 2005; Herriot-Watt University, 2012, 2015; The Oasis Academy

Lord’s Hill, 2015), ability to be meticulous (Regents of the University of California,

2015), Previous Reader/Scribe training (The Oasis Academy Lord’s Hill, 2015), ability to appreciate different learning abilities (JCQ, 2015; Regents of the University of California, 2015), familiarity with the student (Clapper, Morse, Thompson &

Thurlow, 2005, 2006), understanding of the technical role (Clapper, Morse, Thompson

& Thurlow, 2005, 2006 and JCQ, 2015) and good use of the pronunciation dictionaries (JCQ, 2015).

In addition, there were qualifications that the questionnaires respondents felt prerequisite but the interviews findings failed to attach much emphasis on. These included the ability to adhere to confidentiality (Herriot-Watt University, 2012, 2015;

The Oasis Academy Lord’s Hill, 2015; Regents of the University of California, 2015), trustworthiness (JCQ, 2015; and handwriting legibility (Berrisford, 2013; Clapper,

Morse, Thompson & Thurlow, 2005; Herriot-Watt University, 2012, 2015).

In essence, the questionnaires respondents generally agreed with more than ten (10) listed qualifications that the de-braillists should have, contrary to the respondents in the interviews. These qualifications were: effective communication skills, previous experience in the exam process, reasonable handwriting speed, ability to be

88 meticulous, previous Reader/Scribe training, ability to appreciate different learning abilities, familiarity with the student, understanding of the technical role and good use of the pronunciation dictionaries. Additional qualifications that the questionnaires respondents agreed with as opposed to their interview counterparts were: the ability to adhere to confidentiality, trustworthiness and handwriting legibility.

The possible reasons for this divergent view could be as a result of the interviewees were not presented with a list of professional qualifications from which to make responses; the feeling that those qualifications were meant for de-braillists that had never worked together; the feeling that some of those qualifications were meant for high-stake examinations like GCSE or KCSE and not students’ work, assignments, and internal/formative evaluation; and the feeling that the one writing, in most cases was a qualified teacher (or a colleague of the subject teacher) who was to mark the very scripts. In that case therefore, the de-braillists in the schools had no problem with handwriting legibility, confidentiality, previous training, and so on.

Despite this lack of stress on certain aspects by interview findings, studies have emphasized the importance of handwriting legibility, among other variables on scores

(Connelly, Dockrell & Barnnet, 2005; Hart, 2010; Henry, 2012). Meadows and

Billington (2005), however, postulated that experienced examiners (teachers) valued content rather than handwriting and presentation.

One respondent had this to say on confidentiality:

Oh! Qualifications? Qualifications . . . eh one has to first train then become a marker. There is training. There is training. One has to be secretive. Now after that you have to take an oath, secret oath. Another one is academic. Now, you must have a Diploma or a Degree. The degree or the diploma has to be in the

area of Special Needs. They emphasize these (Former De-braillist IV, Interview 15th March, 2017).

In general, all the respondents in the study were of the perception that the de-brailling personnel were to have qualifications, training and other vital qualities that they need to effectively play their role. The study findings were emphatic of five main qualifications which find conformity to some earlier researches. Firstly, accuracy was considered important (Herriot-Watt University, 2012, 2015; JCQ, 2015; Regents of the

University of California, 2015).

Secondly, subject knowledge/training and familiarity with terminology, vocabulary, words, signs and symbols specific to the test content were found crucial (Berrisford,

2013; Clapper, Morse, Thompson & Thurlow, 2005; Regents of the University of

California, 2015). Thirdly, Level 2 English and Mathematics qualification (GCSE A –

C or equivalent; KCSE C [Plain] and above) was equally important (The Oasis

Academy Lord’s Hill, 2015). Fourthly, the de-brailling personnel ought to have undergone training and certification as staff member of the school or teacher (Clapper,

Morse, Thompson & Thurlow, 2005, 2006). Finally, the personnel were to have knowledge of Braille and skilled in presenting various types of test materials, e.g. familiarity with mathematical symbols required for the correct delivery of higher level mathematics formulas and equations (JCQ, 2015). These study findings were supported by interviews respondents:

The first qualification was a minimum certificate in high school level . . . O- Level certificate . . . skills and knowledge in both print and Braille. The skill and the ability to tell the challenges or overcome the challenges in ghost dots. This was important to allow the correct interpretation of the Braille scripts. The de-braillist had to differentiate the various Braille codes . . . English,

Kiswahili and any other scientific Braille notation . . . in Biology, Geography and the sciences (Former De-braillist I, Interview 14th November, 2016).

4.5 Challenges in De-brailling

The researcher sought to investigate teachers’ perceptions on challenges involved in de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment. The findings are shown in

Table 4.12 below.

Table 4.12 Challenges likely to affect De-brailling

Challenges in de-brailling SA A N D SD Total Mea S.D % % % % % % n The use of unorthodox Braille 58 34 0 4 4 100 4.38 0.983 code by students/candidates. Slower speed of reading (those 38 42 8 8 4 100 4.04 1.076 who took up Braille later in life). Cognitive ability among 54 42 4 0 0 100 4.50 0.583 inexperienced Braille readers. Slower reading pace of 46 35 8 11 0 100 4.15 1.008 continuous passages. Lower levels of redundancy in 50 34 4 8 4 100 4.19 1.096 Braille connected with the cognitive perceptual factors. Complexity of the Braille code 54 42 0 4 0 100 4.46 0.706

Format and limited scanning 39 42 15 0 4 100 4.12 0.952 strategies in Braille texts. Inadequate/lack of qualified 46 23 15 8 8 100 3.92 1.294 Braille personnel. Meeting tight deadlines. 42 30 12 4 12 100 3.88 1.336

Determining correct 42 50 4 0 4 100 4.27 0.874 interpretation.

Lack of clarity on the right way to 50 38 4 4 4 100 4.27 1.002 transcribe the text/things. Standard Deviation = 0.9918 Source: Author, 2017

The scale adopted in Table 4.12 on the general rating was as follows: (1-1.4) –

Strongly Disagree; (1.5-2.4) – Disagree; (2.5-3.4) – Neither Agree nor Disagree; (3.5-

4.4) – Agree; (4.5-5) – Strongly Agree.

From the findings, there were nine (9) out of eleven (11) challenges which the respondents generally agreed are likely to affect de-brailling of work by students’ with visual impairment in special secondary schools for learner with visual impairment in

Kenya. This was indicated by their mean ranging between 3.5 and 4.4. There were only two challenges that the respondents generally strongly agreed are likely to affect de-brailling of work by students. One was the cognitive ability: sequential recovery of information (letter by letter, word by word) among inexperienced Braille readers, which had a mean of 4.50. Two, the complexity of the Braille code: general code, rules, own code and subject specific codes, which had a mean of 4.46.

The general rating of the issues based on these statements does not differ significantly among the respondents as reflected in the standard deviation of less than one (Std.

Dev. <1.0).

The study sought to establish the responses on statements regarding the challenges that are likely to affect de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment from the respondents who took part in this study. From the findings in Table 4.12, more than half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that the use of unorthodox or non- standardized Braille code by candidates is likely to affect de-brailling of work by students, slightly more than one third of them agreed with the same statement, whereas

92 the very few either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statement. The findings also indicated that, nearly two fifth of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that slower speed of reading Braille by those de-braillists who took up Braille later in life is likely to affect de-brailling of students’ work, slightly more than two fifth of them agreed with the same statement, the remaining one fifth of them were neutral, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statement in the ratio of 2:2:1.

From the findings, more than half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that cognitive ability: sequential recovery of information (letter by letter, word by word) among inexperienced Braille readers is likely to affect de-brailling of students’ work, assignments and examinations scripts, slightly more than two fifth of them agreed with the same statement while the very few were neutral. The findings also indicated that, almost half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that slower reading pace, especially of continuous passages of prose by Braille readers is likely to affect de- brailling of work, almost two fifth of them agreed with the same statement, less than a quarter of the respondents were either neutral or disagreed with the same statement.

From the findings in Table 4.12, half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that lower levels of redundancy in Braille connected with the cognitive perceptual factors is likely to affect de-brailling of learners work, slightly more than one third of them agreed with the same statement, while the rest of them were neutral, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statement in the ratio 1:2:1. The findings also indicated that, more than half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that complexity of the Braille code: general code, rules, own code and subject specific

93 codes is likely to affect de-brailling of the work under this research study, slightly less than half of them agreed with the same statement, whereas very few disagreed with the same statement. The findings further indicated that nearly two fifth of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that format and limited scanning strategies in Braille texts: complexity in segmenting/segmented key Braille texts is likely to affect de- brailling of students’ work or scripts, slightly more than two fifth of them agreed with the same statement, whereas less than a quarter of the respondents were neutral or strongly disagreed with the same statement.

The findings also indicated that, almost half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that inadequate/lack of qualified Braille personnel is likely to affect de- brailling of learners’ work, nearly one quarter of them agreed with the same statement, some of them were neutral, whereas the remaining less than a quarter either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statement. From the findings, slightly more than two fifth of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that meeting tight deadlines is likely to affect de-brailling of Brailled work, almost one third of them agreed with the same statement, while slightly more than a quarter of them were neutral, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statement in the ratio 3:1:3.

The findings also indicated that, slightly more than two fifth of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that determining correct interpretation is likely to affect de-brailling of work by students, half of them agreed with the same statement, whereas a few were either neutral or strongly disagreed with the same statement. From the findings, half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that lack of clarity on

94 the right way to transcribe the text/things is likely to affect de-brailling of work, assignments and examinations scripts, nearly two fifth of them agreed with the same statement, while a few of them were either neutral, disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statement.

From the interviews conducted, some issues emerged that were likely to affect the de- brailling of examinations. The respondents were required to state some of the challenges with de-brailling and asked questions related to areas they would desire to be improved by the universities and colleges in training teachers or SNE professionals; areas they would desire that the school or KNEC improves on with regard to de- brailling or evaluation of learners with visual impairment; and suggestions to ensure

KCSE candidates with VI achieve their educational goals. Findings pointed at the general challenges to de-brailling that need to be addressed. These include: the competence, qualifications and limited number of the de-brailling personnel, handwriting legibility, meeting tight deadlines and poor supervision.

On the matter of competence, the interview respondents had reservations on the competence of teachers involved in teaching Braille. A respondent was of the perception that incompetence of the teacher in Braille would have a domino-effect on the Braille competence of the student. This he emphasized would affect de-brailling of the students’ work since a student would present work that would be problematic to decipher by the de-braillist or any other Braillist.

He stated thus:

Another challenge is that . . . eh Braillers become, eh de-brailling is not done well, it is not taken seriously. You get a student getting to Standard Eight in various schools and he or she does not know how to write in both Brailling and de-brailling and even if they go for de-brailing you are not able to interpret what the child has written . . . he or she has written unintelligibly. That is another challenge. You find a student who has written a Braille that is his or her own . . . her own code. I think it’s lack of seriousness from the background all the way, eh it’s lack of seriousness. Even the teacher is to blame. Suppose I am a teacher and the pupil moves from Class One to Class Eight while illiterate in Braille, he or she doesn’t know Braille . . . that is both a teacher and a child’s weakness. Any other challenge! Ah, I think those are the major challenges (Former De-braillist IV, 15th March, 2017).

This interview respondent was of the opinion that the challenges in de-brailling do not just manifest in secondary schools. The said problems have their root in primary schools where Braille is not taken seriously by the teachers. Once a learner has a poor base in Braille literacy, he will maintain the same in secondary school and this is likely to cause more challenges to the teacher that is de-brailling a student’s work whose Braille is poor, substandard or indubitably non-existent. This view was supported by Chomba (2017) and Rukwaro (2011).

Interview respondents were of the perception that the qualifications of some of the teachers that involved in de-brailling were subject to interrogation. They felt that even though some of them qualified as teachers of Braille, such qualifications did not match their ability.

One respondent lamented:

As already stated, there were gaps that needed to be addressed, and that’s why there was need to professionalize de-brailling. I believe they have gone back and perhaps the gaps could be wider than before. Emphasizing on certificates is important but conventionally most people will study Braille even at the university level but still lack competence. You can never compare the Braille level of those who have experienced Braille throughout their lives, as their

medium of learning, reading and writing with a scholar that has enrolled for a Braille course at the university (Former De-braillist II, 16th December, 2016).

This view is shared by Kimeto (2010) who stressed in his study that the qualifications held by his respondents did not match their actual ability in Braille. Some Braille courses, he stated, were offered in too short a duration to give the teacher any meaningful competence.

Another set of de-brailling challenges revolved around limited number of the de- brailling personnel, handwriting legibility, meeting tight deadlines and poor supervision. Studies have indicated a global shortage of Braille personnel and this has in effect found influence on meeting tight (de-brailling) deadlines and supervisory obligations.

One respondent had this to say:

Students undertaking SNE should also be sensitized on SNE: the importance of being fluent and the acquisition of the right attitude towards disability rather than being motivated by the economic gains, whether real or imagined. These institutions should also have well-qualified personnel, they always lack enough manpower. For example, when I had gone to college I saw some disability areas lack qualified personnel (Teacher in Charge of Braille III, 3rd February, 2017).

Another respondent noted:

Another problem is overworking. This means working for longer hours to produce the required work within the stipulated time. At times it is frustrating because the one demanding that work does not understand the finer details of the work . . . what the work entails. They set deadlines without consultation and without adequate knowledge of the nature of work in question. One of the solutions lies in working for longer days or more days or starting that work early enough (Former De-braillist III, Interview 4th February, 2017).

Furthermore, respondents indicated other student factor affected de-brailling. There were cases of students having permanent muscular-skeletal complications and even emotional disturbance, hence the inability to produce quality dots. This problem could be compounded by having faulty Braillers.

One of the interview respondents had this to say:

Several issues would affect the de-brailling of scripts. One is the paper quality. There are those papers that produce quality and durable dots – soft versus light Braille paper. Two, the brailler. The general status of the brailling machine is vital. If it is defective some dots might not be clear and hence affect de-brailling later. Three, the candidate or the learner has to be considered. We used to have a student who had problem of using a brailler. The fingers, other than being short, were weak as well. He couldn’t use the brailler and when he started and even with practice, was unable to produce quality Braille dots. Four, is examination fever. Those students who panic during examinations may fail to produce standard Braille. Five, the low vision students are at a greater risk of producing work that do not match their actual academic standards. They have a problem with the reading and the production of Braille (Teacher in Charge of Braille IV, 6th March, 2017).

It is evidenced from the interviews findings that KNEC, a body that examines and certifies some of the teachers that teach Braille at both primary and secondary school levels also lacked its own Braille standards, autonomous Braille/VI Department, own tool to measure Braille competence and induction to teachers and its de-brailling personnel. On Braille standards, the examination body was said to be uncertain of the

Braille code to use and this affected the use of Braille in schools, especially the special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment:

KNEC should have personnel that they have trained to work with them as key source of information as de-braillists or Braille users. KNEC should also emphasize on the Braille standard as by the national or international Braille Primer approved code . . . that is, American or British Braille code. KNEC needs to choose the Braille they want to use . . . the standard Braille. At times there is even confusion even in their test papers, the Braille they prefer and promote is not clear (Former De-braillist I, Interview 14th November, 2016).

Other findings also show that respondents felt that lack of resources, both human and capital, at the universities, colleges and schools diametrically affected training in

Braille/VI. This, they believed affected quality, hence having a domino-effect on de- brailling. Respondents cited a mismatch between the maps and other tactile diagrams produced at the schools and those by KNEC. The need to examine Braille, as a subject, by the exam body was mentioned as part panacea to the de-brailling exercise and its challenges.

The interviews also sought to establish how teachers ensured Braille quality and how standards were met in their respective schools. The approaches used included, the teaching of Braille to learners with low vision and putting Braille on the time table.

This would enable learners to learn and polish their knowledge and skills in Braille.

Research findings indicated that even though questionnaires respondents felt that slower speed of reading Braille, cognitive ability and format and limited scanning strategies affected the reading and writing of Braille, as supported by Ryles (1996) and

Tobin and Hill (2015); Gentle, Steer and Howse (2012) and Miller et al. (2007); and

Tobin and Hill (2015) respectively, the interviews respondents appeared not to recognize these. Less than one half but more than one third of the interviews respondents shared a similar view with the questionnaires respondents on effects of

Braille code complexity, meeting tight deadlines, determining correct interpretation and lack of clarity on the right transcription method on Braille reading and writing.

One respondent observed:

The . . . de-braillists . . . discussing the Braille levels of the candidates, the schools concerned and how they teach Braille, the Braille code used by the students or candidates and so on. There is also failure to cope with the time and work demands (Former De-braillist I, Interview 14th November, 2016). These study findings agree with several studies (Ashcroft, Henderson, Sanford &

Koenig, 1994; Cryer, Home & Morley-Wilkins, 2011; Herzberg, Stough & Clark

2004; Millar & Rash, 2001; Njue, Njoroge & Chege, 2014; Risjord, 2009; Tobin &

Hill, 2015) which stressed the complexity of the Braille code and its challenges to one that uses Braille, the Braillist.

Furthermore, all the respondents in this study, both questionnaires and interviews, were of the perception that the use of unorthodox Braille code, slower reading pace of passages, lower levels of redundancy and inadequate or lack of Braille personnel affected de-brailling. These findings find basis on the following four sets of studies:

Gentle, Steer and Howse (2012); Greaney, Hill and Tobin (1998), Hill, Hill and Tobin

(1999), Jarjoura (2012), Lorimer (1962, 1967) and Tobin and Hill (2015); Millar

(1975, 1984, 1985, 1997) and Tobin and Hill (2015); and Amato (2002),

Argyropoulos and Martos (2006), Cryer, Home and Morley-Wilkins (2011, 2011a,

2011b), Karugu (1994), Kimeto (2010), Mazrui (2014), Mbithi (2012) and Oliphant

(2008).

4.6 Competence of De-brailling Personnel

The last objective of this study was to determine teachers’ perceptions toward strategies that can enhance competence of de-brailling personnel. The study therefore, sought to determine the teachers’ perception by answering the question: What are the

100 teachers’ opinions on the strategies that can enhance competence of de-brailling personnel? The findings are shown in Table 4.13 below.

Table 4.13 Enhancing competence of de-brailling personnel3

Strategies for enhancing SA A N D SD Total Mea S.D competence % % % % % % n There is a difference between 59 29 8 4 0 100 4.42 0.830 qualification and competence. There is need to establish a 50 38 4 8 0 100 4.31 0.884 community of transcribers. There is need for further training 77 23 0 0 0 100 4.77 0.430 for professional development. Braille specialists need retraining 65 23 8 4 0 100 4.50 0.812 to enhance competence. There is need to recruit more 73 23 4 0 0 100 4.69 0.549 experienced Braille teachers and trainers than expert transcribers. Reading relevant literature 73 19 4 4 0 100 4.62 0.752 improves Braille competence. Competence entails the ability to 50 38 8 4 0 100 4.35 0.797 demonstrate knowledge and ability. Special schools get competent 12 12 12 26 38 100 2.31 1.408 de-brailling personnel for de- brailling work by students with visual impairment. Standard Deviation = 0.8078 Source: Author, 2017

The scale adopted on the general rating was as follows: (1-1.4) – Strongly Disagree;

(1.5-2.4) – Disagree; (2.5-3.4) – Neither Agree nor Disagree; (3.5-4.4) – Agree; (4.5-

5) – Strongly Agree.

101

From the findings, the respondents generally strongly agreed with half of the statements regarding the competence of the de-brailling personnel: from the third statement to the sixth statement with the mean between 4.5 and 5. Respondents generally agreed with all the remaining four statements, but the last that they generally disagreed with, indicating a mean of 2.31. The general rating of the issues based on these statements does not differ significantly among the respondents as reflected in the standard deviation of less than one (Std. Dev. <1.0).

The study sought to establish the responses on statements regarding the competence of de-brailling personnel from the respondents who took part in this study. From the findings in Table 4.13, more than half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that there is a difference between qualification and competence, almost one third agreed with the same statement, whereas the rest were either neutral or disagreed with the same statement in the ratio 2:1. The findings also indicated that, half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that there is need to establish a community of transcribers to share knowledge, best practice and resources, almost two fifth agreed with the same statement, and a few were either neutral or disagreed with the same statement in the ratio 1:2. From the findings, more than three quarters of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that there is need for further training for professional development by Braille personnel while the remaining nearly one quarter agreed with the same statement.

The findings also indicated that, almost two thirds of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that Braille specialists (teachers, transcribers and support staff) need

102 retraining to enhance competence, nearly one quarter agreed with the same statement, whereas the remaining few were either neutral or disagreed with the same statement in the ratio 2:1. From the findings, nearly three quarters of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that there is need to recruit more experienced Braille teachers and trainers than expert transcribers owing to advancement in technology, almost one quarter agreed with the same statement while very few were neutral. The findings also indicated that, almost three quarters of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that competence in Braille is likely to improve by reading relevant literature: rulebooks, primers, training documents, changes in the primary and secondary schools subject syllabus among others, less than a quarter agreed with the same statement, while a few were either neutral or disagreed with the same statement.

From the findings, half of the respondents strongly agreed with the fact that competence entails the ability to demonstrate, through formal state, or a local academic assessment, knowledge and ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing and Mathematics (and readiness in the same), nearly one fifth agreed with the same statement, whereas the rest were either neutral or disagreed with the same statement in the ratio 2:1.

The findings also indicated that, on the statement that “Special schools get competent de-brailling personnel for de-brailling work by students with visual impairment”, a rating of slightly more than a third was shared equally among those who strongly agreed, those that agreed and those who were neutral, slightly more than one quarter

103 disagreed with the same statement, whereas the highest rating in this statement was for those that strongly disagreed.

From the interviews conducted to determine whether KNEC and schools organize retraining, workshops, or seminars for its de-braillists, transcribers and related staff, the response indicated that KNEC did not organize any retraining, workshop or seminars for the de-braillists neither did the schools for their teachers, transcribers and related staff. These findings concur with Amato (2002) who postulated that those graduating from the universities after teacher preparation needed to use their Braille skills, even though, she observed, experience was not enough. Her study further noted that it was imperative to have opportunity for professional development and “the provision of Braille refresher courses are important factors in retention of skills”. The organization of such retraining, workshops and seminars was important for the improvement in competence. The interviews also established that the level of Braille proficiency by teachers was generally low. This seems to negate respondents’ own perceptions on their own level of proficiency as already observed in the questionnaires findings and in the study by Herzberg (2010).

Interviews findings also revealed that the respondents did not attach a lot of importance to the need to establish a community of transcribers, need to recruit more experienced Braille teachers and the need to read more Braille literature to improve competence. This is contrary to the questionnaire respondents and several studies:

Cryer, Howse and Morley-Wilkins (2011, 2011a, 2011b), Tobin and Hill (2015) and

Gentle, Steer and Howse (2013). This discrepancy between questionnaires respondents

104 and interviews respondents on this is most likely as a result of the former getting subtle cues from the questionnaires items. Interview respondents also revealed that there was need for further training for professional development as well as the need to train Braille specialists (de-braillists) to enhance competence. These respondents believed that qualifications were different from competence and hence the need to test the latter. This position is supported by several studies that stressed the need for further professional development, training and/or retraining, refresher courses and familiarization courses (Amato, 2002; Cryer, Home & Morley-Wilkins, 2011; Milimu,

2018; Tobin & Hill, 2011). It is clear that both the interview and the questionnaire respondents were for these urgent needs. One interviewee put it thus:

After training, all teachers of the learners with visual impairment should be given certificates. These teachers should do regular exams during refresher courses and be given certificates. These tests need to test their practical knowledge of Braille because we have had cases of some people having forgotten Braille or claiming to require time to refresh their memory (Former De-braillist III, Interview 4th February, 2017).

This view is in unison with Amato (2002), the National Education Association (2003) and NFB (2009). One of the studies put it thus:

Although all the respondents required their (University) students to demonstrate proficiency in Braille transcription by using a Braille writer and converting Braille into print (de-brailling), less than half rated their students as definitely capable of at least handling almost any literary Braille code independently on completion of the course (Amato, 2002:150).

There was much emphasis on some of the ways that would help improve the competence of the de-brailling personnel in particular, but also the teachers of learners with visual impairment in general. Study findings phenomenally demonstrated the

105 perception that the de-brailling personnel were incompetent, hence the need for professional improvement.

106

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the summary, conclusions, recommendations of the study based on the objectives of the study. Suggestions for further studies are also included. The study sought to investigate teachers’ perceptions toward de-brailling of work by students with visual impairment in special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya. The research was guided by the following objectives: one, to establish teachers’ perceptions toward relationship between original Braille work and de-brailled work; two, to explore teachers’ perceptions toward the qualifications of de- brailling personnel; three, to investigate teachers’ perceptions on challenges involved in de-brailling; and ultimately, to determine teachers’ perceptions toward strategies that can enhance competence of de-brailling personnel.

5.2 Summary of the Findings

On the establishing of the teachers’ perceptions toward relationship between original

Braille work and de-brailled work, most of them believed that the two papers were utterly different in most cases. They attributed the differences to errors associated with the de-brailling process. Some of the errors in the de-brailled script they believed were contributed to by the de-braillists. These included: error introduction, error correction, omission of punctuation, handwriting illegibility formatting errors and so on. The respondents were of the view that print and Braille were two different media of writing and some erroneous Braille signs might lack their print equivalent. The study

107 participants attributed some errors in the de-brailled script to the student. In support of this, they highlighted that most errors in the de-brailled script would be related to dot- character errors or level; misplaced key strokes. They further stated that contextual errors (anticipations, perseverations, metathesis/ exchanges, miss-orderings and some additions) in the original script would contribute to majority of nonsensical words in the de-brailled script.

On the exploring of the teachers’ perceptions toward the qualifications of de-brailling personnel, most of them believed that the de-brailling personnel should have the qualifications, training and other vital qualities that they need to effectively play their roles. The respondents felt that those de-brailling students’ work should be trained and certified as member of the school or teacher of the special school and have knowledge of Braille and skilled in presenting various types of test materials, e.g. familiarity with mathematical symbols required for the correct delivery of higher level mathematics formulas and equations. Additional qualifications and requirements as per the respondents were: accuracy; subject knowledge/training and terminology, vocabulary, words, signs and symbols specific to the test content; and Level 2 English and

Mathematics qualification (GCSE A – C or equivalent; KCSE C [Plain] and above.

On the investigating of the teachers’ perceptions on challenges involved in de- brailling, major challenges which were highlighted include: the competence of the personnel de-brailling students’ work coupled with qualifications that did not match their competence; inadequate or lack of Braille personnel; complexity of the Braille code; lack of clear Braille standards in the country; and lack of appropriate (Braille)

108 resources in schools and other institutions. Another important challenge was the student factor: use of unconventional Braille code, muscular and skeleton malformation and emotional disturbance. Respondents also blamed slower reading pace of continuous passages of prose written in Braille and lower levels of redundancy in Braille connected with the cognitive perceptual factors as well as the handwriting of the scribe.

On the determining of the teachers’ perceptions toward strategies that can enhance competence of de-brailling personnel, the study participants were able to identify two areas: one, their perceptions on competence of the de-brailling personnel; and two, strategies that can enhance their competence. Most of them felt that there was a difference between qualification and competence and that special schools for learners with visual impairment did not get competent de-brailling personnel; their level of proficiency in Braille was low. Findings further revealed that competence entails the ability to demonstrate knowledge and ability. The respondents highlighted several areas that more focus ought to be with regard to the competence of the personnel.

Firsty, Braille and de-brailling personnel should be subjected to further frequent trainings to enhance their professional development. Secondly, Braille specialists need retraining and Braille refresher courses to enhance competence. Thirdly, teachers of the VI should be subjected to Braille retraining workshops and seminars to improve their competence. Finally, there was need to establish a community of transcribers to share knowledge, best practice and resources.

109

5.3 Conclusions

Based on the findings obtained, this study has resulted in four main conclusions as follows. First, based on the teachers’ perceptions toward relationship between original

Braille work and de-brailled work, it is logical to conclude that in most cases original

Braille work and the de-brailled work are different as a result of errors related to the de-brailling process. Secondly, based on the teachers’ perceptions toward the qualifications of de-brailling personnel, it is logical to conclude that the de-brailling personnel should have the professional qualifications, training and other vital qualities that they need to effectively play their roles. Thirdly, based on the teachers’ perceptions on challenges involved in de-brailling, it is logical to conclude that the main issue affecting the de-brailling exercise is the competence (incompetence) of the de-brailling personnel connected with the complexity of the Braille code. Fourthly, based on the teachers’ perceptions toward strategies that can enhance competence of de-brailling personnel, it is reasonable to conclude that the personnel should be subjected to further frequent trainings to enhance their professional development. The de-braillists lacked competence in their work due to lack of frequent workshops and/or trainings to enhance their knowledge and skills.

5.4 Recommendations

From the findings, the following recommendations were made:

i. Universities, colleges and other institutions that train personnel in SNE (visual

impairment) and especially in Braille should ensure adequate resources: both

human and material.

110

ii. The Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development should ensure that schools for

learners with visual impairment have adequate and the right Braille materials

for effective teaching-learning process. iii. The Teachers Service Commission to ensure that qualified and competent

teachers of the VI are posted to secondary schools for learners with visual

impairment. iv. The de-braillists/teachers in special secondary schools for students with visual

impairment should be subjected to frequent training and refresher courses to

enhance their competence in Braille.

v. The teachers in institutions for learners with visual impairment should ensure

high standards of Braille among learners right from pre-braille skills. vi. Teachers should mark students’ Braille work and assignments in their original

Braille form.

5.5 Suggestions for Further Studies

This study was only focused on secondary schools for learners with visual impairment.

Perhaps a similar study can also be extended to institutions of higher learning which admit students with visual impairment for comparison purposes. This study emphasized students who use Braille. A study may be done on challenges associated with students that are low vision and their work in print or a study on the appropriateness of the various accommodations given in national examinations in

Kenya.

111

REFERENCES

Alhaja, M.A.B., Kolajo, A.J., & Oyediran, Y.R.A. (2008). Enhancing equity in public examinations: The West African Examinations Council experience, A Paper presented at the 34th International Association for Educational Assessment (IAEA) Annual Conference in Cambridge, UK, 7th – 12th September. Alkin, A.C., & Christie, C.A. (2004). An Evaluation Theory Tree. Retrieved from www.5074_Alkin_Chapter2 Evaluation pdf Allman, C. (2013). Position Paper: Accommodations for Testing Students with Visual Impairments, American Printing House for the Blind. Available: http://www.aph.org/testsaccommodations.html Amato, S. (2002). Standards for competence in Braille literacy skills in teacher preparation programmes. Journal of Visual Impairment Vol. 96, 143 – 154. Andala, H. O., Digolo, O, & Kamande, M, (2014). Reliability of Mock Examinations for Prediction of Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) Results. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education. (IOSR- JRME) e- ISSN:20320-7388, p-ISSN:2320-737X Vol. 4(1) (Jan2014), pp28-36 www.iosrjounal.org Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scot, J.A. and Wilkinson, I.AG. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission of Reading. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education. Argyropoulos, V.S. & Martos, A.C. (2006). Braille Literacy Skills: An Analysis of the Concept of Spelling. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, Vol 100(11) Arter, C. (1997). The primary school child. In H. Mason and S. MacCall (Eds.) Visual Impairment: Access to education and young people (pp97 – 109). London: David Fulton. Ashcroft, S.C. (1960). Errors in reading of Braille at elementary grade levels, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Urbana: University of Illinois. Ashcroft, S.C., Henderson, F., Sanford, L., & Koenig, A.J. (1994) New programmed instruction in braille (2nd ed.). Nashville, TN: SCALARS. Atkins, S. (2012). Assessing the ability of blind and partially sighted people: Are psychometric tests fair? Birmingham: RNIB Centre for Accessible Information. Baird, J. (1998). Blind marking in GCSE and A-Level examinations AEB Research Report RC/10 Bak, S. (2011). Types of research: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, and teacher action. The Educator, Vol. XXIII(2), 26 – 31 January, 2011.

112

Bassett, P. (2010). Educational progress of young blind and partially sighted pupils: Report for RNIB. November 2010. Bell, E. (2010). U.S. National Certification in Literary Braille: History and Administration. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness Berrisford, H. (2013). Exam training for readers and scribes. Avalable: https://prezi.com/yuhje1rtuxln/copy-of-exam-training-for-exam-reader-scribe/ Bindman, M & Greenaway, R. (2011). Braille literacy in children with severe visual impariment. Conference Presentation; Unpublished. Bogart, D., & Koenig, A.J. (2005). Selected findings from the first international evaluation of the proposed Unified English Braille code, Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 99(4) 233- 238 Botswana Examinations Council (BEC). (2009). Access Arrangements and Special Considerations: A Guide for Centres. Gaborone, Botswana: Botswana Examinations Council Botswana Examinations Council (BEC), (2013) Examiners 2013. www.Qaulities for BEC 2013_pdf Brown, G. (2013). Welcoming UNICEF’s State of the World’s Children Report, Retrieved from children-report. Retrieved from www.gordonandsarahbrown.com/2013/95/welcoming-unicef’s-state-of-the- world’s-children-report. Chanfreau, J., & Cebulla, A. (2009). Educational attainment of blind and partially sighted pupils, November 16th Chepkwony, K.A.A. (2013). Constraints facing the implementation of inclusive education: A case of selected secondary schools in Kericho County. Unpublished M.Ed thesis: Kenyatta University Chilala, M.M. (2003). Assessment and Monitoring of Pupils Achievement in an Inclusive set up: An Analysis of Current Practices and Challenges. In Sub- Regional Conference On Assessment: Learner Assessment for Improved Educational Quality, an exchange of current ideas and Best Practices, Zambezi Sun Hotel, Zambia, 30 June – 2 July. Available: www.Assessment- Regional-Conference,Zambia.pdf-Adobe Reader Chomba, J.M. (2008). A Study of opinions of primary school teachers towards inclusive education in Central Kenya. Merylebone: Merylebone University. Chomba, J.M. (2017). Analysis of teachers’ perceptions on instruction of braille literacy in primary schools for learners with visual impairment in Kenya. Unpublished PhD Thesis: Kenyatta University.

113

Clapper, A.T., Lazarus, S.S., Morse, A.B., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56) Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes Clapper, A.T., Morse, A.B., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2005). Access assistants: A study of state guidelines for scribes, readers and sign language interpreters (Synthesis Report 58) Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Clapper, A.T., Morse, A.B., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. ((2006). How to develop state guidelines for access assistants: Scribes, readers and sign language interpreters. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Connelly,V.,Dockrell J., & Barnnet, J. (2005). The slow handwriting of undergraduate students’ constraints in overall performance in examination essays, Educational Psychology, 25(2005)99.107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014434104 2000294912 Cooper, W.E. (Ed). (1983). Cognitive aspects of skilled typewriting. New York: Springer. Cryer, H., & Gunn, D. (2008). Exploring tactile graphics: Which strategies work? RNIB. Cryer, H., Home, S., & Morley-Wilkins, S. (2011). Accessible format transcription in the UK: State of the Nation. RNIB Centre for Accessible Information, Birmingham: Research Report #9 Cryer, H., Home, S., & Morley-Wilkins, S. (2011a). Accessible format transcription in the UK: Focus Group findings, RNIB Centre for Accessible Information, Birmingham: Research Report #9A. Cryer, H., Home, S., & Morley-Wilkins, S. (2011b). Accessible format transcription in the UK: Questionnaire findings. RNIB Centre for Accessible Information, Birmingham: Research Report #9B. Cryer, H., Home, S., & Morley-Wilkins, S. (2013). Unified English Braille in the United Kingdom: Part 2 – Examinations by Literary Braille Users, Teachers and Transcribers. British Journal of Visual Impairment, Vol. 31(3): 238-247 Dery, S.K. (2015). Visually impaired WASSCE candidates protest – No Braille at exams. General News, Thursday 9th April. Einser, E. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

114

Emaikwu, S.O. (2014). The Influence of Poor Handwriting on Students’ Score Reliability in Mathematics, Mathematics Educational Trends and Research, Vol. 2014(2014), 1 – 15. doi: 10.5899/2014/metr-00035. Available: www.ispacs.com/metr Englebretson, R. (ed.). (2008). IPA Braille: An updated tactile representation of the International Phonetic Alphabet, 2 vols. Toronto: CNIB. http://www.iceb.org/icebipa.htm. Ferrel, K. (2007). Issues in the Field of Blindness and Low Vision. Retrieved February 23rd, 2015 from file:///D:/issues_bvi.shtml. Fromkin, V. A. (1973). Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Fromkin, V. A. (1980). Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen and hand. New York: Academic Press. Gentle, F. (Ed.). (2008a). Unified English Braille manual: Pacific region edition. North Rocks, NSW: RIDBC Renwick Centre, Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children. Gentle, F. (Ed.). (2008b). UEB for beginners: Module 1. North Rocks, NSW: RIDBC Renwick Centre, Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children. Gentle, F., Steer, M., & Howse J. (2012). New dots Downunder: The implementation of Unified English Braille (UEB) in Australian Schools. The British Journal of Visual Impairment, Vol., 30(3) 197 – 200.doi:10.1177/0264619612454614.Downloaded from jvi.sagepub.com at Kenyatta University Library March 21, 2016 Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606. Retrieved from: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR8-4/golafshani.pdf Goldberg, L.J., & Swan, L.S. (2011). A Biosemiotic Analysis of Braille, Biosemiotics 4:25-38. doi: 10.1007/s12304-010-9092-y Gonzalez Garcia, L. (2004). Assessment of text reading comprehension by Spanish- speaking blind persons. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 22 (1), 4 – 12. Greaney, J., Hill, E., & Tobin, M.J. (1998). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability: University of Birmingham. Braille version. London, England: Royal National Institute for the Blind. Griffin-Shirley, N., & Matlock, D. (2004). “Paraprofessionals speak out: A survey.” Re:view Fall 2004 127+Academic.OneFile. Retrieved on 21 March, 2016. Grudin, J.T. (1981). The organization of serial order in typing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego

115

Habulezi, J., Batsalelwang, K.P.J. and Malatsi, N.M. (2017). Factors influencing the poor academic performance of learners with visual impairment in science subjects. In Botswana Internationa Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. Vol. 16, No. 11 pp28 – 44 November 2017. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter Hart, J. (2010). The effect of handwriting on teachers’ grading of high school essays. Henry, J. (2012). Teacher ‘bias’ gives better marks to favourite pupils, research reveals. The Telegraph 6th January. Retrieved from www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9782323/-teacher- bias-gives-better-marks-to- favourite-pupils-research-reveals.html Heriot-Watt University. (2012). Scribing and reading in exams: A guide for students and staff. Available: http://afb.org/jvib/jivb981204.asp Heriot-Watt University. (2015). Scribing and reading in exams: A guide for students and staff. Available: www.Scribing_Reading_in_Exams_- guidelines.pdf Herzberg, T.S. (2010). Error analysis of brailled instructional materials produced by public school personnel in Texas, Journal of Visual Impairments and Blindness, 765 – 774. Herzberg, T.S., Stough, L.M., & Clark, C. M. (2004). Research Report: Teaching and assessing the appropriateness of uncontracted Braille, Journal of Visual Impairments and Blindness, Vol 98(12) December, 2004. Available: http://afb.org/jvib/jivb981204.asp Hill, E.W., Hill, J.F., & Tobin, M.J. (1999). Braille: oral and silent reading speeds. New Beacon 980, 4 – 6. Hong, S., & Erin, J.N. (2004). The impact of early exposure to uncontracted Braille reading on students with visual impairments, Journal of Visual Impairments and Blindness, Number 6, June. Available: http://afb.org/jvib/jivb980602.asp Howse, J. (Ed). (2006a). Unified English Braille Primer: Australian Edition. Ryde, NSW: Department of Education and Training NSW and Australian Braille Authority. Hui-Ying Hung, M.S. (2008). Teachers perspectives about Braille literacy in Taiwan. PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. The International Council for the Education of People with Visual Impairment. (ICEVI), (2014). ICEVI Report on Basic Courses on Adaptive Mathematics for Learners with Visual Impairments, Nairobi, Kenya, Centre for Mathematics, Science and Technology Education in Africa (CEMASTEA)

116

Jarjoura, W.E. (2012). The relationship between declarative and procedural knowledge at different levels of Braille reading proficiency in blind and sighted individuals, (Doctoral Thesis) Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Joint Council for Qualifications, (JCQ) (2015). Instructions for conducting examinations, 1 September 2015 to 31 August 2016, London: JCQ Jolley, W. (2006). Unified English Braille implementation: A blueprint for Pacific Island Nations, Presentation of the twelfth International Council on Education of People with Visual Impairment (ICEVI) World Conference, Kuala Lumpur, July 2006 Kaburia, R. (2006). Attitudes and policies in achieving equality in access to education for learners with visual impairments, Nairobi, KNEC Kaburia, R., & Kashu, J. (2006). Fairness and equity in assessment with respect to learners with special needs. Retrieved from www.curriculum Wcape.School za/resources files. Karugu, G.K. (1994). Special education trends and issues in relation to teacher education curriculum: A paper presented at The Third Teacher Education Seminar at Egerton University, Kenya. November, 1994. Kenya National Examinations Council. (KNEC) (2009). Kenya National Examinations Council (Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education) Rules 2009. Nairobi: Kenya National Examinations Council. KNEC. (2014). Training for Examiners. Retrieved from: www.aug-2014-advert- examiners-training-updated21.pdf KNEC. (2014a). KCSE regulations for Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) revised 2014. Nairobi: Kenya National Examinations Council. KNEC. (2018). The year 2017 KCSE examination report with question papers & marking schemes Vol 1- 4. Nairobi: Kenya National Examinations Council. Kimeto, A. (2010). Challenges to effective learning of English Braille for pupils with visual impairments in integrated primary schools in Bomet District in Kenya, Unpublished M.Ed thesis: Kenyatta University. Koenig, A.J., & Ashcroft, S.C. (1993). An analysis of errors in Braille writing samples, Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, Vol. 87, 21 -18 Koenig, A.J., & Holbrook M.C. (2000). Literacy Skills. In A J Koenig and M C Holbrook (Eds) Foundations of Education. Vol. II: Instructional strategies for teaching children and youth with visual impairments (pp265 – 329). New York: AFB.

117

Lamb, G. (1996). Beginning Braille: A whole language-based strategy, Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lisa, S. (2015). Braille preservation: recognizing and respecting archival materials produced by and for the blind, Archives and Manuscripts, 43:1 18 – 28. doi: 10.1080/01576895.2014.993408 Lorimer, J. (1962). The Lorimer Braille recognition test. Bristol, UK: College of Teachers of the Blind. Lorimer, J. (1977). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability: adapted for use with blind children. Manual of directions and norms. Windsor, UK: National Foundation of Educational Research. MacCall, S. (1999). Accessing the curriculum. In C, Arter, L.S. Mason, S. MacCall & S. Stone. (Eds) Children with visual impairments in mainstream setting (pp29 -40). London: David Fulton. Machio, J. (2012). Revise teacher training curriculum, ministry tells KIE. Education News, Vol. 088 pp15. Mackenstadt, D. (2002). The role of the paraeducator in the education of blind children. National Foundation of the Blind. Available: http://www.nfb.org/nfb/Default.asp MacKay, D. (1993). Slips of the tongue, pen and typewriter: A constructive analysis. In G. Blanken, J. Dittmann, H. Grimm, J.C. Marshall & C.W. Walesch (Eds), Linguistic Disorders and pathologies : An international handbook. (pp. 66 – 72). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Maguire, B. (2005). Speech as mover of the resolution to adopt Unified English Braille, Meeting presentation, Australian Braille Authority Annual General Meeting, 14 May 2005, Sydney NSW. Available from http://www.ebility.com. Massey, A. (1983). The Effects of Handwriting and other Incidental Variables on GCE ‘A’ Level Marks in English Literature. Educational Review 35(1): 45 – 50. Mattson, M.E., & Baars, M.J. (1992). Laboratory induction of non-speech action errors, In B.J. Baars (Ed.), Experimental slips and human errors: Exploring the architecture of volition. (151 - 193) New York: Plenum Press. Mazrui, M.L. (2014). Determinants of primary school wastage for learners with disabilities: Towards a theoretical prevention model. Unpublished PhD Thesis: Kenyatta University.

118

Mbithi, A.N. (2012). Social and academic experiences of pupils with low vision in integrated primary schools in Nairobi County, Kenya, Unpublished M.Ed Thesis: Kenyatta University McLaughlin, J., & Lewis, R.B. (1994). Assessing special students. (4th Ed) Meril, U.S.A., MacMillan College Publishing Company, Inc. Meadows, M., & Billington, L. (2005). NAA A Review of Literature on Marking Reliability, A Report Commissioned by the National Assessment Agency. London: QCA. Merriam, S.B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Milimu, L.N. (2018). Determinants of transition of students with visual impairment to post-secondary in Bomet and Narok, Kenya. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis: Kenyatta University. Millar, C., & Rash, A. (2001). Reading for everyone: Expanding literacy options. See/Hear, 6 22 – 26. Millar, S. (1975). The effects of tactual and phonological similarities on the recall of Braille letters by blind children, British Journal of Psychology, 66, 193 – 201. Millar, S. (1984). Strategy choices by young Braille readers. Perception, 12, 567 – 579. Millar, S. (1985). The perception of complex patterns by touch. Perception, 11, 293 – 303. Millar, S. (1997). Reading by touch. London, England: Routledge. Miller, J.C., Skillman, G.D., Benedetto, J.M., Holtz, A.M., Nassif, C.M., & Weber, A.D. (2007). A three dimensional haptic matrix test of nonverbal reasoning, Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, Vol. 101(9), 557 – 570. Mogk, L., & Goodrich, G. (2005). The history and future of low vision services in the United States. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, Vol. 98(10). Available: http://www.afb.org/jvib/jvib981004.asp Morris, K.J. (2014). Does paper presentation affect grading: Examining the possible educational repercussions of the quality of student penmanship. Unpublished Honors Thesis (B.A.), Salem State University. Mugambi, M.K. (2011). Challenges facing teachers in teaching students with visual impairments in an integrated school: A Study of Moi Girls’ School, Nairobi. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis: Kenyatta University. Mugenda, O.M., & Mugenda, A.G. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches Nairobi: ACTS Press.

119

Mugo, J.K., Oranga, J., & Singal, N. (2010). Testing youth transition in Kenya: Are young people with disabilities falling through the cracks? Research Consortium on Educational Outcomes & Poverty (RECOUP), RECOUP Working Paper No 34, September, 2010. University of Cambridge Mundi, N.S. (n.d.). Strategies that promote inclusive education and assessment practice for learners with disability: Teachers Perspective in a Kenyan Context. Muthee, D., & Wambiri, G. (2010). Research, monitoring and evaluation in ECDE programmes. Nairobi: Longhorn Publishers. Muthiora, J. (2016). Why our national exams have become a case of murder. Sunday Nation, March 13, pp12. Mwangi, L.W. (2013). Special Needs Education (SNE) in Kenyan Public Primary Schools: Exploring Government policy and Teachers Understanding. USA: Victoria University of Wellington. www.Fulltext-Thesis-pdf Mwangi, S.W. (2009). Factors Influencing Braille Learning in Thika Primary School for the Blind in Central Province, Kenya. Nairobi: Kenyatta University. National Education Association. (2003). ESEA: Title 1 Paraprofessionals Non- Regulatory Guidance-Requirements for Paraprofessionals November 15, 2002.Available:http://www.nea.org/eshphone/issues/paraguidance.sec2.ht ml National Federation of the Blind (NFB). (2009). Braille literacy crises in America: Facing the truth, reversing the trend, empowering the blind. Jernigan Institute: NFB. Ng’ang’a, P.M. (2014). Effects of the marking scheme on the consistency of scoring mathematics examinations, Nairobi: University of Nairobi. Njue, S.W., Njoroge, M.N. & Chege, F.N. (2014). Braille competency among blind learners: Materials and teacher factors in Thika and Meru, Kenya. Journal of Special Needs and Disabilities studies, Vol. 1(2), 5 – 13. Nooteboom, S.G. (1973). The tongue slips into patterns. In V.A. Fromkin (Ed.), Speech errors as linguistic evidence, (pp. 144 – 156) The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton. Nzoka, S.M. (2011). Establishing Braille proficiency levels among primary school teachers of learners who are blind in Kenya. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis: Kenyatta University. The Oasis Academy Lord’s Hill. (2015). Casual reader and/or scribe person specifications. Souththampton: The Oasis Academy Lord’s Hill. (www.oasisacademylordshill.org/sites/default/files/)

120

Odongo, M.F. (2014). Mock examination results as predictor of students performance in the Kenya Cetificate of Secondary Education in Lugari District – Kakamega County, Kenya. Unpublished M.Ed Thesis: Kenyatta University. Office of Qualifications and Examinations (Ofqual) Interim Report (2013). Review of quality marking of exams in ‘A’ Levels GCSE and other academic qualifications. Cambridge: Cambridge University. Available at http://www.ofqual.gov.uk Ofqual. (2014). Review of quality marking of exams in ‘A’ Levels, GCSEs and other academic qualifications: Findings from survey of examiners, May 2013 Cambridge: Cambridge University. Available at http://www.ofqual.gov.uk Ofqual (2015). Statisical release: Access arrangements for GCSE and A level 2014/2015 Academic Year. Available: www.gov.uk.ofqual Okungu, R.V. (2004). The influence of socio-cultural and economic factors on the girl child education in Nyang’oma division, Bondo district, Western Province, Kenya. M.A. Thesis University of Nairobi. Oliphant, J. (2008). Touching the light: The invention of literacy for the blind Pedagogica Historica, 441-2, 67-82. doi: 10.80/00309230701865421. Orangah, J (2012). Factors enabling transition to university for students with blindness in Kenya: A case study of Kenyatta University. Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis: Kenyatta University. Orodho, J.A. (2009). Elements of education and social science research methods. Maseno, Kenya, Kanezia Publishers Otieno, J. (Ed). (2010). Promotion: A guide to TSC interviews for Job Groups M, N, P, Q & R. Nairobi: Rinny Educational and Technical Publishing Services. Otieno, J. (Ed). (2010a). Responsibilities & duties in schools. Nairobi: Rinny Educational and Technical Publishing Services. Rao, M.S. (2012). Knowledge grows when shared: Qualifications versus competencies. Available: http://professormsrao.blogspot.com Regents of the University of California (2015). Exam Assistant (Scribe/Reader). Available: www.drc.ucsc.edu/student-jobs/exam-assistant.html 128.144.113- 74. Republic of Kenya. (1999). The Commission of Inquiry into the Education System of Kenya (the Koech Report, 1999). Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (2003). Kenya – Persons with Disability Act 14. Nairobi: Government Printer.

121

Republic of Kenya. (2009). The Kenya National Special Needs Education Policy Framework. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (2010). The Constitution of Kenya. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya (2012a). Kenya National Examinations Council Act. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (2012b). Basic Education Act. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (2012c). Education Sector Report 2013/2014 – 2015/16 Medium Term Expenditure Framework Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (2015). Basic Education Act. Nairobi: Government Printer. Risjord, C. (2009). Instruction manual for Braille transcribing. (5th Ed.). Library of Congress: National Library Service for the blind and Physically Handicapped. Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities Inc. (2005) Guidelines on conveying visual information Tasmania. Available from http://www.ebility.com/roundtable/guidelines-conveying-visual- information.php Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB). (1992). Braille Primer (Revised Edition). Peterborough: RNIB. Rukwaro, R.N. (2011). Literacy Medium for Learners with Visual Impairments: Primary Literacy Medium Used by Secondary School Learners with Low Vision in Kenya. Oslo: University of Oslo. Runo, M.N. (2014). Identification of reading disabilities and teacher oriented challenges in teaching reading to Standard Five learners in Nyeri and Nairobi Districts, Kenya. Unpublished PhD Thesis: Kenyatta University. Ryles, R. (1996). The impact of Braille reading skills on employment, income, education and reading habits. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 90(3) 219 – 226. Scriven, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R.E. Stake (Ed.), Curriculum Evaluation. American Educational Journal of Research, Monograph Series on Evaluation No. 1. Chicago: Rand McNally. Scriven, M.S. (1974). Evaluation perspectives and procedures. In J.W. Popham (Ed.), Evaluation in Education: current application (pp3-93) Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon. Scriven, M.S. (1986). New frontiers of evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 7, 7 – 41. Shaffer, L.H. (1975). Control processes in typing. Quarterly Journal of experimental psychology. 27, 419 – 432.

122

Stanfa, K., & Johnson, N. (2015). Improving Braille reading fluency: The Bridge to comprehension, Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 5(2). Steer, M. & Gentle, F. (2007). Ensuring integrity in educational assessment, International Journal for Educational Integrity (IJEI) Vol. 3(1), 26 – 34. Available: http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/journals/index.php/IJEI/ Stemberger, J.P. (1983). Speech errors and theoretical phonology: A review. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Stewart, J. (2014). Visual Impairment and Educational Attainment: Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Briefing Paper. Paper 77/1420 May 2014. NIAR 335-14 Suto, I., & Nadas, R. (2008). What Determines GCSE Accuracy? An Exploration of Expertise among Maths and Physics Teachers. Research Papers in Education. 23(4): 477 – 497. Teachers Service Commission (TSC), www.tsc.go.ke. Thurlow, M.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Silverstein, B. (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of literature. (Synthesis Report 4) Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Tobin, M.J. (1994). Assessing visually handicapped people: An introduction to test procedures. David Fulton Publishers. Tobin, M.J., & Hill, E.W. (2015). Is literacy for blind under threat? Does Braille have a future? The British Journal of Visual Impairment. Vol. 33(3), 239 – 250. doi: 10.1177/0264619615591866. Downloaded from: jvi.sagepub.com at Kenyatta University Library on March 22, 2016. Tooze, F.H.G. (1962). The Tooze Braille Speed Test. Bristol, UK: College Teachers of the Blind. Trochim, W.M.K. (1998). An Evaluation of Michael Scriven “Minimalist Theory: The Least Theory that Practice Requires”. American Journal of Evaluation. 19(2):243 – 249. ISBN: 1098 – 2140. Troughton, M. (1992). “One is fun”: Guidelines for better Braille literacy. Brantford. Ontario: Dialatype. UNESCO. (2004). Conceptual Paper: The Right to Education for Persons with Disabilities: Towards Inclusion. Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO Flagship. United Nations (UN) (1949). United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. Geneva: UN General Assembly.

123

UN. (2006). United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and OptionalProtocol.Available:www.un.org/disabilities/documents/conventio n/convoptprot-e.pdf Wells-Jensen, S. Schwartz, A., & Gosche, B. (2007). A cognitive approach to Braille errors. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 101(7) Were, F. (2012). KNEC training boosts tutors teaching skills. Education News. Vol. 088, pp7 Wetzel, R., & Knowlton, M. (2006). A comparison of print and Braille reading rates on three reading tasks. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 94(3) Wittenstein, S.H. & Pardee, M.L. (1996). Teachers’ voices comments on Braille and literacy from the field. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness. 99:201- 210. World Bank Group. (2001). Material for equity. Prepared by Vincent Greaney, George Bethel Thomas Kellaghan, Hugh McManna. Available: http://www1.org/education/exams/equity World Blind Union (WBU) (2015). Right to Education. In NCRPD WBU ICEVI Submission for April1 5, 2015 Discussion. Retrieved from file:///C/Users/AdminDownloads/replace-later-aspx-html Wormsley, D.P. & D’Andrea (Eds) (1997). Instructional strategies for Braille literacy. New York: AFB press.

124

APPENDICES

APPENDIX IA: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS

Introduction

This questionnaire is intended to get data that may possibly help in the enhancement of assessment of Braille work by learners with visual impairment in Kenyan special secondary schools for learners with visual impairment. This is one of the instruments developed by the researcher, a Master of Education (Special Needs Education) student at Kenyatta University to help him gather data which will eventually guide in the writing of his research thesis. You are kindly requested to read it before filling it.

Please do not add any information (e.g. name, TSC Number, phone number, etc) that might compromise your identity since the information gathered is expected to be confidential and solely for use in this study. The researcher therefore guarantees you confidentiality during and even after this research. Kindly note that there is neither a correct nor a wrong answer; any answer or response indicated/chosen is valid. Please ensure you give your honest view.

PART I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Please read the following part carefully and fill in the blank spaces or put a tick [√] in the brackets where applicable.

1. Code No.: ______

2. Name of school ______

3. Gender

Male [ ]

Female [ ]

125

4. Subject combination ______

5. How old are you?

18 – 25 years [ ]

26 – 30 years [ ]

31 – 35 years [ ]

36 – 40 years [ ]

41 – 45 years [ ]

46 – 50 years [ ]

51 years and above [ ]

6. For how long have you taught?

<3 years [ ]

3 – 10 years [ ]

11 – 20 years [ ]

21 – 30 years [ ]

31 years and above [ ]

7. Indicate the highest level of your academic and/or professional qualification:

S1 [ ] Diploma in Education [ ] Bachelor of Education [ ] Bachelor of Arts [ ] Master of Education [ ] Bachelor of Arts with PGDE [ ] Bachelor of Science with PGDE [ ] Bachelor of Science with AGED [ ] Any other (Specify) ______

126

8. Have you had any training in Special Needs Education (SNE)?

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

9. If ‘yes’ in 8 above, specify highest level.

Certificate [ ]

Diploma [ ]

Undergraduate [ ]

Postgraduate [ ]

Any other (Specify) ______

10. Was the area of specialization in 9 above dealing with visual impairment?

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

11. Have you trained in Braille?

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

12. Are you literate in Braille in your teaching subject(s)? Yes [ ] No [ ] 13. How would you rate your level of Braille literacy in your teaching subject(s)? Proficient [ ] Good [ ] Average [ ] Poor [ ] Very Poor [ ]

127

14. Have you been trained by KNEC and/or KEMI as a KCSE examiner?

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

15. Have you had any in-service training in Braille or VI assessment organized by

MOEST or any organization?

Yes [ ]

No [ ]

PART II: OPINION AGREEMENT SCALE Below are statements seeking your opinion on de-brailling of Braille work and scripts of learners with visual impairment. Read each item and indicate your level of agreement or disagreement on each statement by using the following response guide: 5 = Strongly Agree(SA), 4 = Agree(A), 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree(N), 2 = Disagree(D), 1 = Strongly Disagree(SD). Tick [√] your choice. A. COMPARING THE ORIGINAL AND DE-BRAILLED TEXTS

The following statements relate to the comparison of the original and the de-brailled texts: STATEMENTS ON TEXTS COMPARISON SA A N D SD 1. The de-brailled script would have the exact 5 4 3 2 1 semblance to the original/student’s script. 2. Some errors in the de-brailled script would be 5 4 3 2 1 associated with the de-braillist, not the student/original script. 3. Most errors in the de-brailled script would be related 5 4 3 2 1 to dot-character errors or level; misplaced key strokes. 4. Contextual errors (anticipations, perseverations, 5 4 3 2 1 metathesis/ exchanges, misorderings and some additions) in the original script would contribute to majority of nonsensical words in the de-brailled script. 5. Some transcriptions would be complex to 5 4 3 2 1 classify/associate the type with the student or the de- braillist.

128

B. QUALIFICATIONS FOR DE-BRAILLING PERSONNEL

Teachers/de-braillists/response transcribers (Readers, Scribes, Transcribers) should have:

QUALIFICATIONS/REQUIREMENTS SA A N D SD 1. Qualifications, training and other vital qualities that they need 5 4 3 2 1 to effectively play their roles. 2. Effective communication skills and fluency in English diction 5 4 3 2 1 and accurate pronunciation: good voice quality, appropriate regional dialect, speed and tone and integrity with voice inflection. 3. Previous experience in the exam process and as a 5 4 3 2 1 reader/scribe. 4. The ability to adhere to confidentiality, rules, ethico-moral 5 4 3 2 1 standards and integrity policies. 5. Accuracy. 5 4 3 2 1 6. Reasonable handwriting or (touch) typing speed or adequate 5 4 3 2 1 word processing skills. 7. Handwriting legibility. 5 4 3 2 1 8. Subject knowledge/training and familiarity with terminology, 5 4 3 2 1 vocabulary, words, signs and symbols specific to the test content. 9. Previous Reader/Scribe training, 5 4 3 2 1 10. Level 2 English and maths qualification (GCSE A – C or 5 4 3 2 1 equivalent; KCSE C [Plain] and above), 11. Approachable, reliable, and trustworthy qualities: ensuring 5 4 3 2 1 equality and/or neutrality to students. 12. Ability to be meticulous, clear, write verbatim and have time- 5 4 3 2 1 and self-management skills. 13. Ability to appreciate different learning abilities: patience in 5 4 3 2 1 reading parts of passages, phrases or items. 14. Training and certification as staff member of the school or 5 4 3 2 1 teacher. 15. Familiarity with the student: neither a parent, school volunteer, 5 4 3 2 1 peer tutor or other student (in state tests) nor one that would be paid by the candidate or his/her family. 16. Understanding of the difference between the helping role of 5 4 3 2 1 the teacher or teacher assistant and the technical role of the access assistant. 17. Knowledge of Braille and skilled in presenting various types 5 4 3 2 1 of test materials, e.g. familiarity with mathematical symbols required for the correct delivery of higher level mathematics formulas and equations. 18. Good use of pronunciation dictionaries. 5 4 3 2 1

129

C. CHALLENGES IN DE-BRAILLING

The following challenges are likely to affect de-brailling of students’ work/scripts:

CHALLENGES IN DE-BRAILLING SA A N D SD 1. The use of unorthodox or non-standardized Braille code 5 4 3 2 1 by students. 2. Slower speed of reading Braille by those who took up 5 4 3 2 1 Braille later in life. 3. Cognitive ability: sequential recovery of information 5 4 3 2 1 (letter by letter, word by word) among inexperienced Braille readers. 4. Slower reading pace, especially of continuous passages 5 4 3 2 1 of prose by Braille readers. 5. Lower levels of redundancy in Braille connected with 5 4 3 2 1 the cognitive perceptual factors. 6. Complexity of the Braille code: general code, rules, own 5 4 3 2 1 code and subject specific codes. 7. Format and limited scanning strategies in Braille texts: 5 4 3 2 1 complexity in segmenting/segmented key Braille texts. 8. Inadequate/lack of qualified Braille personnel. 5 4 3 2 1 9. Meeting tight deadlines. 5 4 3 2 1 10. Determining correct interpretation. 5 4 3 2 1 11. Lack of clarity on the right way to transcribe the 5 4 3 2 1 text/things.

130

D. STRATEGIES FOR ENHANCING COMPETENCE OF DE- BRAILLING PERSONNEL The following statements relate to the strategies for enhancing competence of de- brailling personnel

STRATEGIES FOR ENHANCING COMPETENCE SA A N D SD 1. There is a difference between qualification and 5 4 3 2 1 competence. 2. There is need to establish a community of transcribers to 5 4 3 2 1 share knowledge, best practice and resources. 3. There is need for further training for professional 5 4 3 2 1 development by Braille personnel. 4. Braille specialists (teachers, transcribers and support 5 4 3 2 1 staff) need retraining to enhance competence. 5. There is need to recruit more experienced Braille teachers 5 4 3 2 1 and trainers than expert transcribers owing to advancement in technology. 6. Competence in Braille is likely to improve by reading 5 4 3 2 1 relevant literature: rulebooks, primers, training documents, changes in the primary and secondary schools subject syllabus, etc. 7. Competence entails the ability to demonstrate, through 5 4 3 2 1 formal state, or a local academic assessment, knowledge and ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing and Mathematics (and readiness in the same). 8. Special schools get competent de-brailling personnel for 5 4 3 2 1 de-brailling work by students with visual impairment.

Kindly give your own suggestion, opinion or view on the issues that have been addressed by this questionnaire:

______

THANK YOU

131

APPENDIX IB: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR FORMER DE-BRAILLISTS

1. Please, tell me about yourself and your former activity on Braille exam scripts.

2. In your view, what do you understand by the term ‘de-brailling’?

3. What qualifications were considered for debrallists/transcribers?

4. Do you think that the de-brailled script have exact semblance to the original

exam script?

5. What do you think are some of the issues that would affect (in a major or

minor way) the de-brailling of examinations?

6. Did KNEC organize retraining, workshops, or seminars for its de-braillists,

transcribers and related staff?

7. Did exam de-braillists and transcribers attend workshops or seminars

specifically on evaluating learners with visual impairment?

8. How did KNEC ensure quality of de-brailling?

9. What were some of the challenges you experienced in your work?

10. If you were to advise the universities and colleges and/or KISE who train

teachers and other professionals in SNE which areas would you concentrate

on?

11. Which areas would you like KNEC to improve on as far as de-brailling or

evaluation of learners with visual impairment (LWVI) is concerned?

12. Are there suggestions you would make to ensure LWVI who sit KCSE

examinations meet their educational goals?

132

APPENDIX I C: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR TEACHERS IN CHARGE OF BRAILLE 1. Please, tell me about yourself, your work, students and exams. 2. In your view, what do you understand by the term ‘de-brailling’? 3. What qualifications do you consider for de-braillists/transcribers? 4. Do you think that the de-brailled script will have exact semblance to the original exam script? 5. What do you think are some of the issues that would affect (in a major or minor way) the de-brailling of examinations? 6. What can you say about the level of Braille proficiency by teachers? Transcribers? 7. How do you ensure Braille quality and standards in the school? 8. Which are the areas that are emphasized most with regard to Braille in this school? 9. What is the general response/attitude by teachers towards Braille? 10. Does the school organize retraining, workshops, or seminars for its teachers, transcribers and related staff? 11. Do members of staff attend workshops or seminars specifically on evaluating learners with visual impairment? 12. If you were to advise the universities and colleges and/or KISE who train teachers and other professionals in SNE which areas would you concentrate on? 13. Which areas would you like KNEC to improve on as far as de-brailling or evaluation of learners with visual impairment (LWVI) is concerned? 14. Are there suggestions you would make to ensure LWVI who sit KCSE examinations meet their educational goals?

133

APPENDIX II: RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION AND PERMIT

134

APPENDIX III: AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM NACOSTI

135

APPENDIX IV: RESEARCH PERMIT FROM NACOSTI

136