Current Practices in Instruction in the Literary Braille Code University Personnel Preparation Programs L
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Current Practices in Instruction in the Literary Braille Code University Personnel Preparation Programs L. Penny Rosenblum, Sandra Lewis, and Frances Mary D’Andrea Abstract: University instructors were surveyed to determine the requirements for their literary braille courses. Twenty-one instructors provided information on the textbooks they used; how they determined errors; reading proficiency require- ments; and other pertinent information, such as methods of assessing mastery of the production of braille using a Perkins brailler, slate and stylus, and Perky Duck. In her examination of the standards and inition of what it means to be competent criteria for the braille literacy competence in braille, Amato suggested that objec- of 34 university training programs that tive outcomes for university students prepare teachers of students with visual should be developed to ensure that stu- impairments in the United States and dents who are blind are taught by qual- Canada, Amato (2002, p. 149) found ified professionals. As the first step in the process of widespread diversity and a lack of achieving this standardization, the Per- consistency in university-level braille sonnel Preparation Division of the Asso- courses with respect to the format of ciation for Education and Rehabilitation instruction, content and instructional of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) materials, expected student outcomes, commissioned a study in fall 2008 to and standards and criteria for compe- identify potential voluntary standards for tence in braille literacy. There appears the minimum level of braille skills that to be no consistent standard for train- are needed for beginning practitioners ing teachers of students who are visu- who teach braille to children or adults. ally impaired in braille. We volunteered to conduct this study and, given the limited information about Noting that competence in the literary braille competency standards, determined braille code is defined by each university to use a nominated sample of individuals preparation program, Amato (2002) rec- who had extensive experience in teaching ommended that national standards for braille to university students as our graduates’ knowledge of and criteria for informants. competence in braille be established. In Amato’s (2002) study used a survey addition to calling for an accepted def- that was designed to explore five research ©2010 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September 2010 523 questions about the format of courses for information about each instructor and the teaching braille, the topics and instruc- logistics of the literary braille course. tional materials that are used in the They included the number of years teach- courses, the expected outcomes for stu- ing literary braille, the instructor’s job dents, the criteria for competence in title, which textbooks the instructor used braille, and the instructor’s opinions to teach literary braille, the tools that were about some key issues related to braille required (with questions specifically literacy. We chose to use the Delphi about the Perkins Brailler, the slate and method to obtain a consensus on the min- stylus, and Perky Duck software), what imum level of skills in the literary braille constituted an error on an assignment, and code that are required for students who whether assignments were timed or un- complete university programs. In this timed. The survey was pilot-tested by uni- study, we did not inquire about the meth- versity instructors who did not meet the ods and strategies that are used at univer- criteria for participation to ensure that the sities to prepare teachers to teach braille survey was accessible and user-friendly reading and writing. and that the questions and choices were Because Amato’s (2002) research was clearly written. conducted in 1999, we believed it was CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPATION important to gather current information AND RECRUITMENT about the practices related to university To participate in the study, individuals instruction in literary braille and the ex- had to have taught a literary braille course pectations for braille competence by per- at a university in the United States or sonnel preparation programs today. Prior Canada a minimum of three times over a to soliciting the opinions of the partici- period of three or more years and to have pants who teach literary braille courses taught the course at least once in the past at universities in the United States and three years. They had to have responsi- Canada on appropriate standards, we col- bility for providing instruction to gradu- lected descriptive data on programs and ate or undergraduate students in how to instructional techniques. These descrip- read and write the literary braille code. tive data are reported here. An article with We recruited participants through a the full results of the Delphi study is posting on the electronic discussion group being prepared. for the Personnel Preparation Division of AER. In addition, we directly contacted Methods coordinators of university preparation INSTRUMENT programs who were listed on the AER To determine the current practices of uni- web site and asked them to extend the versity programs with regard to instruc- invitation to participate to anyone who tion in braille, a series of 16 questions met the criteria. A total of 42 university was included in a survey that was distrib- programs were identified on the AER web uted to university instructors who had site. All individuals whose names were agreed to participate in a larger study on provided to us, who met the stated crite- the topic. These 16 questions gathered ria, and who agreed to participate were 524 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September 2010 ©2010 AFB, All Rights Reserved included in the survey. In all, 21 individ- taught it for 11–15 years, and 4 (19%) had uals representing 25 universities provided taught the course for more than 15 years. information about their literary braille courses or the programs at which they STUDENTS’ MAJORS teach. The study was approved by the The 21 instructors reported having stu- Institutional Review Board at Florida dents who were planning to be teachers State University, and the participants in- of students with visual impairments dicated their consent to participate elec- in their literary braille courses. Six tronically or signed a paper consent form. (28.6%) had also taught students who were preparing to be vision rehabilita- DATA COLLECTION tion therapists or rehabilitation teach- Data were collected in May and June ers, and 6 (28.6%) had taught students 2009 through a survey developed using who intended to be orientation and an online data collection program. The mobility specialists. Others reported participants were given the opportunity to that parents, transcribers, paraeduca- complete the survey via alternative means tors, and special education majors who were planning to provide services to (such as a word processing file or hard students with other exceptional needs copy). Two participants completed the took their literary braille courses as survey using a word processing program, well. and their data were entered into the online survey. INSTRUCTIONAL FORMATS Results AND TEXTBOOKS The participants were asked to share the DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS format in which they provided instruc- OF THE PARTICIPANTS tion in braille. More than one response Sixteen of the 21 participants had taught was allowed. The face-to-face format the literary braille course at only one uni- was used by 11 (52.4%), online instruc- versity, 3 participants had taught the tion was used by 9 (42.9%), and a hy- course at three universities, and 2 partic- brid method that combined both online ipants had taught the course at five uni- and face-to-face meetings was used by 7 versities. Ten participants (47.6%) were (33.3%). Two participants reported us- in tenured or tenure-earning positions; 2 ing other formats, including offering the (9.5%) were in nontenured positions; 7 lessons through an extension course. (33.3%) were hired specifically to teach From a list of the three textbooks that the course; and 2 reported other titles, are most commonly required for teaching such as “director of a certification pro- university students the literary braille gram” and “professional salaried staff.” code, the participants were asked to indi- The participants ranged in their years cate which books they were currently us- of experience in teaching the literary ing or had used in the past. Of the 19 braille course. Seven (33.3%) had taught instructors who responded to the ques- the course for 3–5 years, 3 (14.3%) had tion, 9 indicated that they were using taught it for 6–10 years, 7 (33.3%) had New Programmed Instruction in Braille ©2010 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September 2010 525 (Ashcroft, Sanford, & Koenig, 2001), Perkins Brailler by the end of their which had been used by 6 instructors in course of study. Please include de- the past; 6 indicated that they were using tails, such as the frequency of assign- the Instruction Manual for Braille Tran- ments (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly), scribing (Risjord, Wilkinson, & Stark, number of assignments turned in to 2000), which had been used by 10 instruc- the instructor, approximate number tors in the past; and 5 reported using Braille of words of assignments, passing Codes and Calculations (Pesavento, 1993), score(s), and other details that will which had been used by 1 instructor in the give an accurate picture of how you past. Ten participants listed other texts, in- assess minimum competence. cluding English Braille, American Edition (Braille Authority of North America, 1994), The 21 participants each reported in a which was used by 3; NPIB Companion narrative format how they evaluated their Reader (Koenig, Sanford, Ashcroft, 2001), students’ ability to produce braille on a used by 2; and Dot Writing (Pesavento, Perkins Brailler. There was great deal of 1993), also used by 2.