Current Practices in Instruction in the Literary 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, , and Perky Duck.

In her examination of the standards and inition of what it means to be competent criteria for the 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 & 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 , 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. One additional per- variability within the data. Since the ques- son listed “Braille Authority of North tion was worded in an open-ended fash- America (BANA)” which most likely refers ion, the responses were not uniform, and to English Braille, American Edition, a pub- each contained slightly different details. lication of BANA. In general, the students had to complete and submit weekly assignments, and for TOOLS TO PRODUCE BRAILLE those whose classes met face to face, in- All 21 participants required students to class assignments and tests were also use the Perkins Brailler to produce braille, graded. There was no program that did 20 (95.2%) required the use of a slate and not require the use of the Perkins Brailler stylus, and 16 (76.2%) required the use of to complete some assignments. In some computer programs that simulate braille programs, the students completed multi- (such as Perky Duck). In addition, 5 par- ple assignments of 10–15 sentences, and ticipants reported that students used other in others, they completed assignments tools to produce braille, including the that were four braille pages in length on BrailleNote; ; and 11-inch x 11.5-inch paper. braille-translation software, such as the The instructors varied in their policies Duxbury or Braille2000. One participant regarding students resubmitting home- noted that students also used a drill-and- work that did not meet the instructors’ practice computer program developed by criteria and whether students were al- the university. lowed to drop one or more assignments from the final grade. The range of errors Production of braille using a Perkins that the students were allowed to make Brailler varied as well—from 4–5 errors per as- The participants were asked, signment to 2 errors per 100 words to 10 errors per 100 words. Other programs Describe how your program ensures used complex point systems per assign- that students can produce braille on a ment, and students needed to earn a set

526 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September 2010 ©2010 AFB, All Rights Reserved number of points or a percentage of points shorter and less frequent than were to pass. Some programs required a mid- those using the Perkins Brailler. term or final examination or both, and others gave several examinations during Production of braille using electronic the course that were equally weighted. methods The participants were asked to describe Production of braille using a slate how students produce braille using elec- and stylus tronic methods. We were aware that some The participants were also asked to describe university programs use a free software their requirements for producing braille us- program, Perky Duck, which simulates ing a slate and stylus. As with the Perkins entry of the 6 keys of a braille writer on a Brailler, there was extreme variation in computer keyboard. Perky Duck is not a what was required. Two instructors in- braille-translation software program but, cluded only one assignment using the slate rather, a braille-simulation program that and stylus, others required multiple assign- can create electronic braille files that can ments (typically two to four), and still oth- be printed or embossed. Students must ers assigned weekly work with this tool. know the braille code to create these files, Two instructors required students to submit since they use the computer keyboard to simulate a Perkins Brailler (that is, they a certificate from the Hadley School for the press down combinations of keys to Blind showing that they had completed the create braille symbols). Introduction to Braille course using a slate Again, there was a wide range of re- and stylus (rather than a Perkins Brailler). sponses from the 21 instructors. Four in- Several instructors reported that the slate structors reported that they did not use and stylus was taught in the advanced Perky Duck or any other electronic meth- braille course (as opposed to the introduc- ods. Other instructors shared information tory course) or in another course, such as about how they used the Mountbatten the Nemeth course or methods course, Brailler, braille-translation software, or a or that the emphasis was on how to drill-and-practice program developed by teach a braille reader to use a slate and their universities. When Perky Duck was stylus, rather than to demonstrate per- used in a course, the number of assign- sonal mastery. Two instructors assigned ments requiring students to use the soft- students to use the slate and stylus for ware ranged from 2 to 16. Some instruc- functional projects, such as grocery tors did not grade assignments done with lists, greeting cards, and address cards. Perky Duck, but used it as a practice tool. At the other end of the continuum was Several instructors reported that Perky one instructor who reported giving Duck was not compatible with newer timed practices in writing with a slate computer keyboards and with certain and stylus for which students had to Macintosh computers, which was a bar- demonstrate the ability to write 100 rier to requiring its use in course work. words in 15 minutes. In general, though, One instructor expressed concern that the most instructors reported that assign- use of Perky Duck can make it easier for ments with the slate and stylus were a student to cheat on assignments.

©2010 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September 2010 527 Table 1 wide array of ways in which the same Literary braille errors reported by the error was counted. For example, one .(21 ؍ instructors (N participant stated, “Recurring errors are Type of error N Percentage deducted only the first time. However, Using the wrong if a student has an error, gets it correct contraction 21 100 Misbrailling a symbol later in the document, and then misses it (such as putting an “m” again, each time points are deducted for an “n”) 21 100 because it is not representative of a Putting a space where it does not belong 21 100 misunderstanding of code/contraction/ Omitting a space between rules.” Some instructors reported that words 21 100 Misforming a character on the proficiency or final examination, (such as leaving out dot each error counts separately, which dif- 3 on an open quote) 21 100 Omitting a letter 21 100 fers from their grading of homework. Omitting punctuation 21 100 Three instructors took off points for cat- Omitting a composition egories of errors. sign 21 100 Omitting a word 21 100 Adding a symbol or letter 21 100 Erasures Failing to use a Fifteen of the 21 instructors indicated contraction 20 95.2 that if an erasure could be felt, it was Misspelling a word 20 95.2 Formatting incorrectly considered an error. A few instructors (such as not indenting allowed students to “block out” errors or incorrect headings) 18 85.7 Erasing inaccurately 18 85.7 using a full cell. One instructor allowed students to put full cells over the error and then braille the material at the bot- tom of the page. A few instructors in- ERRORS dicated that at the beginning of the The participants were given an extensive course, erasures are allowed, but as the list of possible errors and could check all students progress in their skills, era- items that they counted as errors in their literary braille courses (see Table 1). sures are counted as errors if they can There was high agreement in what con- be felt. Several participants noted that stitutes a literary braille error. Other braille erasures must not lead to a errors included formatting errors and not braille reader’s confusion and that if following rules. they do, an error has occurred. The participants were asked, “Do you count each error separately, or do you TIMED WRITING ASSIGNMENTS take off points for categories of errors? The participants were asked if they timed For example, if a student misses the writing assignments. Eleven individuals ‘com’ contraction each time it should be provided information for this question. used, do you count that as one error, or Seven participants indicated that the final does each time missed count as one examination for the literary braille course error?” Nine participants stated that is timed. Several indicated that some every error counted. Others reported a quizzes and a midterm test are also timed.

528 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September 2010 ©2010 AFB, All Rights Reserved One instructor described an in-class timed erary braille to college students. Newer writing activity: university instructors, who could have different views on what standards are ap- I bring a stopwatch to class and propriate, were not invited to participate give students three, four, or five because the criterion for “expert” was de- minutes (depending on the time fined for the larger study partially by the we have to spend on this activity), number of years of experience teaching. and they are to braille something In addition, we made no attempt that they have brailled previously to verify the information that the par- (typically a previous homework or ticipants provided. The data that were class work assignment) as quickly collected were reported by individuals as possible, and then they count the who may have had a reason to alter number of correct words brailled, their reports to meet a preconceived no- then divide by the number of min- tion of what they believe is appropriate utes. We do this several times for university students who are learning throughout the term and their braille but do not actually require. words per minute are charted to There were no opportunities for the par- demonstrate their progress related ticipants or us to ask clarifying ques- to writing speed. tions, and the written explanations of practices may have been incomplete or PASSAGE OF A BRAILLE COMPETENCE misunderstood. TEST Misunderstandings were particularly Finally, the participants were asked if possible in the absence of concise defini- their program requires students to pass a tions. We solicited information about state or provincial or nationally devel- grading practices, the amount of braille oped braille competence test. Nine partic- produced, the number of class sessions, ipants indicated that their students have and so forth using questions that permit- to pass a state-level test, several partici- ted free responses. There is no way to pants stated that students have to pass a determine if the one page of braille re- university-designed test, and one instruc- quired by one instructor is equivalent to tor reported that a competence test is rec- the one page of braille required by an- ommended but not required. No partici- other, since specific descriptions of what pant reported that students must pass a either participant meant by the size of the national examination. page, spacing between lines, the number of braille cells filled, and the like were not Limitations provided. The findings reported here are limited in their usefulness because of the way in Discussion which the sample was selected. The small In preparation for a study that was de- sample was recruited and the 21 partici- signed to determine whether there is a pants were selected on the basis of rigor- consensus on the literary braille compe- ous criteria, which included a minimum tencies that are expected of university stu- number of years that they had taught lit- dents upon completion of their personnel

©2010 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September 2010 529 Table 2

Item Amato (data collected 1999) Current study (data collected 2009)

Respondents 34 of 39 institutions 21 of 42 institutions Instructors 47% Adjunct or contract 33% Adjunct or contract 53% Tenure or tenure earning 47% Tenure or tenure earning 9.5% Permanent nontenure earning 9.5% Other Years taught at the university levela 93% More than 11 years 33.3% 3–5 years 14.3% 6–10 years 33.3% 11–15 years 19.0% More than 15 years Textbook used 49% Dorf 31% Risjord et al. (2000)b 51% Ashcroft et al. 47% Ashcroft et al. (2001) 26% Pesavento (1993) Instructional format 47% Distance learning 48% Distance learning 53% Face to face 52% Face to face Demonstrate use of the Perkins Brailler 100% 100% Allowable errors in written 2 errors per 100 words to 10 errors braille 2–10 errors per page per 100 words Demonstrate use of the slate and stylus 82% 100% (1 per course to 1 per week) Required an exit examination 51% require students to 43% reported that students have to pass a comprehensive exit pass a state-level test examination that includes braille a Amato asked how many years the respondents had taught at the university level; the current study asked how many years the respondents had taught literary braille to college students. b Risjord et al. are authors of the new edition of the manual written by Dorf in Amato’s study. preparation programs, we gathered data literary braille to university students, it on the general university practices that seems unlikely that the involvement of instructors use to teach students the liter- some participants in both studies would ary braille code. Although Amato (2002) alter the findings of the current practices presented similar descriptive data, we did at two points in time. Because Amato’s not know if instructors’ practices had research was conducted in 1999, we be- changed or remained relatively constant lieved it was important to gather updated 10 years after her study. It should be information about the current practices re- noted that it is possible that some of the lated to university instruction in literary individuals who participated in Amato’s braille and expectations for competence in study also provided data for this study. braille by personnel preparation programs This duplication of informants was ex- today. pected, given that Amato’s respondents Table 2 presents similarities between represented 87% of the institutions that the two data sets in several areas in which offered the course in 1999. Since the comparisons can be made. Even though purpose of both studies was to describe the findings reported here reflect the ac- current practices that are used to teach tivities at only a sample of institutions

530 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September 2010 ©2010 AFB, All Rights Reserved (50%), while Amato’s (2002) data set in- in the requirements of university in- cluded instructors from 87% of the insti- structors of literary braille, only in tutions that prepared teachers of students those states where demonstration of with visual impairments in 1999, it ap- braille competence is included on a pears as though the circumstances that state assessment can administrators, Amato described have not changed in parents, and adults with visual impair- many areas. There continues to be wide ments know the specific level of skill variability in the expectations related to and knowledge of the literary braille the demonstration of literary braille skills code that the new professional has by students who are preparing to work obtained. with adults and children who are blind. This variability appears to be most Conclusion evident in relation to the amount of The braille skills and knowledge of the braille that students are required to pro- braille code of new professionals should duce, the number of errors that instruc- be consistent, no matter where the teach- tors allow in defining competence, and ers received their university training or permitted methods for dealing with era- who provided braille instruction. In the sures. The braille work of some univer- absence of a requirement that profes- sity students, for example, is accepted sional educators of adults and children even if errors are blocked using a full who are blind demonstrate competence in cell. While some students are required literary braille on a state or national as- to create nearly error-free braille (2 er- sessment, it is incumbent on the profes- rors per page), others are permitted to sion to regulate itself. The adoption of make as many as 10 errors per 100 minimum standards for graduates’ com- words and still pass an assignment or petence in braille literacy skills is one test. Extreme variations in the amount approach that would provide guidance to of braille produced using a slate and university preparation programs as they stylus were reported, with one instruc- evaluate their program offerings and stu- tor indicating that university students dents’ outcomes. If such standards were are exposed to instruction on this tool in embraced by university preparation pro- one lesson and are required to use it grams, their impact would be to ensure a only in that class. Another instructor high level of braille literacy for graduates required that students correctly braille of all programs, thereby increasing the like- 100 words in 15 minutes using the slate lihood that school-aged students and adult and stylus to earn 100%. clients who are blind receive literacy assess- Yet, regardless of the requirements of ments, instruction, and services by educa- their institutions with regard to the tors with high-quality braille skills. demonstration of competence in literary braille, graduates of university pro- References grams who enter the profession are Amato, S. (2002). Standards for competence deemed competent to teach braille to in braille literary skills in teacher prepara- children and adults for whom it is ap- tion programs. Journal of Visual Impair- propriate. Given the great inconsistency ment & Blindness, 96, 143–153.

©2010 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September 2010 531 Ashcroft, S. C., Sanford, L. D., & Koenig, Risjord, C., Wilkinson, J., & Stark, M. L. A. J. (2001). New programmed instruction (2000). Instruction manual for braille in braille (3rd ed.). Germantown, TN: transcribing (4th ed.). Washington, DC: SCALARS Publishing. Library of Congress. Braille Authority of North America (1994). English braille, American edition. Louis- ville, KY: American Printing House for the L. Penny Rosenblum, Ph.D., adjunct associate Blind. professor, Department of Disability and Psy- Dorf, M. (1984). Instruction manual for choeducational Studies, University of Arizona, braille transcribing (3rd ed.). Washington, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, AZ 85721; e-mail: Ͻ[email protected]Ͼ. Sandra Lewis, Ed.D., DC: Library of Congress. associate professor, School of Teacher Education, Koenig, A. J., Sanford, L. D., & Ashcroft, S. Florida State University, 2205L Stone Building, C. (2001). NPIB companion reader (3rd Tallahassee, FL 32306-4459; e-mail: Ͻslewis@ ed.). Germantown, TN: SCALARS Pub- fsu.eduϾ. Frances Mary D’Andrea, M.Ed., lishing. doctoral fellow, National Center for Leadership in Visual Impairment, and doctoral candidate, Pesavento, M. E. (1993). Braille codes and University of Pittsburgh, 5513 Posvar Hall, calculations. Castro Valley, CA: Excep- Pittsburgh, PA 15260; e-mail: Ͻliteracy2@ tional Teaching. mindspring.comϾ.

532 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September 2010 ©2010 AFB, All Rights Reserved Copyright of Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness is the property of American Foundation for the Blind and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.