Transcript Literacy is:

Fifth Biennial Getting in Touch With Literacy Conference
November 9, 2001
Philadelphia, PA
A Descriptive Study of Standards
and Criteria for Competence in
Braille Literacy Within Teacher
Preparation Programs in the
United States & Canada
Sheila Steiner Amato, Ed.D.
1
Literacy is:
 An issue of national concern
 Involves reading, writing, math, computer skills, culture (Rex, 1989)
 Technology skills (Koenig, 1992)
 Necessary to function on the job and in society (National Institute for
Literacy, 1993)
 Demonstrated at various levels throughout one’s lifetime (Koenig,
1992)
 The means to a limitless array of activities and encounters (Schroeder,
1989)
 The means to a better quality of life (National Institute for Literacy,
1993)
2
Braille literacy can:
 Make it possible for a person who is blind to participate
equally in society (Nemeth, 1988) and in the cultural and
political life of the community (Stephens, 1989)
 Open the way to information by tearing down barriers of
myth and ignorance (Schroeder, 1989)
 Determine the degree of independent functioning on the
job (Johnson, 1989)
 Enable individuals who are blind to read and write for
themselves
3
By the numbers...
In 1989
70% of working age people
who are blind were
unemployed or
underemployed
(Schroeder, 1989)
In 2000
74% of working age people
who are blind are
unemployed or
underemployed (Maurer,
2000)
Of the 30% who are
employed, 85% read
braille (Spungin, 1989)
Of the 26% who are
employed, 85% read
braille (Maurer, 2000)
4
However… there is evidence of a nationwide
decline in braille literacy
In 1968
40% of children who
were blind or visually
impaired could read
braille
In 1999
less than 10% of children
who were blind or visually
impaired could read
braille
45% read large print
more than 40% could read
neither
9% could read neither
(APH, 1999)
5
Consumer services have placed partial blame
for the decline in braille literacy on:
 Teacher incompetence in using and teaching
braille (Allman & Lewis, 1997)
 Teachers’ lack of proficiency in braille
(Mullen, 1990)
 Teachers’ poor attitudes (Mullen, 1990)
 Inadequate preparation of teachers by the
university teacher preparation programs
(Spungin, 1989)
6
The catalyst … WHY????
The National Literary Braille Competency Test (NLBCT) was developed
by the National Library Service for the Blind/The Library of Congress
 Purpose: to allow teachers of children and adults who are blind to
demonstrate their competency in writing braille with the braillewriter
and the slate and stylus, their ability to proofread braille, and their
knowledge of braille code rules
 Administered to 396 candidates between May, 1994 and June 1999
(Stark, 2000)
 The discovery that there is a 25% passing rate for teachers who take
the National Literary Braille Competency Test
7
Issue of concern for:
 Students of university teacher training programs ~
and staff who teach them
 Their future students or clients
 Braille consumers
 National organizations using these statistics to
support their contention that teacher training
programs were graduating less-than-competent
teachers (NFB, 1995)
8
Questionnaire Standards and Criteria for
Competence in Braille Literacy was designed by the
investigator
 Descriptional survey design
 Purpose: to examine the issue of teacher competence in
braille literacy and the specific role played in the
achievement of braille literacy by university teacher
preparation programs in blindness and visual impairment
Thank you!
Some of the questions designed for a previously completed Teachers
College doctoral dissertation that investigated Braille Training and
Teacher Attitudes: Implications for Personnel Preparation, 1993 were
either used in their entirety or modified with the written permission of
the author, Dr. Stuart Wittenstein.
9
Pilot instrument
 Pilot version of initial questionnaire draft was distributed
to 13 individuals in fields of:
blindness & visual impairment
regular education
special education
literacy & reading
statistics & measurement
teacher training
and a consumer who uses braille
revisions made were based on their feedback
10
Final document Standards and Criteria for
Competence in Braille Literacy
 Section 1 - course format
 Section 2 - course content
 Section 3 – course expected outcomes
 Section 4 - grading and determining the level of
competence
 Section 5 - opinion poll
 Section 6 - demographic information for the
respondents
11
Programs Surveyed
 The list of programs was gleaned from “Colleges and
Universities in the United States and Canada Offering
Programs for Teachers of Visually Impaired Children
Recognized by AER” (http://www.afb.org)
 Cross reference done with the National Plan for Training
Personnel (NPTP) (Council for Exceptional Children,
1999)
12
By the numbers:
 Surveyed 39 institutions that offer programs in
Blindness & Visual Impairment
 Represent 21 states from within the United States
 Represent 3 Canadian Provinces
 Include undergraduate, graduate (Master’s &
Doctoral) and post-graduate programs
13
Rate of Response
Responses were received from 34 programs (87.2%).
Thus, it is possible to say that these results are
truly representative of teacher education programs
in blindness & visual impairment throughout the
United States and Canada
Caveat~
These data should not be interpreted as a means to judge the quality of the
programs, nor to claim superiority or inferiority of practice or the
instructor.
14
Major Findings of the
Demographics of Respondents
 55.5% institutions offer only graduate programs in BVI
 46.6% of university level braille courses are taught by
adjunct instructors or graduate faculty
 39.9% have tenure or are in tenure-track positions
 43 instructors have:
 known braille for a mean of 26.4 years
 taught a total of 5,356 students during the past 25 years
 69.0% received their braille training as part of a university
graduate program
 65.1% hold no certification unique to braille (as distinguished from
certification as a teacher of students who are blind/visually
impaired
15
Results in a nutshell
Widespread diversity and lack of consistency
within university level braille courses in
terms of:
format of instruction
content and instructional materials
expected student outcomes
standards and criteria for competence in braille
literacy
16
Research Question 1: What is the format of instruction
offered in braille as a method of written communication in
university level teacher preparation programs in BVI?
 75.6% incorporate the term “Braille” as part of their course title
 31.1% offer only one semester of braille, the other programs offer





either 2 or 3 semesters of braille.
93.0% have freedom and latitude to create their own syllabus within a
general framework
48.9% programs (primarily graduate programs) follow a “traditional”
university semester of meeting once a week for approximately 15
weeks
75.6% meet for a time period between 1-3 hours per class session
46.7% use distance learning as an integral part of their braille course
68.9% report average class size range is 6-15 students
17
Research Question 2: What topics and instructional materials
are included in the university level braille course syllabus?
 20.0% of programs do not include instruction in the Nemeth Code for
Mathematics and Science Notation in their teacher preparation
programs
 48.9% of class time spent in direct instruction
 37.8% of class time spent in combination with
 direct instruction, drill & practice, use of instructional videos, web-based
research, braille games, quizzes, exams, and student presentation of
lessons
 Texts used:
 48.9% use Instructional Manual for Braille Transcribing,
3rd.edition
 42.2% use New Programmed Instruction in Braille
 42.2% use Learning the Nemeth Braille Code
 53.3% use Instructional Strategies for Braille Literacy (non-code)
18
Research Question 3: What are the expected student outcomes
in terms of the acquisition and demonstration of braillerelated skills and knowledge for these courses?
 All require demonstration of braille transcription by use of a








braillewriter
All require translation of braille into print
93.3% read braille visually
82.9% transcribe braille by using a slate & stylus
77.8% transcribe mathematics by using the Nemeth Code
73.4% instruction in braille reading methods
15.6%-62.2% other skills and knowledge: teacher made materials,
creation of lesson plans, presentation of sample lessons, evaluation of
curricula, access technology, observation of braille user, observation of
master braille teacher, identification of resources
38.6% expect less than 5 hours/week out-of-class study
45.5% expect between 6-15 hours/week out-of-class study
19
Research Question 4: What are the standards and criteria for
competence in the braille code as employed by university
level teacher preparation programs?
 59.1% count total number of errors per assignment (which may vary in length









and/or complexity)
40.9% provide the option for the student to redo/resubmit an assignment that is
not passing
38.6% require the student to redo/resubmit an assignment that is not passing
56.8% allow students to use “open books/open notes” when taking exams
38.6% permit use of a standard dictionary, but allow no braille code reference
materials during exams
40.0% minimum grade for competence is B range
42.2% minimum grade for competence is C range
72.7% will receive grade of “incomplete” if not competent at end of course
56.8% will be required to repeat the course
38.6% will receive grade of “F”
20
Research Question 4 continued:
 75.0% of instructors indicated that their students
were required to pass a teacher-made braille
competency test in order to receive a passing
grade for the course.
 52.3% indicated that their students were required
to pass a comprehensive exam at the end of their
educational program, in which braille was
included
21
Research Question 5: What opinions do teachers of university
braille courses hold about key issues in braille literacy?
Entry Level* Competence in Braille Skills
 57.8% transcribe, read, and proofread literary braille by
braillewriter and slate & stylus
 40.0% transcribe math into Nemeth code, proficiency in
music code, foreign language code, rules of formatting,
braille access technology, curricula, instructional strategies
and teaching practice
* Entry level into the field
22
Research Question 5: What opinions do teachers of university
level braille courses hold about key issues in braille literacy?
Graduate Competence in the Literary Code, Nemeth Code,
and in Teaching Braille
 48.9% rate students as definitely capable of handling
almost any literary braille code transcription independently
 22.2% rate students as definitely capable of handling
almost any Nemeth code transcription independently
 57.8% rate students as definitely capable of handling
almost any braille related teaching situation independently
23
Research Question 5: What opinions do teachers of university
braille courses hold about key issues in braille literacy?
Requirement for Refresher or In-Service Braille Training
 97.9% indicated that refresher courses or in-service courses should be
required, either at regular intervals, or when the teacher feels it is
necessary to refresh one’s skills
 40.5% believe it is the responsibility of teacher preparation programs
to provide refresher courses or in-service braille training
Comments about Teacher Competence in Braille
 73.8% believe that competence at time of graduation is a function of
continuing braille practice
 28.6% believe there is a need for further professional development, the
opportunity to practice skills, and the availability of braille refresher
courses and in-service training
24
Research Question 5: What opinions do teachers of university
level braille courses hold about key issues in braille training?
Significant Factors in the Development of Braille
Skills
 26.2% attitude and motivation
 37.7% multiple factors: attitude & motivation, number of
hours spent in practice and drill, the instructor, previous
experience with braille, natural talent
25
Research Question 5: What opinions do teachers of university
level braille courses hold about key issues in braille training?
A Decline Or A Resurgence Of Braille Literacy For People Who Are
Blind?
 54.8% believe there is a resurgence due to state and federal legislation,
required learning media assessments, states putting more money in to
train teachers, computer production, refreshable braille displays,
refresher courses and conferences, new textbooks, the quest for higher
standards and accountability, and more positive attitudes towards
braille
 11.9% believe there is a decline due to large student caseloads, age of
onset of visual impairment, inability to find quality higher level braille
textbooks - especially in math and science, the amount of auditory
material presently available, and lack of national standards
26
Research Question 5: What opinions do teachers of university
level braille courses hold about key issues in braille training?
Comments About University Level Braille Training
Standards
 31.0% standards are not high enough to produce competent
teachers
 23.8% students are amazingly competent for their short
exposure to braille
 11.9% we need to teach students how to teach braille;
knowing the code is not enough
 9.5% we need to establish national standards for braille
training
27
Limitations of the Study
 Inclusion of all established programs in blindness
& visual impairment
 Personal bias of participants
 Self-reported data
 Anonymity
 Exit skills of new teachers trained under different
models of personnel preparation
28
Implications for Personnel Preparation
 Recommendation that programs provide 2 semesters of braille
 Inclusion of Nemeth code to enable teachers to transcribe higher level





math and science
Program model which provides time for assimilation and practice of
newly learned skills
Need for further research regarding effectiveness of distance learning
for braille instruction
Commitment to provide ongoing inservice and refresher courses in
braille
Use of a psychometrically stable instrument in terms of content and
construct validity with established reliability as a valid assessment of
entry level braille skills prior to awarding a degree or teaching license
Establishment of a high minimum national standard for competence in
braille literacy
29
Implications for Future Research
 Need for documentation of skills of those who will
teach children
 Need for reevaluation, standardization and field
testing of university curricula in terms of content
and criteria
 Exploration of use of distance learning as an
effective means of service presentation for braille
courses
30
For further information...
Sheila Amato, Ed.D.
72 Aster St.
Massapequa Park, NY 11762
(516) 541-2296 (home)
[email protected]
31