Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Braille: The Impact of Teacher Preparation in the 90s

Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Braille:The Impact of Teacher Preparation in the 90s

Stuart Wittenstein, Ed.D.Superintendent, California School for the BlindFremont, California

Sheila Amato, Ed.D.Teacher of the Visually ImpairedEastport South Manor School District, New York

Presented at the 2002 AER International ConferenceJuly 17-21, 2002

Toronto, Canada

Rationale for Study

• “Blind children are not being taught braille because the teachers who are supposedly trained to do so themselves do not know the braille codes sufficiently, much less the teaching methodology.” Spungin, 1989, in the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness

• “A little honest reflection about this situation (decline in braille literacy) suggests that the real culprit here is the inadequate and inappropriate education of the special education teachers who are not competent or confident themselves in using Braille and who also believe that their students should not be expected to compete successfully in school or in life.” Ianuzzi, 1992 in Braille Monitor

Braille Training Groups(as selected by respondents)

Group 1 – transcription, rule knowledge, formatting, proofreading

Group 2 – same as above plus some (10% of class time) methodology in the

teaching of braille readingGroup 3 – same as above plus an emphasis

(more than 10%) on methodology in the teaching of braille reading

Figure 1: Braille Training Groups 1991

Group 1 – transcription, rule knowledge, formatting, proofreading

Group 2 – same as above plus some (10% of class time) methodology in the teaching of braille reading

Group 3 – same as above plus an emphasis (more than 10%) on methodology in the teaching of braille reading

Figure 2: Attitudes After TrainingBraille Skills V. Teaching Ability

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Braille SkillsTeaching Ability

Figure 3: Current AttitudesBraille Skills V. Teaching Ability

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

group 1 group 2 group 3

braille skillsteaching ability

Figure 4: Confidence in Braille SkillsAfter Training V. Current

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

group 1 group 2 group 3

after trainingcurrent attitude

Figure 5: Confidence – Teaching Ability After Training V. Current

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

group 1 group 2 group 3

after trainingcurrent attitude

Figure 6: Teacher Attitudes Towards Braille

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

enjoyteachingbraille

tech shdntrplc brl

brl not impttech makesbrl unnec

yesno

Figure 7. Most Likely Decline for Braille Literacy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%increase m-h

tech

caseloads

vision

teacher prep

teacher attitude

teacher incomp.

complexity of brl

Figure 8. Braille Training Groups 2001

Group 1 – transcription, rule knowledge, formatting, proofreading

Group 2 – same as above plus some (10% of class time) methodology in the teaching of braille reading

Group 3 – same as above plus an emphasis (more than 10%) on methodology in the teaching of braille reading

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

g1 g2 g3

Figure 9. A Comparison of Groups by Year

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1991 2001

group 1group 2group 3

Figure 10. Received Braille Training

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1991 2001

undergraduategraduate

Figure 11. Braille Training as Part of Degree Program

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1991 2001

yesno

Requirements Which Were Included in Braille Training

Proficiency with braillewriter Ability to read braille Knowledge of braille reading methodology Proficiency with slate and stylus Proficiency in Nemeth Code Develop of teacher made materials Write lesson plans Present sample lessons Evaluate curricula Review journal articles

Figure 12. Observed Changes in Requirements for Braille Training

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

rdg.Method.

slate &stylus

NemethCode

tchr madematerials

19912001

Figure 13. Teacher of the Blind Certification

0%10%20%

30%40%50%

60%70%80%

90%100%

1991 2001

yesno

Figure 14. Respondent’s Selection of Teaching Assignments

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1991 2001

residential sch.self-cont class.resource rmitinerantconsultantEIother

Figure 15. Total Number of Students

on Caseload

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1991 2001

1-10 students11-20 students21-30 students31-40 students>40 students

Figure 16. Number of Students on Caseload Who Use Braille

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1991 2001

none/no response1 to 56 to 1011 to 1516 to 20> 20

Figure 17. Total Number of Years Teaching Experience

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1991 2001

1 to 1011 to 2021 to 30> 30

Figure 18. Primary Reading Mode

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

1991 2001

brailleprinttape

Figure 19. Attitudes After Training Braille Skills V. Teaching Ability

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1991 2001

skills satisfactoryteach satisfactory

Figure 20. Current AttitudesBraille Skills V. Teaching Ability

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1991 2001

braille skillsteaching ability

Figure 21. Confidence in Braille SkillsAfter Training V. Current

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1991 2001

skills satisfactorycurrent satisfactory

Figure 22. Confidence - Teaching Ability After Training V. Current

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1991 2001

teach satisfactorycurrent satisfactory

Figure 23. Agreement with Statements Regarding Braille Competency

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Nemeth Code Slate & Stylus

19912001

Figure 24. Legislation Requiring the Teaching of Braille

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1991 2001

agreeneutraldisagree

Figure 25. Most Likely Cause of a Decline in Braille Literacy

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1991 2001

increase m-hvision utiliz.large caseloadsinadequate tchr prep.

References

• Amato, S.S. (2002) Standards and Criteria for Competence in Braille Literacy Within Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States and Canada. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness.

• Spungin, S.J. (1989). Braille literacy: Issues for blind persons, families, professionals, and producers of braille. New York: American Foundation for the Blind.

• Wittenstein, S.H. (1993). Braille training and teacher attitudes: Implications for personnel preparation. RE:view, 25, (3). 103-111.

• Wittenstein, S.H. (1994). Braille literacy: Preservice training and teachers’ attitudes. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88 (6). 516-524.

• Wittenstein, S.H., & Pardee, M.L. (1996). Teachers’ voices: Comments on braille and literacy from the field. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness – Special Issue on Literacy 90 (3). 201-209.

• See also “Braille literacy” Spungin, S.J. & D’Andrea, F.M. (2001) in Library of Congress, Braille into the next millennium, pp. 444-446.

• See also June, 1989 special issue on literacy of the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness.