CEU Article Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments ... · the teacher of students with visual impair-ments gains competency and advocates for using that speciﬁc assistive

CEU Article

Teachers of Students with VisualImpairments and Their Useof Assistive Technology: Measuringthe Proficiency of Teachers and TheirIdentification with a Communityof PracticeYue-Ting Siu and Valerie S. Morash

Structured abstract: Introduction: This article presents an instrument that measuresthe assistive technology proficiency of teachers of students with visual impairmentsand their identification with a community of practice that values assistive technol-ogy. Teachers’ deficits in assistive technology proficiency negatively impact stu-dents who are visually impaired by stunting the development of assistive technologyskills, ultimately resulting in poorer postsecondary education and employmentoutcomes. Identification with a community of practice that values assistive technol-ogy may be supportive of the technological proficiency of teachers of students withvisual impairments. Method: Assistive technology proficiency and community ofpractice identification dimensions were defined and outlined in rubric-like “constructmaps.” A survey that was created to place teachers of students with visual impair-ments within each construct map was completed by 33 Californian teachers. Surveyperformance was evaluated by estimating Rasch models, which provided informa-tion on relative question difficulty and question performance. Results: Estimatedquestion difficulties revealed expected patterns. Only two survey questions per-formed irregularly (infit � 1.33). Internal reliability was good (Cronbach’s Alpha �0.80) for assistive technology proficiency, and acceptable (Cronbach’s Alpha �0.70) for community of practice identification. Discussion: The findings suggest thesurvey reliably measured the assistive technology proficiency and identification witha community of practice that values technology in this sample of teachers. Utilizationof this tool may enable the objective evaluation of assistive technology proficiencyof teachers pre- and post-training. Implications for practitioners: Creation of areliable instrument that measures these constructs will support investigations in howone relates to the other, and will consider how professional development may bedesigned to better support the use of assistive technology by teachers.

384 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September-October 2014 ©2014 AFB, All Rights Reserved

CEU Article

Students with visual impairments requirespecialized services in order to learn skillsthat sighted peers typically learn inciden-tally (Hatlen, 1996). These services aretermed the expanded core curriculum (ECC),and encompass skills in: functional aca-demics, orientation and mobility, social-emotional development, independent liv-ing, recreation and leisure, career education,sensory efficiency, self-determination, andassistive technology (Hatlen, 1996).

The study presented here focuses on as-sistive technology, which is defined underthe Individuals with Disabilities EducationImprovement Act as “any item, piece ofequipment, or product system, whether ac-quired commercially off the shelf, modified,or customized, that is used to increase,maintain, or improve functional capabilitiesof individuals with disabilities” (IDEIA,2004). Teachers of students with visual im-pairments provide vision-related educa-tional services and teach according to theECC. As a result, these teachers are primar-ily responsible for assistive technology

This research was supported by the National Lead-ership Consortium of Sensory Disabilities(NLCSD) fellowship program funded by the U.S.Department of Education, Office of Special Edu-cation Programs (OSEP) grant H325V090001, In-stitute of Education Sciences (IES) pre-doctoraltraining grant R305B090026, and National Sci-ence Foundation (NSF) graduate research fellow-ship program grant DGE1106400. The opinionsexpressed are those of the authors and do notrepresent the views of the NLCSD, OSEP, IES, orNSF.

EARN CEUS ONLINE

by answering questions on this article. Formore information,visit: �http://jvib.org/CEUs�.

©2014 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual

instruction with students who are visuallyimpaired.

Previous reports suggest approximately40% of teachers of students with visualimpairments with academic students imple-ment assistive technology into instruction(Abner & Lahm, 2002; Edwards & Lewis,1998; Kapperman, Sticken, & Heinze, 2002).Given that technology skills are relatedto improved postsecondary education out-comes and paid employment for studentswith visual impairments (Kelly, 2009,2011), supporting teachers in addressingthis critical area of instruction is necessaryto close the achievement gap between stu-dents with and without disabilities (Parette& Peterson-Karlan, 2007).

Assistive technology proficiencySeveral external factors may influence theassistive technology proficiency of teach-ers of students with visual impairments,including their level of preservice technol-ogy training, continued technology trainingthrough professional development, and avail-ability of funding sources for assistivetechnology (Augusto & Schroeder, 1995;Kapperman et al., 2002). Most recommen-dations to increase proficiency focus on pre-service training by implementing curriculain teacher preparation programs for teach-ers of students with visual impairments(Kamei-Hannan, Howe, Herrera, & Erin,2012; Safhi, Zhou, Smith, & Kelley, 2009;Zhou et al., 2012). However, it is likely thatother factors contribute to teachers’ adop-tion of technology. For example, a teachermay only use a specific assistive technologydevice if there is a student who could ben-efit from it, and if the teacher believes thedevice is more supportive of the student’slearning than other (nontechnology) in-
structional tools (Hu, Clark, & Ma, 2003;
Impairment & Blindness, September-October 2014 385

http://jvib.org/CEUs

CEU Article

Kamei-Hannan et al., 2012). Consequently,the teacher of students with visual impair-ments gains competency and advocates forusing that specific assistive technology.

The following dimensions that definethe assistive technology proficiency of ateacher of students with visual impair-ments were conceptualized from a list ofcompetencies recommended for inclusionin assistive technology training programs(see Methods, also Smith, Kelley, Maushak,Griffin-Shirley, & Lan, 2009; Zhou, Smith,Parker, & Griffin-Shirley, 2011).

Choosing: Willingness and resourcesto choose assistive technology to over-come an accessibility issue.

Funding: Willingness and resourcesto find funding for the chosen assistivetechnology.

Ability: Willingness and ability inlearning, using, and troubleshootingassistive technology.

Integration: Willingness to integrateassistive technology into student lessons.

Community of practiceThe relationship between a teacher andhis or her professional network throughwhich he or she receives continuing pro-fessional development can be describedas a community of practice, as defined byWegner, McDermott, and Snuder (2002).Identification with such a community re-fers to the voluntary membership, ex-change, and dissemination of knowledgein an informally structured professionalorganization. A community of practice in-cludes the following dimensions (Wegner,McDermott, and Snuder, 2002).

Domain of interest: Members in-
vest in a shared collection of knowl-
386 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, September-Oc

edge, goals, and purpose that informtheir actions.

Community: Members interact bysharing anecdotes, posing questions,and responding to others’ issues.

Practice: Members share a “tool-kit” of tools and resources. The com-munity nurtures this body of knowl-edge, and leverages it to inform thedomain of interest.

Teachers of school-aged students with vi-sual impairments teach in a variety ofroles, including itinerant, in a resourceroom, and at a residential school (Wolffeet al., 2002). Some teachers of studentswith visual impairments may teach in acombination of any of these capacities, orprovide services in homes in addition toschool settings. Teachers of students withvisual impairmentss provide instructionrelated to the ECC, secure access to thegeneral curriculum, and collaborate withschool staff members (Correa-Torres &Howell, 2004; Spungin & Ferrell, 2007).Itinerant teachers travel between differentsites to work one-on-one with students.Resource-room teachers remain at oneschool and support students throughout theday. Teachers at residential schools are typ-ically members of a staff experienced inworking with students with visual impair-ments. Although itinerant teachers and re-source room teachers may or may not at-tend workshops designated for generaleducation staff members, residential schoolstaff members attend their own professionaldevelopment activities (Yarger & Luckner,1999).

The caseloads of teachers of studentswith visual impairments also fluctuate be-cause students graduate, relocate to differ-
ent schools, or are reassigned for logistical
tober 2014 ©2014 AFB, All Rights Reserved

CEU Article

or administrative reasons. Because the case-loads of these teachers can vary from yearto year, it is impossible for them to receivepreservice training in all the assistive tech-nologies that might be relevant to futurestudents. Therefore, it is important for themto have both a foundational knowledge ofassistive technology and ongoing profes-sional development.

A community of practice is particularlyappropriate when used to describe the re-lationship between teachers of studentswith visual impairments and their profes-sional communities for several reasons.These teachers work with students whospan a range of ages and grades, andaddress areas of instruction related to theacademic and expanded core curricula.They also collaborate with a wider rangeof educational team members to imple-ment services than do general educationclassroom teachers, and they often workin isolation from other teachers of studentswith visual impairments (Correa-Torres &Howell, 2004). When these factors arecombined, it is important and difficult forsuch teachers to find a community thatshares relevant support, advice, and re-sources. This difficulty is most pronouncedfor itinerant teachers who, due to theamount of travel between sites, are not nec-essarily members of any single school’scommunity. These teachers may never en-counter another teacher of students withvisual impairments throughout the course ofa typical school day, week, or month (Kap-perman et al., 2002; Swenson, 1995). Foritinerant teachers of students with visualimpairments, a physical connection to acommunity of practice may be replaced bynetworking through virtual media such ase-mail, electronic discussion groups, or tele-
phone calls. This virtual community con-

trasts with that of general education teach-ers, who physically attend the professionaldevelopment activities given by theirschools. A teacher of students with visualimpairments must instead voluntarily seekout colleagues who face similar profes-sional challenges. Once established, theteacher’s community of practice shares re-sources that support one another, and en-gagement ebbs and flows according to amember’s changing needs (Wegner et al.,2002).

The study presented here aims to rethinkhow the assistive technology proficiency ofteachers of students with visual impair-ments can be measured to gauge trainingeffectiveness, and poses identification witha community of practice as a missing linkbetween professional development and as-sistive technology adoption.

MethodsThe study protocol was approved by Uni-versity of California at Berkeley’s Com-mittee for Protection of Human Subjects.

MEASUREMENT CONSTRUCTS

The constructs of proficiency with assistivetechnology and identification with a com-munity of practice were laid out as rubrics(Tables 1 and 2, respectively). These ru-brics, or “construct maps” (Wilson, 2005),informed the development of surveyquestions. The construct map for teachersof students with visual impairments’identification with a community of prac-tice that values assistive technology wasbased on the definition of community ofpractice discussed earlier here (Wegner etal., 2002). We maintained the originaldimensions of a community of practiceand aligned the construct from low to
high community of practice membership.

CEU Article

The assistive technology proficiencyconstruct was based on 111 competenciesthat were developed (Smith et al., 2009)and validated (Zhou et. al., 2011) forteachers of students with visual impair-ments. These competencies are recom-mended for assistive technology trainingprograms because they are essential com-ponents of the teachers’ use of technologywith students who have visual impairments.We reconceptualized these competenciesinto four dimensions of assistive technologyproficiency: choosing, funding, ability inusing, and integration into teaching. Thesedimensions were aligned with each otherfrom low (aversive) to high (advocative)assistive technology proficiency within theconstruct. Across dimensions, levels of the

Table 1Construct map for the assistive technology profiimpairments.

Proficiencylevel

Choosing Funding

(Willingness andresources forchoosing AT)

(Willingness andresources forfunding AT)

Highest Chooses AT with helpfrom AT experts asneeded

Contact specific funsources at districtstate, and federallevels

High Chooses AT withhelp fromcolleagues who arenot AT experts

Seek district, state,federal fundingsources

Medium Chooses AT basedon familiarexperiences

Ask district, localcommunity, orparents for fundin

Low Chooses AT basedon anecdotalinformation

Ask and depend ondistrict for funding

Ambivalent Does not know howto choose AT

Believes funding isunavailable

Aversive Choosing AT takestoo much time andeffort

Finding funding woutake too much timand effort

AT � assistive technology.

construct shared similarities; for example,


the lowest level of each dimension re-flected opposition to assistive technologyproficiency.

SURVEY

A survey was created to assess each par-ticipating teacher of students with visualimpairments’ assistive technology profi-ciency and identification with a commu-nity of practice that values assistive tech-nology, and posed questions within fourscenarios.

Scenario 1Imagine the school year just began, andyou have a middle school student takingseveral general education classes. Thisstudent needs textbooks for each class.

cy of teachers of students with visual

mensions

Ability Integration

(Willingness and abilityto use AT)

(Willingness andintegration of AT

into lessons)

Can use AT and troubleshootswith manual and help fromAT experts if needed

Uses AT for designatedand other tasks

Can use AT andtroubleshoots with manualand help from non-expertcolleagues

Uses AT fordesignated tasks; isopen to using AT forother tasks, butdoesn’t know whichones

Can only use AT withdirections or after specifictraining

Uses AT only fordesignated tasks

Can use AT only with ongoingsupport from colleagues

Uses AT only fordesignated taskswhen non-ATsolution isunavailable

Does not know how to useAT

Is unsure how tointegrate AT

Learning to use AT takes toomuch time and effort

Believes AT distractsfrom learning goals

cien

Di

ding,

and

g

lde

The student has no vision, and is unable


ract

CEU Article

to access print. Unfortunately, it will takesix to eight weeks for the braille copies ofthe books to arrive at the school.

Scenario 2Imagine you have a third-grade student ina general education class. This class com-pletes projects in a weekly computer lab,and during optional computer time in theclassroom. The student has low visionand has extreme difficulty seeing what ison the computer screen using a standardmonitor with conventional settings.

Scenario 3Imagine you have a high school student ina resource room with teachers who useseveral handouts per day. Some of thehandouts are printed from websites, and

Table 2Construct for the identification of teachers of stof practice that values assistive technology.

Communityidentification

Domain of interest

Shared commitment to usingAT when an accessibility

issue arises

Strongly identifieswith a CoP

Committed to AT use,confident it improveslearning and education

Seeks a CoP Committed to AT use, butunsure how it improveslearning and education

Ambivalent Unsure of AT use, andunsure if it improveslearning and education

Does not identify Considers AT usenonessential to learningand education

Opposed toidentifying witha CoP thatuses AT

Believes that AT use canimpair learning andeducation

AT � assistive technology; CoP � community of p

others are created on computers by the


teachers. This student has low vision andcannot see standard print.

Scenario 4Imagine a new student transferred to ageneral education middle school in yourschool district mid-year. The student istotally blind and on grade level. The stu-dent’s homeroom class goes to the libraryonce a week to learn how to researchinformation on the Internet. All of thecomputers are Windows computers, withstandard-size monitors set to conven-tional settings.

Each scenario provided the frameworkfor seven questions, each targeting onedimension of a construct. Hypotheticalquestions such as “If the student is notalready using technology for reading

ts with visual impairments with a community

Dimensions

Community Practice

nteraction with othermembers of the

community

Investment in developinga body of ATknowledge

ares and disseminatesnformation about ATith other CoPembers

Leverages familiarresources to learn newAT, such as manuals,the Internet, and“techie” colleagues

eks and usesnformation shared byoP members

Asks for help to learnnew AT, but lacksknown resources

ly exchangesnformation with CoP

embers as anbligation

Only learns AT accordingto a superior’sdirective

serves CoP members’xchanges of

nformation only ifonvenient

Will not learn AT, but willwork around it

ids CoP members Avoids learning new AT,employs non-ATsolutions, or removesreasons to learn AT

ice.

uden

I

Shiwm

SeiC

Onimo

Obeic

Avo

books, how would you proceed?” and


CEU Article

“How would you feel about using elec-tronic versions of handouts?” were in-tended to be relevant to participants re-gardless of their teaching environmentand level of experience (Mahmoud et al.,2009; Rosson & Carroll, 2002). This rel-evance is important because teachers ofstudents with visual impairments have case-loads with different technology and studentneeds, have varied training and experiencewith assistive technology, and work in avariety of school settings. We developedthe scenarios to include the needs of stu-dents with low vision and those who areblind, and offered solutions that used as-sistive technology, as well as those thatdid not, using mainstream and specializedtechnologies. Specific professional con-texts and experiences were not overly rep-resented, so that all participants couldanswer questions based on a range ofexperiences.

Initial versions of the construct mapsand survey were shared and revised withinput from two professors in differentpersonnel preparation programs, and fromone of the authors from Smith et al.(2009). In addition, three teachers of stu-dents with visual impairments outside ofCalifornia managed the survey. These par-ticipants had varying levels of expertise,provided feedback on the scenarios andquestions, and explained their thought pro-cess in selecting answers. These efforts pos-itively supported the content and response-process validity of the constructs andsurvey (Wilson, 2005).

The survey was constructed usingLimeSurvey, a free and open-source sur-vey tool. It was distributed online througha variety of professional electronic dis-cussion groups, social media, and e-mail
to community organizations for dissemi-

nation through internal networks. Partic-ipants could also call the researchers tocomplete the survey over the telephone(one participant elected this option). Inaddition to answering questions on thescenarios, participants were asked for in-formation regarding demographics andcomments. The survey took between 30minutes and 1 hour to complete.

PARTICIPANTS

The 33 participants were Californian teach-ers of students with visual impairments cur-rently working with at least one school-age(K-12) student accessing some level of anacademic curriculum. Twenty participantsreported being itinerant teachers, 9 wereresource teachers, and 4 were teachers at aschool for blind children. Twenty-four par-ticipants reported access to general technol-ogy support, 18 to special education tech-nology support, and 5 to technology supportspecific to visual impairment. The partici-pants also reported the number of years theyhad worked as a teacher of students withvisual impairments, the amount of their pre-service assistive technology training, thenumber of other teachers of students withvisual impairments in their school district,and the number of students with visualimpairments in their current caseload (seeFigure 1).

MODELING

We used Rasch models to evaluate the sur-vey: one for questions related to assistivetechnology proficiency and one for thoseabout community identification. The Raschmodel is commonly used to evaluate examor survey validity (Baghaei & Amrahi,2011). Instead of the traditional purpose of
a model to fit and describe data, the Rasch

CEU Article

model establishes whether the data fit theproposed model (Baghaei & Amrahi,2011). For example, in an educational testsuch as a mathematics exam, a Rasch modelcalculates the probability of a correct re-sponse to a question as a function of thequestion’s difficulty and the participant’sknowledge. The easier a question and themore knowledgeable a participant is, themore likely the answer will be correct (Wil-son, 2005). In this example, the constructbeing assessed is mathematical knowledge.This scenario assumes a single construct of“mathematical knowledge,” and both thetest questions and participants are locatedsomewhere on this construct (from easy to

Figure 1. Demographics of 33 respondents wAT � assistive technology; TVI � teacher ofimpaired.

difficult test questions, and from low to high


mathematical knowledge). In our survey,we assessed two constructs, assistive tech-nology proficiency and community of prac-tice identification. A difficult question wasdifficult to answer with a high-constructresponse. For example, a participant low onthe assistive technology proficiency con-struct would be unlikely to produce a highassistive technology proficiency answer toany survey question.

Calculating the fit of a question to themodel (using infit) tests the assumptionthat the survey measures only one trait. Ifan infit value is too high, it indicates thatthe question’s responses are irregular andthe survey is assessing more than the single

ompleted the survey.dents with visual impairments; VI � visually

ho cstu

intended construct. This would happen if a


CEU Article

difficult question was correctly answeredby low-level participants and incorrectlyanswered by high-level participants too of-ten. Ideal infit values are 1, in units of meansquares. The acceptable range is between0.70 and 1.33 mean squares (Adams &Khoo, 1996). Large infit values representmore randomness than expected, which ismore concerning than low infit values thatrepresent less randomness (Adams & Khoo,1996; Wilson, 2005).

Large gaps between estimated questiondifficulties indicate that the survey doesnot adequately cover some range of theconstruct (Baghaei & Amrahi, 2011). Es-timated difficulties are given in scaledvalues called “logits.” To interpret logitvalues, consider that if a person and aquestion have the same score (for in-stance, both are estimated to be 1 logit),there is a 50% chance the person willanswer yes to that question. If the personis estimated higher than the question inlogits, there is a greater than 50% chancethe person will answer yes. Models wereevaluated and fit using ConstructMapsoftware with Maximum Likelihood Es-timation (Wilson, 2005).

We assessed survey reliability by mea-suring internal consistency with Cron-bach’s Alpha. Intuitively, a teacher of stu-dents with visual impairments who scoredhigh on one assistive technology profi-ciency question should have scored highon other assistive technology proficiencyquestions. This relationship would bedemonstrated by a Cronbach’s Alphacloser to one. If responses were poorlycorrelated, Cronbach’s Alpha would becloser to zero. Interpretation of Cron-bach’s Alpha is as follows: Alpha � 0.9is excellent, 0.8 � Alpha � 0.9 is good,
0.7 � Alpha � 0.8 is acceptable, 0.6 �

Alpha � 0.7 is questionable, 0.5 � Al-pha � 0.6 is poor, and Alpha � 0.5 isunacceptable (George & Mallery, 2003).

ResultsDistributions of raw scores for each sur-vey question are shown in Figure 2. Mostof the participants scored high in assistivetechnology proficiency and identificationwith a community of practice that valuesassistive technology.

MODEL RESULTS

The estimated level of difficulty for thesection of the survey with assistive tech-nology proficiency questions are shownin Figure 3. The easier the type of ques-tion was, and the lower its estimated dif-ficulty, the more likely respondents wereto choose high assistive technology pro-ficiency solutions for that question. Theaverage estimated difficulties for the fourdimensions were: choosing, M � 0.28(SE � 0.21); funding, M � 0.19 (SE �0.11); ability, M � �0.03 (SE � �.06);and integration, M � �0.44 (SE � 0.22).The difficulty of reporting high assistivetechnology proficiency steadily decreasedfrom choosing, funding, and skill, to in-tegration. The only two types of questionswith significant differences by t-test werechoosing and integration (p � 0.05). Sim-ilarly, the easier a scenario, the more likelyrespondents were to choose high assistivetechnology proficiency solutions for thatscenario. The average difficulty estimatesfor the four scenarios were: scenario 1, M �0.18 (SE � 0.28); scenario 2, M � 0.18(SE � 0.03); scenario 3, M � �0.22 (SE �0.21); and scenario 4, M � �0.14 (SE �0.21). There were no significant differencesbetween scenarios by t-test; no scenario was
more or less difficult than another.

of s

CEU Article

We also evaluated the infit meansquares of the questions. High infit scoresindicate that the question had more vari-ation in answers than expected, whereaslow infit scores indicate items with lessvariance than expected. Only two itemswere outside the range of acceptable val-ues, 0.75 to 1.33 (Adams & Khoo, 1996):scenario 1, choosing (infit � 1.93, t �3.0); and scenario 4, choosing (infit �0.58, t � �2.1. Overall agreement among

Figure 2. Histograms of completed survey reAT � assistive technology; TVIs � teachers

the questions about assistive technology


proficiency was good, Cronbach’s Al-pha � 0.80 (George & Mallery, 2003).

The estimated level of difficulty for thequestions in the community of practiceidentification section of the survey are shownin Figure 4. The average estimated difficul-ties for the three dimensions of commu-nity of practice identification were: do-main of interest, M � 0.45 (SE � 1.33);community, M � 0.32 (SE � 0.12); andpractice, M � �0.77 (SE � 0.19). Among

ses (raw scores).tudents with visual impairments.

spon

the community of practice questions in all


CEU Article

scenarios, practice was easier to scorehighly on than other questions (significantdifference by t-test only for communityand practice, p � 0.01). The average es-timates for the four scenarios were: sce-nario 1, M � �0.48 (SE � 0.32); sce-nario 2, M � �0.36 (SE � 0.43);scenario 3, M � 1.11 (SE � 1.46); andscenario 4, M � �0.28 (SE � 0.34).There were no significant differences be-tween scenarios by t-test. However, onecommunity of practice identificationquestion was significantly more difficultthan the rest. Despite the fact that, acrossall four scenarios, practice had the lowestestimated difficulty, the estimated diffi-culty for the practice question in scenario3 was significantly higher than for thenext most difficult question (p � 0.001).The practice questions in scenarios 1, 2,and 4 were so easy that despite the highdifficulty of the practice questions in sce-nario 3, practice questions were the easi-est on which to score highly (this is evi-dent in Figure 4).

Three questions had infit mean squares

Figure 3. Estimates of assistive technologyitem difficulty. Error bars indicate standarderrors.

outside the acceptable range of 0.75 to


1.33 (Adams & Khoo, 1996). High infitscores indicate items with more variationin answers than expected, whereas lowinfit scores indicate items with less vari-ance than expected. The infit scores wereas follows: scenario 1, practice (infit �1.58, t � 1.9); scenario 2, community(infit � 0.59, t � �1.7; and scenario 3,community (infit � 0.67, t � �1.2).Overall agreement among the questionsabout community of practice identifica-tion was acceptable, Cronbach’s Alpha �0.70 (George and Mallery, 2003).

DiscussionThe study presented here developedconstruct maps for assistive technologyproficiency among teachers of studentswith visual impairments and their iden-tification with a community of practicethat values assistive technology. It alsodescribes the creation and evaluationof a survey instrument for measuringthese constructs. This work supports the

Figure 4. Estimates of community of practiceitem difficulty. Error bars indicate standard
errors.

CEU Article

assessment of the assistive technologyproficiency and community of practiceidentification of teachers, and it may in-form professional development activitiesdepending on the relationship betweenthese two constructs. Based on estimatedquestion difficulties, infit scores, and in-ternal consistency, the survey questionsreliably measured both constructs in oursample of Californian teachers of studentswith visual impairments.

CONSTRUCT FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

PROFICIENCY

Questions used to assess assistive tech-nology proficiency among teachers of stu-dents with visual impairments generallydecreased in difficulty as participants pro-gressed through each scenario: choosingquestions were most difficult, then fund-ing, then ability, and their integration(significance between choosing and inte-gration). This pattern could be explainedby how the survey questions were struc-tured. Assistive technology proficiencyquestions were always asked in the follow-ing order, with later questions hinging onthe resolution of previous challenges: teach-ers of students with visual impairmentswere first asked to consider how they wouldchoose a device, then how they would fundthe device, and finally how they wouldlearn how to use and integrate the deviceinto practice. It is likely that subsequentquestions were easier (to score high on theassistive technology proficiency construct)because previous challenges of using assis-tive technology were already resolved.

We performed a similar investigationof the level of difficulty of the items ineach of the four scenarios. There were nosignificant differences between scenarios
for the assistive technology proficiency

questions. This result was surprising, be-cause we expected certain technologieswould be more difficult for teachers ofstudents with visual impairments. Find-ing no significant differences betweenassistive technology proficiency questionsacross scenarios suggests that each sce-nario comparably assessed the assistivetechnology proficiency of participants.The estimated difficulties of assistivetechnology proficiency questions coveredthe range of our participants well, with nolarge gaps in item difficulty.

Another component in evaluating thesurvey’s performance was to calculate theinfit mean scores of the items. High infitscores indicate that the survey assessesmore than the single intended construct.Only two assistive technology proficiencyitems were outside the range of accept-able infit values: scenario 1, choosing (in-fit too high); and scenario 4, choosing(infit too low). High infit values are ofmore concern (see Methods). It is notablethat scenario 1, choosing, was the firstquestion posed to the participants, and itis possible that the irregularity of this itemstemmed from the uncertainty of partici-pants in answering the first survey item.Finally, calculation of Cronbach’s Alpharevealed that the survey questions withinthe assistive technology proficiency con-struct agreed well with each other for theparticipants of the current study.

CONSTRUCT FOR IDENTIFICATION

WITH A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

The survey also performed well for theconstruct related to identification with acommunity of practice that values assis-tive technology. One question was signif-icantly higher in estimated difficulty than
all other items: the practice item in

CEU Article

scenario 3. This question asked partici-pants to consider how they would proceedif they had a new student who used aniPad to view most classroom handouts,and were unfamiliar with using the de-vice. The difficulty of participants inachieving high scores on this item mayreflect the relative newness of the iPad asa technology used by teachers, and sug-gests that the teachers in our sample didnot feel they had an established networkof resources and tools to inform their useof the iPad with students. In addition tothis extremely difficult question, the com-munity of practice identification ques-tions covered the range of participantswell, with no large gaps in difficulty ofitems.

We also evaluated the survey’s perfor-mance on the community of practiceidentification construct through calculat-ing the infit mean scores of the questions.Three questions had infit mean squaresoutside the acceptable range: scenario 1,domain of interest (infit too high); sce-nario 2, community (infit too low); andscenario 3, community (infit too low).The questions with high infit for bothassistive technology proficiency and com-munity of practice constructs were thefirst questions asked for each construct inthe survey. As mentioned previously,these high scores may be due to the un-certainty of participants in answering ini-tial survey questions. Changing the orderof scenarios in a future replication couldconfirm whether this is a reasonableexplanation.

Finally, calculation of Cronbach’s Al-pha suggests the survey questions withinthe community of practice construct hadan acceptable amount of agreement for
the current study’s participants.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this study is the recruitmentof participants by way of technology-dependent channels. These methods mayhave limited participants to those who al-ready had high assistive technology pro-ficiency and community of practice iden-tification. We will replicate this study toinclude a larger range of teachers of stu-dents with visual impairments and dis-seminate the instrument through onlineand paper formats. We will also re-evaluate the validity and reliability of thissurvey as a measurement instrument witha larger sample size that includes teachersof students with visual impairments fromthe United States and Canada.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

We conclude that our survey adequatelyand reliably captures the constructs wecreated for assistive technology profi-ciency and community of practice identi-fication for this sample of teachers ofstudents with visual impairments. Typi-cally, self-reported satisfaction surveysmeasure the efficacy of teacher trainings(Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). The surveyinstrument presented here has the poten-tial to better assess the efficacy of anintervention such as pre- or postserviceassistive technology training, and couldbe applied to evaluation of training cur-ricula in professional development. Theapplication of community of practice toteachers of students with visual impair-ments will also support investigations ofthe relationship between assistive tech-nology proficiency and community ofpractice identification.

The underuse of assistive technologyby teachers of students with visual im-
pairments is often attributed to lack of

CEU Article

knowledge and funding. Since the infu-sion of money and assistive technologytraining in teacher preparation programs,the use of assistive technology by teach-ers of students with visual impairmentsremains unchanged (Kapperman, 2002;Kelly, 2009, 2011). The absence of pos-itive outcomes as reflected by the practiceof such teachers necessitates ongoing in-vestigation to develop other supports suchas those offered by identification with acommunity of practice.

ReferencesAbner, G., & Lahm, E. (2002). Implementa-

tion of assistive technology with studentswho are visually impaired: Teachers’ read-iness. Journal of Visual Impairment &Blindness, 96(2), 98–105.

Adams, R. J., & Khoo, S. T. (1996). Quest:Interactive item analysis. Melbourne, Aus-tralia: Australian Council for EducationalResearch.

Augusto, C. R., & Shroeder, P. W. (1995).Ensuring equal access to information forpeople who are blind or visually impaired.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,89(4), 9–12.

Baghaei, P., & Amrahi, N. (2011). Validationof a multiple-choice English vocabularytest with the Rasch model. Journal of Lan-guage Teaching and Research, 2, 1052–1060.

Correa-Torres, S., & Howell, J. (2004). Fac-ing the challenges of itinerant teaching:Perspectives and suggestions from thefield. Journal of Visual Impairment &Blindness, 98, 420–433.

Edwards, B. J., & Lewis, S. (1998). The useof technology in programs for studentswith visual impairments in Florida. Jour-nal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,92(5), 302–312.

George, D., & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSSfor Windows step by step: A simple guide andreference. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hatlen, P. (1996). The core curriculum for
blind and visually impaired students, in-

cluding those with additional disabilities.RE:view, 28(1), 25–32.

Hu, P. J. H., Clark, T. H. K., & Ma, W. W.(2003). Examining technology accep-tance by school teachers: A longitudinalstudy. Information & Management, 41,227–241.

IDEIA. (2004). Pub. L. No. P.L. 108–446 §602, 20 USC 1401, 300.5.

Kamei-Hannan, C., Howe, J., Herrera, R.,& Erin, J. N. (2012). Perceptions ofteachers of students with visual impair-ments regarding assistive technology: Afollow-up study to a university course. Jour-nal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106,666–678.

Kapperman, G., Sticken, J., & Heinze, T.(2002). Survey of the use of assistive tech-nology by Illinois students who are visu-ally impaired. Journal of Visual Impair-ment & Blindness, 96, 106–108.

Kelly, S. M. (2009). Use of assistive technol-ogy by students with visual impairments:Findings from a national survey. Journal ofVisual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 470–480.

Kelly, S. M. (2011). The use of assistivetechnology by high school students withvisual impairments: A second look at thecurrent problem. Journal of Visual Impair-ment & Blindness, 105, 235–239.

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007).Professional development in integratingtechnology into teaching and learning:Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursuebetter questions and answers. Review ofEducational Research, 77, 575–614.

Mahmoud, M., Liu, Y., Hartmann, H., Stew-art, S., Wagener, T., Semmens, D., . . .Dominguez, F. (2009). A formal frame-work for scenario development in support ofenvironmental decision-making. Environ-mental Modeling & Software, 24, 798–808.

Parette, H. P., & Peterson-Karlan, G. R.(2007). Facilitating student achievementwith assistive technology. Education &Training in Developmental Disabilities,42, 387–397.

Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2002). Usabil-
ity engineering: Scenario-based development

CEU Article
of human-computer interaction. San Fran-cisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Safhi, M. Y., Zhou, L., Smith, D. W., &Kelley, P. (2009). Assistive technologyin teacher-training programs: A nationaland international perspective. Journal ofVisual Impairment & Blindness, 103,562–568.

Smith, D. W., Kelley, P., Maushak, N. J.,Griffin-Shirley, N., & Lan, W. Y. (2009).Assistive technology competencies for teach-ers of students with visual impairments.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,103(8), 457–469.

Spungin, S. J., & Ferrell, K. A. (2007). Therole and function of the teacher of studentswith visual impairments. Position papersof the Division on Visual Impairments:1990 –2000. Retrieved from http://deficienciavisual4.com.sapo.pt/txt-Role_and_function_teacher_students_VI.htm

Swenson, A. M. (1995). Itinerant teaching: Aninsider’s view. RE:view, 27(3), 113–116.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W.(2002). Cultivating communities of prac-tice: A guide to managing knowledge.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures:An item response modeling approach.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wolffe, K. E., Sacks, S. Z., Corn, A. L., Erin,
J. N., Huebner, K. M., & Lewis, S. (2002).

Teachers of students with visual impair-ments: What are they teaching? Journal ofVisual Impairment & Blindness, 96(5),293–304.

Yarger, C. C., & Luckner, J. L. (1999). Itin-erant teaching: The inside story. AmericanAnnals of the Deaf, 144(4), 309–314.

Zhou, L., Ajuwon, P. M., Smith, D. W.,Griffin-Shirley, N., Parker, A. T., &Okungu, P. (2012). Assistive technologycompetencies for teachers of students withvisual impairments: A national study. Jour-nal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106,656–665.

Zhou, L., Smith, D. W., Parker, A. T., &Griffin-Shirley, N. (2011). Assistive tech-nology competencies of teachers of stu-dents with visual impairments: A compar-ison of perceptions. Journal of VisualImpairment & Blindness, 105(9), 533–547.

Yue-Ting Siu, M.A., teacher of students with vi-sual impairments, Ph.D. candidate, GraduateSchool of Education, University of California,Berkeley; Department of Special Education, SanFrancisco State University, 1600 Holloway Ave-nue, San Francisco, CA 94132; e-mail: �[email protected]�. Valerie S. Morash, M.A., Ph.D.candidate, Department of Psychology, Universityof California, Berkeley, CA 94720; e-mail:�[email protected]�. Address all correspon-
dence to Yue-Ting Siu.

http://deficienciavisual4.com.sapo.pt/txt-Role_and_function_teacher_students_VI.htm



mailto:[email protected]



Documents

CEU Article Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments ... · the teacher of students with visual impair-ments gains competency and advocates for using that speciﬁc assistive