Upload
maxwell-rasmussen
View
42
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Braille: The Impact of Teacher Preparation in the 90s. Stuart Wittenstein, Ed.D. Superintendent, California School for the Blind Fremont, California Sheila Amato, Ed.D. Teacher of the Visually Impaired Eastport South Manor School District, New York - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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.