Transcript Braille Training Groups (as selected by respondents)

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
Presented at the 2002 AER International Conference
July 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 reading
Group 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 Training
Braille Skills V. Teaching Ability
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Braille Skills
Teaching Ability
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Figure 3: Current Attitudes
Braille Skills V. Teaching Ability
80%
70%
60%
50%
braille skills
teaching ability
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
group 1
group 2
group 3
Figure 4: Confidence in Braille Skills
After Training V. Current
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
after training
current attitude
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
group 1
group 2
group 3
Figure 5: Confidence – Teaching Ability
After Training V. Current
80%
70%
60%
50%
after training
current attitude
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
group 1
group 2
group 3
Figure 6: Teacher Attitudes Towards Braille
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
yes
no
enjoy
tech shdnt brl not impttech makes
teaching
rplc brl
brl unnec
braille
Figure 7. Most Likely Decline for Braille
Literacy
60%
increase m-h
50%
tech
40%
caseloads
vision
30%
teacher prep
20%
teacher attitude
10%
teacher incomp.
complexity of brl
0%
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
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
g1
g2
g3
Figure 9. A Comparison of Groups by Year
45%
40%
35%
30%
group 1
group 2
group 3
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 10. Received Braille Training
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
undergraduate
graduate
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 11. Braille Training as Part of Degree
Program
70%
60%
50%
40%
yes
no
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
2001
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
70%
60%
50%
40%
1991
2001
30%
20%
10%
0%
rdg.
Method.
slate &
stylus
Nemeth
Code
tchr made
materials
Figure 13. Teacher of the Blind Certification
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
yes
no
1991
2001
Figure 14. Respondent’s Selection of
Teaching Assignments
45%
40%
35%
residential sch.
self-cont class.
resource rm
itinerant
consultant
EI
other
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 15. Total Number of Students
on Caseload
45%
40%
35%
1-10 students
11-20 students
21-30 students
31-40 students
>40 students
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 16. Number of Students on Caseload
Who Use Braille
90%
80%
70%
none/no response
1 to 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 20
> 20
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 17. Total Number of Years
Teaching Experience
70%
60%
50%
1 to 10
11 to 20
21 to 30
> 30
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 18. Primary Reading Mode
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
braille
print
tape
1991
2001
Figure 19. Attitudes After Training
Braille Skills V. Teaching Ability
80%
70%
60%
50%
skills satisfactory
teach satisfactory
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 20. Current Attitudes
Braille Skills V. Teaching Ability
70%
60%
50%
40%
braille skills
teaching ability
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 21. Confidence in Braille Skills
After Training V. Current
80%
70%
60%
50%
skills satisfactory
current satisfactory
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 22. Confidence - Teaching Ability
After Training V. Current
70%
60%
50%
40%
teach satisfactory
current satisfactory
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 23. Agreement with Statements
Regarding Braille Competency
80%
70%
60%
50%
1991
2001
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Nemeth Code
Slate & Stylus
Figure 24. Legislation Requiring the
Teaching of Braille
60%
50%
40%
agree
neutral
disagree
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
2001
Figure 25. Most Likely Cause of a
Decline in Braille Literacy
60%
50%
40%
increase m-h
vision utiliz.
large caseloads
inadequate tchr prep.
30%
20%
10%
0%
1991
2001
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.