ERIC EJ1162950: Implementation of Unified English Braille by Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments in the United States

2017·0.12 MB·English

by  ERIC

Implementation of Unified English
Braille by Teachers of Students
with Visual Impairments
in the United States
Sunggye Hong, L. Penny Rosenblum, and Amy Frank Campbell
Structured abstract: Introduction: This study analyzed survey responses from
141 teachers of students with visual impairments who shared their experiences
about the implementation of Unified English Braille (UEB). Methods: Teachers
of students with visual impairments in the United States completed an online
survey during spring 2016. Results: Although most respondents knew if their
state had a UEB transition plan, few participated in its development. Half
attended workshops to learn about word-based UEB, but few attended work-
shops about math-based UEB. They believed their students would be successful
in transitioning to word-based UEB but were less sure about their transition to
math-based UEB. Discussion: The teachers believed they were more confident
in their own skills and their students’ future success with word-based UEB
compared to math-based UEB. Additional clarification on the relationship be-
tween math-based UEB and the Nemeth Braille Code for Mathematics and
Science Notation (hereafter, Nemeth code), an increased capacity of math-based
UEB training, and clear instruction for high-stakes testing were considered to be
urgent issues among these teachers. Implications for practitioners: Issues con-
cerning the implementation of UEB in the United States will continue to
challenge the field of visual impairment for the next several years. Although
many teachers of visually impaired students had knowledge of word-based UEB
and resources for its implementation, as of January 4, 2016, few were prepared
to teach math-based UEB. As the United States is maintaining the Nemeth code,
future studies, workshops, and the development of resources are needed to
ensure braille users have the knowledge and materials they need in order to be
literate in all aspects of UEB.
S
ince the initial use of braille in the erary code has undergone various revi-
UnitedStatesinthelate1800s,easeofits sions due to its “living language” nature
use, different levels of contractions, and of keeping pace with standards of print
adoption of codes have long been dis- (D’Andrea, Wormsley, & Savaiano,
cussed and sometimes debated (Irwin, 2014;Jolley,2005).Likewise,expressing
1955; Lorimer, 1996). The country’s lit- mathematical and scientific notations in
543
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,November-December2017
braille has also evolved from initially us- andsetanimplementationdateofJanuary
ing the Braille Mathematical Notation 4, 2016 (D’Andrea, 2013). Although the
code (also known as Taylor code) in the ICEB Fifth General Assembly—which
early 1900s to the Nemeth Braille Code took place in Johannesburg, South Africa,
for Mathematics and Science Notation in May 2012—resolved to continue study-
(referred to as “Nemeth code” for the ing worldwide outcomes of UEB imple-
remainder of this article) by mid-century mentation, research on this topic remains
(Navy, 1991). Although the Nemeth code limited (D’Andrea et al., 2014). To date,
adopted fewer changes compared to liter- only Australia and New Zealand have
ary braille, by the 1980s discussions reported implementation outcomes that
about ambiguity among various codes showed that UEB was logical and under-
used in the United States were beginning standable for students (White, 2011).
to emerge (Cranmer & Nemeth, 1991; It is ironic that the United States was
Jackson, Bogart, & Caton, 1993). one of the last ICEB countries to adopt
The concept of a unified braille code UEB, since initial discussion of a unified
was first discussed by the Braille Author- code originated within this country. Rea-
ity of North America (BANA) (Bogart, sons behind the lengthy debate are rooted
Cranmer, & Sullivan, 2000). The intent in academic approaches as well as in per-
for a unified braille code was to allow for ceptions. D’Andrea et al. (2014) noted
continuityamongEnglish-speakingcoun- that the process for adopting UEB in the
triesandtoaccommodatetheuseoftech- United States was widely debated due to
nology in the production of braille. The lack of agreement on using the new code
added complexity of reading and writing for mathematics and science (Gerber &
braille due to changes in the English lan- Smith, 2006; Nemeth, 2004). Proponents
guageandaccesstechnologywerealsocon- of Nemeth code remained concerned that
tributing factors (BANA, 2011–2012). UEB was not suitable for easy computer
In response to this challenge, a group translation and that it was not capable
of experts composed of braille users, of rendering mathematics equations and
transcribers, researchers, and teachers, technical materials into tactual format ef-
through the leadership of the Interna- fectively (Nemeth, 2004). Those in favor
tionalCouncilonEnglishBraille(ICEB), ofnolongerusingNemethcodeandusing
began work to develop a unified braille only UEB suggested that UEB allows
code(Bogartetal.,2000).Thiscode,later seamless integration of literary and math-
known as Unified English Braille (UEB), ematics symbols. UEB eliminates ambi-
was adopted in 2004 by the ICEB. guity of symbol use: for example, dots
English-speaking countries each deter- 3-4-5-6 is only a numeric indicator in
mined if they would adopt UEB and then UEB (Holbrook & MacCuspie, 2010).
set an implementation date (D’Andrea, Although efforts have been made to
2015). After close examination, Canada summarize the process of developing
determined that UEB was “useful” for UEB (D’Andrea, 2015), advantages and
mathematics and technical materials and disadvantages of UEB (Bogart et al.,
adopted it (Marshall & Holbrook, 2015). 2000; Cranmer & Nemeth, 1991; Nem-
In 2012 the United States adopted UEB eth, 2004), and changes of rules and
544
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,November-December2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
symbols from English Braille, Ameri- oped by the authors, were provided to the
can Edition (EBAE) to UEB (Holbrook study participants. Word-based UEB was
& D’Andrea, 2014), the perception of defined as “the UEB code components
teachers of visually impaired students such as contractions, punctuation, and
about the transition from EBAE to UEB typeform indicators one typically uses
has not been documented. Furthermore, when preparing written material students
ways in which these teachers were sup- useinclassesotherthanmathematicsand
ported through the transition process science.Thismaterialis‘non-technical.’”
and what resources were provided to Math-based UEB was defined as “the
them have not been studied. UEB components such as signs of oper-
The present study sought to gather ation and comparison, algebraic expres-
information about the experiences of sions, and symbols used in geometry.
teachers of visually impaired students in These symbols are typically used when
preparing for and carrying out the imple- preparing written material for students in
mentation of UEB in the United States. mathematics and science classes. This
Dataabouttheirinvolvementintheirstate material is ‘technical material.’”
implementation plans, training in UEB,
Results
resources for teaching UEB, availability
of transcribers to prepare materials in This section reports the results from the
UEB, and personal beliefs were gathered. survey of teachers of visually impaired
students, which received responses from
Methods
141 participants. Frequencies were calcu-
An online survey containing 17 sections lated for each question. Not all partici-
and 126 questions was administered pants answered each question.
through Survey Monkey. The survey
itemswerereviewedbyfourexpertteach- DEMOGRAPHICDATA
ers of visually impaired students, two of Table1reportsthedemographicdataofthe
whom also taught university-level braille teachers of students with visual impair-
courses. The study was approved by the ments. The teachers were from 28 U.S.
Human Subjects Protection Program at states, with the most being from Arizona
The University of Arizona. The survey (n(cid:2)14),Colorado(n(cid:2)14),andCalifornia
was open for six weeks in the spring (n(cid:2)13).Theyhadattended36universities,
of 2016. E-mails advertising the study withthehighestnumberattendingtheUni-
were posted on electronic mailing lists versity of Northern Colorado (n (cid:2) 14), the
in the field of visual impairment and University of Arizona (n (cid:2) 13), Northern
placed on Facebook group pages that per- Illinois University (n (cid:2) 10), Illinois State
tained to visual impairment. Informed con- University(n(cid:2)9),FloridaStateUniversity
sent was obtained from all study partici- (n (cid:2) 7), and California State University,
pants who chose to complete the online Los Angeles (n (cid:2) 7).
survey.
The terms word-based UEB and math- UEBSTATETRANSITIONPLAN
basedUEBwereusedthroughoutthesur- Teachers of visually impaired students
vey and the following definitions, devel- were asked if their state had a UEB
545
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,November-December2017
Table1 ing a survey, and 6 assisting in the actual
Teachersofvisuallyimpairedstudents’
writing of the plan.
demographicdata(N(cid:2)141).
When asked to share their thoughts
Variable n(%) about their state’s transition to UEB,
Gender(n(cid:2)141) comments varied widely on what was
Female 132(93.6) occurring in the state. Overwhelmingly,
Male 9(6.4) participants felt there were unanswered
Ethnicity(n(cid:2)139)
needs. One teacher said,
White 130(93.5)
AmericanIndian/AlaskanNative 2(1.5)
AsianorPacificIslander 3(2.2) UEB implementation in our district
HispanicorLatino 4(2.8) is on a case-by-case basis depending
Yearsteachingstudentswithvisual
onthestudentandtheirlearningpace.
impairments(n(cid:2)132)
1–5 29(22.0) Itisfeltthat,generallyspeaking,there
6–10 20(15.2) will be an overlap period between
11–15 21(15.9) EBAE and UEB during transition.
16–20 20(15.2)
Therehasbeenquiteabitoffrustration
21–25 10(7.5)
while we (as a department) try to de-
26–29 11(8.3)
30ormore 21(15.9) cidehowtobestteachourcurrentstu-
Settinginwhichemployed(n(cid:2)133) dentsthe[UEB]changes.Thisgreatly
Itinerant 111(83.5)
impacts older students who are fluent
Resourceroom 7(5.3)
in EBAE. There does not seem to be
Specialized/residentialschool 6(4.5)
much available ready-made curricu-
Earlyintervention 3(2.2)
Other 6(4.5) lum to help these students learn the
new UEB code.
Another said,
transition plan. Of the 141 who responded,
107 said their state did have a plan, 10
Our state did a nice job of creating
said it did not, and 24 were unsure. Par-
videostoeducateparentsandadmin-
ticipants were asked how they got infor- istrators of the changes. Our educa-
mation about the state UEB plan, and tional resource center staff led the
multiple responses were allowed. Seventy- charge in the transition to UEB, and
seven individuals reported that they theprisonbrailleprogramwasquickly
learned about it from conferences, work- trained.Unfortunately,wedonothave
shops, or professional development events; transcriptionists available on the local
73 through state electronic mailing lists; level.
34 from the state consultant in visual im-
pairment; and 17 from special education LEARNINGUEBONESELF
directors. Only 34 respondents partici- ANDRESOURCESFORUEB
pated in the development of their state’s When asked about the BANA website,
transitionplanforUEB,with18attending 116 (87.2%) of 133 participants reported
stakeholder meetings, 16 reviewing the they had visited the website in the last
planandprovidingfeedback,10complet- year.
546
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,November-December2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
The teachers were provided with a list ally Impaired (AER) electronic mailing
of options for learning word-based UEB lists.
and were asked to select as many as ap- The authors defined a workshop as “3
plied. Sixty-two had not completed any or more hours of instruction involving
formaltrainingforword-basedUEB.The information and practice of new content.
most frequently used way to learn word- During the workshop one has opportuni-
basedUEBwastheHadleySchoolforthe tiestopracticenewcontent,receivefeed-
Blind’s Transition to Unified English back, and participate in discussion.”
Braille course (2015) (n (cid:2) 41), followed Workshops about word-based UEB were
by RIDBC’s (Australia) UEB Online attended by just over half of the partici-
Course (n (cid:2) 18), Northern Illinois Uni- pants (n (cid:2) 73), while only one-fifth (n (cid:2)
versity’s UEBOT course (n (cid:2) 7), the Na- 30) of teachers of visually impaired stu-
tional Library Service’s braille transcrip- dents attended math-based UEB work-
tioncourse(n(cid:2)6),CNIB’sTranscriber’s shops. Workshops were most frequently
UEB Course (n (cid:2) 3), and the Wisconsin sponsored by state departments of educa-
Center for the Blind’s Introduction to tion (n (cid:2) 37 word-based, n (cid:2) 11 math-
UEB (n (cid:2) 2). based); followed by workshops held in
When asked about the resources they conjunction with national conferences
used during the transition for learning (n (cid:2) 23 word-based, n (cid:2) 0 math-based);
word-based and math-based UEB, 8 andstate-levelconferences(n(cid:2)23word-
teachers reported that no resources were based, n (cid:2) 11 math-based). The UEB
used for word-based UEB, and 32 indi- workshop attendees were given a list of
cated none were used for math-based topics and asked how well each was
UEB.Themostfrequentlylistedwasself- covered within the workshop. Responses
study(n(cid:2)108word-based,n(cid:2)63math- included really well, adequately, and not
based); followed by informal meetings well.Theresponseswereassignedavalue
withcolleagues(n(cid:2)66word-based,n(cid:2) of 3 to 1, respectively, and means were
17 math-based); in-service classes or obtained. These data are reported in
workshops (n (cid:2) 54 word-based, n (cid:2) 28 Table 2.
math-based); university instructors (n (cid:2) Participants were asked to whom or
18 word-based, n (cid:2) 14 math-based); where they go with questions and con-
teachers of visually impaired students’ cerns regarding UEB. They could check
preparation programs (n (cid:2) 10 word- more than one option, including fellow
based, n (cid:2) 7 math-based); and electronic teachers of visually impaired students
mailing lists, social media, or websites (n(cid:2)50word-based,n(cid:2)60math-based);
(n(cid:2)54word-based,n(cid:2)28math-based). BANA (n (cid:2) 45 word-based, n (cid:2) 0 math-
Sixty-six teachers provided at least one based); national or international elec-
electronicmailinglistorwebsitetheyuti- tronic mailing lists (n (cid:2) 27 word-based,
lized. Frequently mentioned resources in- n (cid:2) 30 math-based); braille transcribers
cluded the BANA website, the Paths to (n(cid:2)26word-based,n(cid:2)29math-based);
Literacy website, state electronic mailing state consultants (n (cid:2) 19 word-based,
lists, and the Association for Education n (cid:2) 21 math-based); university braille
and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visu- course instructors (n (cid:2) 18 word-based,
547
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,November-December2017
Table2
UEBcontentcoveredinworkshops.
Statement n Reallywell Adequately Notwell Mean
Word-based
Eliminationofcontractions 73 55(75.4%) 16(21.9%) 2(2.7%) 2.72
Changesintheuseofcontractionswithinwords 73 42(57.5%) 21(28.8%) 10(13.7%) 2.44
Changesinuseofpunctuation 72 36(50%) 30(41.7%) 6(8.3%) 2.42
Grade1indicatorsandtheiruse 70 35(50%) 25(35.7%) 10(14.3%) 2.36
Typeformindicators(e.g.,bold,underline) 69 34(49.3%) 23(33.3%) 12(17.4%) 2.32
Math-based
Numbers 29 11(37.9%) 18(62.1%) 0 2.38
Signsofoperation 27 10(37.0%) 17(63.0%) 0 2.37
Signsofcomparison 28 8(28.6%) 18(64.3%) 2(7.1%) 2.21
Abbreviations 28 7(25.0%) 19(67.9%) 2(7.1%) 2.18
Signsofomission 27 7(25.9%) 17(63.0%) 3(11.1%) 2.15
Groupingsymbols 28 8(28.6%) 15(53.6%) 5(17.9%) 2.11
Fractions 28 7(25.0%) 16(57.1%) 5(17.9%) 2.07
Superscripts 27 6(22.2%) 14(51.9%) 7(25.9%) 1.96
Signsofshape 14 5(35.7%) 3(21.4%) 6(42.9%) 1.93
Radicals 21 4(19.0%) 11(52.4%) 6(28.6%) 1.90
Spatiallayoutofmathproblems 24 4(16.7%) 13(54.2%) 7(29.2%) 1.88
Functions 16 3(18.8%) 5(31.3%) 8(50.0%) 1.69
Geometry 17 3(17.6%) 5(29.4%) 9(52.9%) 1.65
n (cid:2) 15 math-based); faculty at university (n(cid:2)38word-based,n(cid:2)17math-based);
personnel preparation programs (n (cid:2) 18 The Rules of Unified English Braille
word-based, n (cid:2) 15 math-based); social (ICEB, 2013) (n (cid:2) 38 word-based, n (cid:2)
media (n (cid:2) 3 word-based, n (cid:2) 11 math- 27 math-based); Ashcroft’s Programmed
based); adults who were braille readers Instruction:UnifiedEnglishBraille(Hol-
(n (cid:2) 3 word-based, n (cid:2) 3 math-based); brook & D’Andrea, 2014) (n (cid:2) 31 word-
and adult service providers (n (cid:2) 1 word- based, n (cid:2) 18 math-based); Building on
based, n (cid:2) 1 math-based). One partici- Patterns: Primary Braille Literacy Pro-
pant reported no consulting resources for gram (America Printing House for the
word-based UEB, while 32 participants Blind[APH],2006–2012)(n(cid:2)23word-
reportedusingnoconsultingresourcesfor based, n (cid:2) 0 math-based); Unified Eng-
math-based UEB. lishBraille:AnAustralianTrainingMan-
ual (Howse, Riessen, & Holloway, 2014)
MATERIALSFORTEACHING (n (cid:2) 9 word-based, n (cid:2) 6 math-based);
STUDENTSUEB teacher-made materials (n (cid:2) 19 word-
Teachers of visually impaired students based, n (cid:2) 29 math-based); materials
wereaskedtoindicatematerialstheyused from the Hadley School for the Blind’s
toteachword-basedandmath-basedUEB TransitiontoUEBcourse(HadleySchool
to their students. More than one response for the Blind, 2015) (n (cid:2) 31 word-based,
was permitted. Items selected were mate- n (cid:2) 11 math-based); and The Hitchhik-
rials from conferences and workshops er’s Guide to UEB Mathematics (UEB
548
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,November-December2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
Curricula Support Writing Group, 2013) paired students related to the implemen-
(n (cid:2) 10 math-based). tation of UEB in the United States.
BELIEFSANDPERCEPTIONS STATETRANSITIONPLANS
Participants were provided with a list of Since these teachers are on the “front
30statements(seeTable3)andaskedto
lines,” it is important that they actively
rate them on a 5-point Likert-type scale
participate in the decision-making pro-
from strongly disagree to strongly
cess and transition to UEB at their state
agree. The higher the mean, the higher
level. Less than a quarter of them partic-
the rate of agreement with the state-
ipated in the development of their state’s
ment. Statements were grouped into six
UEB transition plan.
categories, as shown in Table 3. Three
statements did not fit within any of the
AVAILABILITYOFTRAINING
six categories. Independent sample t-tests
ANDRESOURCES
were conducted to determine if there
The number of teachers who attended
was a difference in ratings for those
UEB word-based workshops was 72,
participants whose state had a UEB
while attendance for math-based work-
transition plan and for those who were
shops was only 29. One teacher reported,
unsure if their state had a plan or knew
“ItisverydifficulttoincorporatetheUEB
their state did not (see Table 4), and for
and Nemeth code rules. Not a lot of re-
participants who reported attending a
sources are available at the state level for
word-based UEB workshop and those
support or instruction.” Another partici-
who did not (see Table 5). There were
pant discussed the lack of state-wide co-
significant differences in belief state-
ordination about math-based UEB: “I
ments for skills, students’ successes,
think my state needs to step up and give
administration, and family understand-
direction to teachers of visually impaired
ing between those who lived in a state
students throughout the state. I feel as if
where a UEB transition plan was pro-
there is no leadership on this point.” It is
posed and those who were unsure if
not surprising that participants were con-
their state had a plan or knew their state
cerned about ways that math-based UEB
did not have any plan. When the same
groups of belief statements were exam- and Nemeth code are being used differ-
ined for participants who attended ently by different states.
word-based UEB workshops and those Half of the participants attended work-
who did not, there were significant dif- shopsfocusedonword-basedUEB,while
ferences in those belief statements for only20%attendedworkshopsfocusedon
my skills, my students’ success, my ad- math-based UEB. Content covered in the
ministration, assessment, and family word-based workshops was viewed as
understanding. coveredreallywelloradequatelybymore
than 80% of respondents for each topic
Discussion (forexample,eliminationofcontractions,
This study examined the experiences and typeform indicators). Similarly, when
beliefs of 141 teachers of visually im- content was covered in math-based UEB
549
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,November-December2017
Table3
Beliefstatementratings.
Statement n M SD
Myskills
Iamconfidentinmyabilitytodeterminewhichofmystudentsshould
receivematerialsinword-basedUEB. 123 4.30 .789
IunderstandthedifferencebetweenEBAEandword-basedUEB. 128 4.28 .869
Iamconfidentinmyabilitytoprovideword-basedUEBinstructionto
studentswhoarebraillereaders. 123 4.09 .849
IbelievethetrainingIreceivedinword-basedUEBhadmereadyfor
theofficialimplementationdateofJanuary4,2016. 126 3.56 1.256
IbelievethetrainingIreceivedinmath-basedUEBhadmereadyfor
theofficialimplementationdateofJanuary4,2016. 119 2.19 1.122
Mystudents’success
Ibelievemystudentswillsuccessfullymakethetransitiontoword-
basedUEB. 116 4.25 .684
Ibelievemystudentswillbenefitfromusingword-basedUEBinthe
future. 120 4.13 .931
Ibelievemystudentswillbenefitfromusingmath-basedUEBinthe
future. 92 3.27 1.250
IbelieveUEBinstructionhaspositivelyimpactedmystudents’
successintheclassroom. 90 3.13 1.124
Ibelievemystudentswillsuccessfullymakethetransitiontomath-
basedUEB. 82 3.11 1.111
Myadministration
IbelieveIamsupportedbymyadministrationtoteachword-based
UEBtomystudents. 117 4.05 1.074
Ibelievethereisaclearplaninmydistrict,school,oragencyto
transitionstudentstoword-basedUEB. 114 3.38 1.251
IbelieveIamsupportedbymyadministrationtomakeadecisionon
whatmathcodemystudentswilluse. 94 3.68 1.147
Ibelievethattheadministrationatmydistrict,school,oragencyis
knowledgeableaboutUEBanditsimplementation. 119 2.84 1.390
Ibelievethereisaclearplaninmydistrict,school,oragencyto
transitionstudentstomath-basedUEB 90 2.54 1.172
Assessment
Forthe2015–2016schoolyear,Iknowwhatbraillecodesarebeing
usedtoproducestandardizedtestsmystudentswillbetaking. 102 3.93 .936
Forthe2016–2017schoolyear,Iknowwhatbraillecodesarebeing
usedtoproducetestsmystudentswillbetaking 103 3.60 .932
Ibelievethatinspring2016mystudentswillbepreparedforhigh-
stakestests(stateornational)preparedinword-basedUEB. 91 3.01 .983
Ibelievethatinspring2016mystudentswillbepreparedforhigh-
stakestests(stateornational)preparedinmath-basedUEB. 72 2.46 .749
Materialsforstudents
Ibelievethattechnologyusedtoproducebraillematerials(e.g.,
Duxbury)includesUEBcode. 124 4.34 .774
Ibelieveclassroommaterialspreparedinword-basedUEBare
availableforstudentsservedbymydistrict,school,oragency. 111 3.85 1.105
Ihaveatranscriberortranscriptionservicethatcanprepareword-
basedUEBmaterialsformystudents. 127 3.57 1.389
IbelieveclassroommaterialspreparedinUEBthatincludeNemeth
codeareavailableforstudentsservedbymydistrict,school,or
agency. 101 3.48 1.119
(cont.)
550
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,November-December2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
Table3
(cont.)
Statement n M SD
Ibelieveclassroommaterialspreparedinmath-basedUEBare
availableforstudentsservedbymydistrict,school,oragency. 84 2.92 1.184
Ihaveatranscriberortranscriptionservicethatcanpreparemath-
basedUEBmaterialsformystudents. 120 2.66 1.393
Familyunderstanding
Ibelievefamiliesofmystudentsunderstandtheimplicationsoftheir
childlearningword-basedUEB. 103 3.00 1.138
Ibelievefamiliesofmystudentsunderstandtheimplicationsofwhat
mathcodetheirchildwilluseinmathandscienceclasses. 82 2.45 1.090
Otherstatements
IbelievetheinformationontheBANAwebsiteaboutUEBishelpful. 126 4.14 .827
Mystate’sUEBtransitionplaniscomprehensive. 137 3.49 1.008
Iunderstandmystate’sdecisionorplanastowhetherastudentwill
useNemethcodeormath-basedUEBinmathandscienceclasses. 113 3.45 1.102
Table4
t-testresultsforteachersofvisuallyimpairedstudentsbasedonstateUEBtransitionplan.
Yes No/Unsure
n n
M M
Statement (SD) (SD) t DF p
*Myskills 97 31 2.32 126 .022
3.77 3.43
(.668) (.850)
*Mystudents’success 93 29 2.61 37 .013
3.86 3.33
(.735) (1.015)
*Myadministration 97 30 4.77 125 .000
3.54 2.66
(.870) (.979)
Assessment 84 26 1.86 108 .064
3.47 3.16
(.755) (.767)
*Materialsforstudents 97 31 2.18 126 .031
3.57 3.21
(.771) (.821)
*Familyunderstanding 80 27 3.28 105 .001
2.96 2.25
(.992) (.859)
*Mystate’sUEBtransitionplaniscomprehensive. 104 3 5.36 68 .000
3.70 2.82
(.984) (.769)
IbelievetheinformationontheBANAwebsiteabout 94 32 1.63 124 .104
UEBishelpful. 4.21 3.94
(.815) (.840)
*Iunderstandmystate’sdecisionorplanasto 88 25 4.00 111 .000
whetherastudentwilluseNemethcodeormath- 3.66 2.72
basedUEBinmathandscienceclasses. (1.060) (.936)
*Resultissignificant,p(cid:3).05.
551
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,November-December2017
Table5
t-testresultsforteachersofvisuallyimpairedstudentsbasedonattendanceatword-basedUEB
workshops.
Noor
Yes unsure
n n
M M
Statement (SD) (SD) t DF p
*Myskills 71 57 4.98 126 .000
3.95 3.36
(.610) (.734)
Mystudents’success 68 54 2.68 120 .008
3.91 3.51
(.780) (.863)
*Myadministration 71 56 5.06 125 .000
3.69 2.88
(.809) (.980)
Assessment 57 53 2.78 108 .006
3.59 3.19
(.721) (.767)
Materialsforstudents 71 57 1.57 126 .118
3.58 3.36
(.769) (.815)
*Familyunderstanding 58 49 2.05 105 .043
2.96 2.57
(.977) (1.00)
*Mystate’sUEBtransitionplaniscomprehensive. 73 58 3.96 128 .000
3.75 3.10
(1.024) (.852)
IbelievetheinformationontheBANAwebsiteaboutUEBis 70 55 .850 123 .397
helpful. 4.20 4.07
(.791) (.879)
Iunderstandmystate’sdecisionorplanastowhethera 64 49 1.58 111 .117
studentwilluseNemethcodeormath-basedUEBinmath 3.59 3.27
andscienceclasses. (1.09) (1.09)
*Resultissignificant,p(cid:3).05.
workshops approximately 70% of partic- learningmath-basedUEB.Only36%had
ipants found the mathematics content access to a math-based UEB transcriber.
typical in elementary and middle school Materials used by these teachers for the
to be really well or adequately covered. instruction of word-based UEB were most
Contentrelatedtohigher-levelmathemat- frequently obtained from conferences or
ics (for example, radicals, functions) was workshops they had attended, while mate-
notcovered as thoroughly as content for rials for math-based UEB were most fre-
earlier-level mathematics. quentlyteacher-made.Thelackofanycom-
Lack of training opportunities for math- prehensive curricula or materials for either
based UEB amplified frustration among word-based or math-based UEB is of con-
teachers of visually impaired students cern.Materialsusedbyteachersofvisually
who were actively seeking ways to learn impairedstudentsatin-servicetrainingses-
and to teach math-based UEB. They sionsarenotequivalenttomaterialsthatare
reported fewer available resources for effectiveforstudentslearningUEBastheir
552
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,November-December2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved