The Effect of Brailling and Physical Guidance on the Self-Efficacy of Children who are Blind

Children who are blind experience deficits in fitness and motor skills (Lieberman and McHugh, 2001; Skaggs and Hopper, 1996; Skellenger, Rosenblum and Jaeger, 1997). In addition children who are blind possess low self-efficacy (Craft and Hogan, 1985). Skill level, opportunities and self-efficacy may increase with proper instruction. Children in general benefit from instruction, yet there is limited research on modt:ling techniques a11g self-efficacy for children who are blind. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of brailling and physical guidance teaching techniques on the self-efficacy of children )VhO are blind during goal ball skills. In addition, the study determined which sources of self-efficacy, proposed be Bandura (1997), had the greatest effect on the self-efficacy of the participants of the study. The self-efficacy of children who are blind was analyzed using two different teaching methods for the sport of goal ball Counselors in a one-week summer camp were paired with campers who are blind I: I and randomly assigned a teaching technique. Braillin? and physical guidance both coupled with explanation were studied to detennine whether or not ! hey helped in increasing self-efficacy in goal ball skills and which one elicited a greater improvement. This study also analyzed the sources of efficacy. A pre posttest self-efficacy questionnaire (5 point Likert Scale) was used for the self-efficacy, open ended questions were used to determine sources, and counselor journals were also used in collecting information for the sources. Results detemtined that both brailling and physical guidance significantly (p< .05) increased self-efficacy scores. The results provide evidence that both brailling and physical guidance have an effect on the self-efficacy of participants who are blind. Both physical guidance and brailling significantly increased the participant's efficacious level within gtoups. Self-efficacy score differences (between pre and post-test) between physical guidance and brailling was not examined and it was not determined whether these pre/post test scores differences were significant. When looking at the statistical outcomes of brailling vs. physical guidance in pretest and posttest scores, the results reveal tliat there were no signi.ficant,differences between physical guidance and brailling in pretest scores or posttest scores. When analyzing the sources of self-efficacy, verbal persuasion and vicarious experience (Bandura, 1997) increased, past performance remained the same, and physiological state had no effect after the one week intervention was completed. Baseq. on the results of the current study, the following conclusions can be made: 1. Modeling techniques for participants who are blind in goal ball, enhanced self-efficacy for the participants in both physical guidance and brailling groups. 2. Both physical guidance ~d brailling enhanced every participant's self-efficacy. Although a stronger case was found with physical guidance, no significant differences were found between the two modeling techniques. 3. The sources of efficacy that influenced the participant's self-efficacy the most were vicarious experience in the lead with 76%, past performance 54%, verbal persuasion 45% and physiological state accounted for less than 100/o.