Current Practices in Instruction in the Literary Braille Code University Personnel Preparation Programs.

Abstract: University instructors were surveyed to determine the requirements for their literary braille courses. Twenty-one instructors provided information on the textbooks they used; how they determined errors; reading proficiency requirements; and other pertinent information, such as methods of assessing mastery of the production of braille using a Perkins brailler, slate and stylus, and Perky Duck. ********** In her examination of the standards and criteria for the braille literacy competence of 34 university training programs that prepare teachers of students with visual impairments in the United States and Canada, Amato (2002, p. 149) found widespread diversity and a lack of consistency in university-level braille courses with respect to the format of instruction, content and instructional materials, expected student outcomes, and standards and criteria for competence in braille literacy. There appears to be no consistent standard for training teachers of students who are visually impaired in braille. Noting that competence in the literary braille code is defined by each university preparation program, Amato (2002) recommended that national standards for graduates' knowledge of and criteria for competence in braille be established. In addition to calling for an accepted definition of what it means to be competent in braille, Amato suggested that objective outcomes for university students should be developed to ensure that students who are blind are taught by qualified professionals. As the first step in the process of achieving this standardization, the Personnel Preparation Division of the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER) commissioned a study in fall 2008 to identify potential voluntary standards for the minimum level of braille skills that are needed for beginning practitioners who teach braille to children or adults. We volunteered to conduct this study and, given the limited information about braille competency standards, determined to use a nominated sample of individuals who had extensive experience in teaching braille to university students as our informants. Amato's (2002) study used a survey that was designed to explore five research questions about the format of courses for teaching braille, the topics and instructional materials that are used in the courses, the expected outcomes for students, the criteria for competence in braille, and the instructor's opinions about some key issues related to braille literacy. We chose to use the Delphi method to obtain a consensus on the minimum level of skills in the literary braille code that are required for students who complete university programs. In this study, we did not inquire about the methods and strategies that are used at universities to prepare teachers to teach braille reading and writing. Because Amato's (2002) research was conducted in 1999, we believed it was important to gather current information about the practices related to university instruction in literary braille and the expectations for braille competence by personnel preparation programs today. Prior to soliciting the opinions of the participants who teach literary braille courses at universities in the United States and Canada on appropriate standards, we collected descriptive data on programs and instructional techniques. These descriptive data are reported here. An article with the full results of the Delphi study is being prepared. Methods INSTRUMENT To determine the current practices of university programs with regard to instruction in braille, a series of 16 questions was included in a survey that was distributed to university instructors who had agreed to participate in a larger study on the topic. These 16 questions gathered information about each instructor and the logistics of the literary braille course. …