The study reported here investigated which braille-related communication skills 233 teachers of students with visual impairments taught and 531 adults who are visually impaired used. It found that the teachers taught the use of braillewriters, computers, audiocassette recorders, and typewriters but rarely taught the use of slates and styli and sighted readers’ services. The visually impaired adults used a variety of communication modes, primarily braillewriters, slates and styli, sighted readers’ services, and sighted writers’ services.
This article describes a braille refresher course for teachers that was created in response to concerns about braille literacy that have been reflected in "braille bills" in many states. Analysis of pre-and posttest data showed that the teachers improved their braille skills and reported a high level of confidence in their braille skills as a result of the course.
The purpose of this article is to present state eligibility criteria for access to early intervention services by young children, ages birth to 5 years, with visual impairments. The article examines the data collected through a national survey, in relation to the current practice for assuring access to services that facilitate development of visual function and/or mitigate the impact of vision loss, and implications for future research and policy development addressing eligibility for services under P.L. 99-457.
The efficacy of special class placement for mildly handicapped children was an early focus of special educadon research and has been the subject of at least two narrative reviews and one meta-analysis. In general, special class placement has proved to be no more effective than regular class placement on measures of achievement and social adjustment. However, the power with which the efficacy of special classes has been tested is unknown; thus inadequate statistical power represents an alternative explanation for the findings. The power of the statistical tests in 35 efficacy studies to detect small, medium, and large effect sizes was determined. The power to detect a medium effect size where one existed was no better than chance. However, 21 studies had adequate power to detect a large effect size. The effect sizes for these 21 studies on academic and social measures were highly variable and their averages quite small. Thus, conclusions drawn from previous reviews may be valid, in spite of the failure of earlier reviewers to consider statistical power. The implications of the present analysis for researchers, policy makers, and funding agencies are discussed in relation to the Regular Education Initiative and contemporary efficacy research.The effectiveness of special class programs for mildly handicapped students was a focus of research in special education through the mid-1970s. This literature was integrated and reviewed via traditional narrative methods by Guskin and Spicker (1968) and Cegelka and Tyler (1970) and via meta-analytic methods by Carlberg and Kavale (1980). These reviewers all drew the same conclusions: Mildly handicapped students in special class programs were no better off academically or socially than their counterparts in regular classes. These conclusions belied fundamental assumptions underlying special education-that handicapped students required special curricula, specially trained teachers, and small, homogeneous instructional groups.Efficacy studies are reemerging in the special education literature, as the re-The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. J. Kenneth Brewer for his comments on an earlier draft of this article.'Paul Sindelar is now at the University of Florida.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.