Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction

This study analyzed the qualitative responses of a survey of teachers of students with visual impairments in Canada and the United States about tactile and print graphic use by their students with visual impairments. Questions focused on barriers to students using graphics, strategies taught to tactile graphics users, and profiles of successful tactile and print graphics users.

Methods

The researchers followed a thematic analysis approach to independently code and then reach consensus on themes and subthemes of the qualitative responses.

Results

In general, the teachers cited a range of challenges under the main themes of quality and instruction. Subcategories included availability of time for both production and instruction, lack of standardization in material production, and student development of concepts through the use of graphics. Main characteristics of successful graphics users included motivation and an ability to apply skills across tasks. Variations in responses for tactile and print graphics users are highlighted.

Discussion

Findings highlighted areas in which teachers of students with visual impairments can focus to promote effective graphics use by their students. Commonality in strategies used for teaching tactile graphics was apparent, as was a general belief that being intelligent contributed to success.

Implications for practitioners

Frequent exposure and practice with graphics, whether tactile or print, is important. Developing an ability to analyze the features of a graphic and its impact on comprehension can inform strategies for and selection of instructional methods.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldrich

(2008). Talk to the hand: An agenda for further research on tactile graphics. In Stapleton

Howse

, & Lee

(Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 344–346). Berlin: Springer.

Beck-Winchatz

, & Riccobono

(2008). Advancing participation of blind students in science, technology, engineering, and math. Advances in Space Research, 42, 1855–1858. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2007.05.080

Braille Authority of North America. (2010). Guidelines and standards for tactile graphics. Retrieved from: http://www.brailleau-thority.org/tg/index.html

Braun

, & Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Esses

V. M.

, & Maio

G. R.

(2002). Expanding the assessment of attitude components and structure: The benefits of open-ended measures. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 71–101. doi: 10.1080/14792772143000021

Lewalter

D. D.

(2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning & Instruction, 13(2), 177–189. doi:10.1016/S0959–4752(02)00019-1

O'Cathain

, & Thomas

K. J.

(2004). “Any other comments?” Open questions on questionnaires—A bane or a bonus to research? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 4, 98–103. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-25

Rosenblum

L. P.

, & Smith

(2012). Instruction in specialized braille codes, abacus, and tactile graphics at universities in the United States and Canada. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106, 339–350.

Sheppard

, & Aldrich

F. K.

(2001). Tactile graphics in school education: Perspectives from teachers. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 19, 93–97. doi: 10.1177/026461960101900303

10.

Sung

, & Mayer

R. E.

(2012). When graphics improve liking but not learning from online lessons. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1618–1625. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.026

11.

Zebehazy

K. T.

, & Wilton

A. P.

(2014). Quality, importance, and instruction: The perspective of teachers of students with visual impairments on student graphic use. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 108(1), 5–16.

Charting Success: The Experience of Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments in Promoting Student Use of Graphics