Introduction: This study investigated the effectiveness of changes in the test format (braille and tactile tables) and time extensions (1.5× or 2×) for tests with complex tables for students with blindness. Additionally, it examined the challenges associated with the current test accommodations for students who are blind and explored practical strategies and considerations for educators teaching tactile table reading to these students. Methods: Forty students (20 with blindness and 20 with sight) aged 16–26 years participated. Four tasks containing print for students with sight and braille and tactile tables for students with blindness were administered. The completion time for each task was measured. The portion of students who could complete the tests within each time extension range was calculated. The traits of braille readers were quantitatively analyzed. Results: Although 70% of students finished the braille task (Task 1) within 1.5× and 100% within 2×, none could complete other complex table tasks (Tasks 2–4) within these time extensions. Significant individual variations in reading speed were observed in all table reading tasks, with no correlation between Task 1 and the other three tasks. Discussion: Findings suggest that current time extension recommendations may be inadequate for students who are blind and who need to interpret complex tables. Individual reading speed differences and a lack of correlation between braille and tactile table reading may be attributed to the complex haptic system and skills required for tactile table comprehension. Implications for Practitioners: The findings highlight the need for recognizing the shortfalls of current test accommodations for students with blindness. In addition, systematic instruction for tactile table reading, independent of braille reading, may be necessary to improve the reading skills of students with blindness.
AllenD. (2016). Japanese Cram schools and entrance exam washback. Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 54–67.
2.
AllmanC. (2009). Test access: Making tests accessible for students with visual impairments (4th ed.). American Printing House for the Blind.
3.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
4.
BallesterosS.HellerM. A. (2008). Haptic object identification. In M. Grunwald (Ed.), Human haptic perception: Basics and applications (pp. 207–222). Birkhäuser Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-7612-3_16
5.
Bates-BrantleyK.LabrotZ. C. (2020). High stakes testing. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1944–1947). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_673
6.
DinseH. R.WilimzigC.KalischT. (2008). Learning effects in haptic perception. In M. Grunwald (Ed.), Human haptic perception: Basics and applications (pp. 165–182). Birkhäuser Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-7612-3_13
7.
FreyJ.GillispieC. (2018). Special considerations for instruction and assessment: The accessibility needs of students with disabilities. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible instruction and testing practices (pp. 93–105). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71126-3
8.
HallahanD. P.KauffmanJ. M.PullenP. C. (2014). Learners with blindness or low vision. In D. P. Hallahan, J. M. Kauffman, & P. C. Pullen (Eds.), Exceptional learners: An introduction to special education (pp. 381–422). Pearson Education Limited.
9.
JonesB. D. (2007). The unintended outcomes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23(2), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1300/J370v23n02_05
10.
KimJ. S. (2012). The effect of “read-aloud” as a test accommodation for students with visual impairments in South Korea. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(6), 356–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210600605
11.
KomatsuH.RappleyeJ. (2018). Is exam hell the cause of high academic achievement in East Asia? The case of Japan and the case for transcending stereotypes. British Educational Research Journal, 44(5), 802–826. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3468
12.
LoomisJ. M.KlatzkyR. L.LedermanS. J. (1991). Similarity of tactual and visual picture recognition with limited field of view. Perception, 20(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1068/p200167
13.
MattinsonJ. (2012). Appropriate testing accommodations for blind test-takers: High stakes examinations. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 2(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.5241/2F2-28
14.
McDonnallM. C.TatchA. (2021). Educational attainment and employment for individuals with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 115(2), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X211000963
15.
National Higher Education Principal Association Braille Test Transcribing Division. (2021). Shikenmondai tenyaku youryou [Braille transcribing guidelines for tests].
16.
PhillipsS. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(2), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0702_1
17.
RoseD.RobinsonK.HallT.CoyneP.JacksonR.StahlW.WilcauskasS. (2018). Accurate and informative for all: Universal design for learning and the future of assessment. In S. N Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible instruction and testing practices (pp. 167–180). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71126-3
18.
RosenblumL. P.ZebehazyK. T.GageN.BealC. R. (2021). Experiences building graphics literacy skills: Interviews with teachers and students. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 115(6), 538–549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X211061619
19.
ŞenelS. (2021). Assessing measurement invariance of Turkish “central examination for secondary education institutions” for visually impaired students. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(4), 621–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09345-5
20.
SireciS.BandaE.WellsC. (2018). Promoting valid assessment of students with disabilities and English learners. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible instruction and testing practices (pp. 231–246). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71126-3
SmithD. W.AmatoS. (2012). Synthesis of available accommodations for students with visual impairments on standardized assessments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(5), 299–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210600505
23.
ZebehazyK. T.WiltonA. P. (2014). Straight from the source: Perceptions of students with visual impairments about graphic use. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 108(4), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1410800403
24.
ZebehazyK. T.WiltonA. P. (2021). Graphic Reading performance of students with visual impairments and its implication for instruction and assessment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 115(3), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X211016918
