An innovative program for teaching orientation and mobility (O&M) to students with severe sensory and cognitive impairments in the New York City public schools was developed on the premise that these students do not have to master prerequisite concepts and techniques to learn O&M. It incorporated tactile and tangible communication systems to teach O&M and was structured so mobility education was embedded in the students’ daily activities in school and at home. This article examines the traditional model of O&M and the assumptions about how such students learn to be mobile, describes the evolution of this innovative program, and presents guidelines for planning and implementing similar programs in other educational and rehabilitation settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FalveyM.A. (1989). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
2.
GallagherW.F. (1989). Foreword. In ErinJ.N. (Ed.), Dimensions: Selected papers from the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness on visually impaired persons with multiple disabilities (p. v). New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
3.
GatesC.F. (1985). Survey of multiply handicapped, visually impaired children in the Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Region.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 79, 385–391.
4.
GeeK., & GoetzL. (1985). Outcomes of instructing orientation and mobility across purposeful travel routes in natural environments. Unpublished manuscript, San Francisco State University, Department of Special Education.
5.
GeeK., HarrellR., & RosenbergR. (1987). Teaching orientation and mobility skills within and across natural opportunities for travel: A model designed for learners with multiple severe disabilities. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 127–157). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
6.
HillE., & PonderP. (1976). Orientation and mobility techniques: A guide for the practitioner.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
7.
JoffeeE. (1987). The role of electronic travel aids.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 81, 389–390.
8.
JoffeeE. (1989). Developing O&M services for severely and profoundly retarded students in the New York City public schools.Long Cane News, 8(1), 3–4.
9.
JoffeeE. (in press). Orientation and mobility for students with dual sensory impairments. In RikhyeC.H. (Ed.), Functional life skills for students with dual sensory impairments: A handbook for parents and instructional staff.Albany, NY: New York State Education Department, Title VI-C Project.
10.
KeisterE. (1990). AIDS & vision loss.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
11.
LyonJ. (1985). Playing God in the nursery.New York: W.W. Norton.
12.
RikhyeC., GothelfC., & AppellM. (1989). A classroom environment checklist for students with dual sensory impairments.Teaching Exceptional Children, 22, 44–46.
13.
RowlandC., & SchweigertP. (1990). Tangible symbol systems: Symbolic communication for individuals with multi-sensory impairments.Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.
14.
RowlandC., & Stremel-CampbellK. (1987). Share and share alike: Conventional gestures to emergent language for learners with sensory impairments. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 49–76). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
15.
Siegel-CauseyE., & GuessD. (1989). Enhancing nonsymbolic communications among learners with severe disabilities.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.
16.
SnellM.E. (1983). Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped (2nd Ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
17.
SternliebG., HughesJ.W., & HughesC.O.Demographic trends and economic reality: Planning and markets in the 80's.New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research.
18.
StillmanR.D., & BattleC.W. (1984). Developing prelanguage communication in the severely handicapped: An interpretation of the Van Dijk method.Seminars in Speech and Language, 5(3), 159–170.
19.
UslanM.M., HillE.W., & PeckA.F. (1989). The profession of orientation and mobility in the 1980s: The AFB competency study.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
20.
WarrenS.F., HornE.H., & HillE.W. (1987). Applications of advanced technologies. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 283–309). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
21.
WriterJ. (1987). A movement-based approach to the education of students who are sensory impaired/multihandicapped. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 191–224). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
