This article contends that the ongoing debate about the necessity of vision in teaching cane travel is misguided. The debate as traditionally framed is dissolved once the focus is shifted from the instructor's teaching to the student's learning. Kuhn's analysis of scientific revolutions and the importance of the cognitive dimension in cane travel are used to propose an alternative model of rehabilitation teaching.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DoddsA.G. (1984). A report to R.N.I.B. on a visit to Nebraska Services for the Visually Impaired (Report No. 138 to the Royal National Institute for the Blind). Nottingham, England: Blind Mobility Research Unit, University of Nottingham.
2.
DoddsA.G. (1985). Mobility: Blind instructors?—2.The New Beacon, 69(819), 198–200.
3.
KuhnT.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., enlarged). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
MettlerR. (1987). Blindness and managing the environment.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 81, 476–481.
5.
MettlerR. (1990). An integrated, problem-solving approach to low vision training.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 84, 171–177.
6.
SchmidtR.A. (1975). Motor skills.New York: Harper & Row.
7.
SchmidtR.A. (1991). Motor learning and performance.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.
8.
SingerR.N. (1978). Motor skills and learning strategies. In O'NeilH.F. (Ed.), Learning strategies (pp. 79–106). New York: Academic Press.
9.
SingerR.N. (1980). Motor behavior and the role of cognitive processes and learner strategies. In StelmachG.E., & RequinJ. (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 591–603). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
10.
WienerW.R. (1981). Body of knowledge in O&M.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75, 339–341.
11.
WienerW.R., BlivenH.S., BushD., LigammariK., & NewtonC. (1992). The need for vision in teaching orientation and mobility.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86, 54–57.
