Currently, there is a great need for inclusive practices and materials for visually impaired students (SVIs), especially from Biology. Thus, we developed two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) didactic models about cytology as well as a modeling-clay-based evaluation method. The two-dimensional tactile atlas included the representation of organelles with an explanatory text in two formats (written and Braille), whereas the 3D human cell model was made with a colorful polymer clay pasta. These models were tested by students of public schools, with and without visual impairment as well as by teachers of science/biology. Their perceptions were analyzed by using questionnaires, whereas the modeling clay-based evaluation method was used with the SVIs to identify their level of understanding about the cellular structures presented to them. According to all participants including SVIs, both materials facilitated the understanding of cell organelles. Interestingly, the modeling clay-based evaluation method confirmed that this blind audience could see (distinguish) as many details as those who have no visual impairment. Our results strengthen the fact that this blind public depends on the accessibility level that, apparently, is offered by our 2D and 3D models to them. In agreement with that conclusion, all teachers pointed this strategy as helpful to this public especially during teaching these overly complex topics.
AlmeidaE. A.AraújoT. G.TorresD. F. (2007). Modeling three-dimensional cladograms and learning concepts in phylogenetic systematics. In IV National Conference on Epistemology of Education Sciences—CNECE, Natal (Vol. 1, p. 1–4).
2.
AndradeA. F. D.VicariR. M. (2003). Building a distance learning environment inspired by Vygotsky’s socio-interactionist conception. In SilvaM. (Ed.), Online education (pp. 255–270). Loyola.
AraújoL. F. F.AguiarR. (2018). Quadratic function for blind students: A proposal for standardization of tactile graphics. Luso-Brazilian Education Colloquium. COLBEDUCA.
5.
BacichL.MoranJ. (2018). Active methodologies for innovative education: A theoretical-practical approach. Penso Editora.
6.
BarnesJ.LibertiniJ. (2013). Introduction to special issue on tactile learning activities. Primus, 23(7), 585–589.
7.
BastosK. M.FariaJ. M. (2011). Application of didactic models to approach the animal and plant cells, a case study. In Biosphere Encyclopedia (Vol. 7, no.13, pp. 1867–1877). Scientific Center Knowing.
8.
BatistaC. G. (2005). Concept formation in blind children: Theoretical questions and educational implications. Psychology: Theory and Research, 21, 7–15.
9.
Beck-WinchatzB.RiccobonoM. A. (2008). Advancing participation of blind students in science, technology, engineering, and math. Advances in Space Research, 42(11), 1855–1858.
CamposL. M. L.BortolotoT. M.FelícioA. K. C. (2003). The production of educational games for the teaching of Science and Biology: A proposal to favor learning. Teaching Centers da Unesp.
13.
CarvalhoA. T.da SilvaA. S. R.FenandesA. F. C.PagliucaL. M. F. (2014). Health education for the blind: Evaluation of accessibility of an inclusive online course. Creative Education, 5(16), 1559.
14.
CerqueiraJ. B.FerreiraE. D. M. B. (1996). Didactic resources in special education. Benjamin Constant, 5, 24–29.
15.
ChildersG.WatsonK.JonesM. G.WilliamsonK.HoetteV. (2015). Touching the stars: Making astronomy accessible for students with visual impairments. Science Scope, 38(9), 20.
16.
DantasA. P. J.DantasT. A. V.FariasM. I. R.SilvaR. P.CostaN. P. (2016). Importance of using didactic models in cytology teaching. In III National Congress of Education—CONEDU. Campina Grande: Realize Editora. http://www.editorarealize.com.br/artigo/visualizar/21223
17.
DewsburyB.BrameC. J. (2019). Inclusive teaching. Life Sciences Education, 18(2), e1–e5.
18.
DieselA.BaldezA. L. S.MartinsS. N. (2017). The principles of active teaching methodologies: A theoretical approach. Journal Theme, 14(1), 268–288.
GongG.LiuS. (2016). Consideration of evaluation of teaching at colleges. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4, 82–84.
21.
GravenT.EmsleyI.BirdN.GriffithsS. (2020). Improved access to museum collections without vision: How museum visitors with very low or no vision perceive and process tactile–auditory pictures. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 38(1), 79–103.
22.
HarshmanJ.BretzS. L.YezierskiE. (2013). Seeing chemistry through the eyes of the blind: A case study examining multiple gas law representations. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(6), 710–716.
23.
KastrupV. (2007). The invention at your fingertips: The reversal of attention in visually impaired people. Psychology in Revista. Belo Horizonte, 13(1), 69–90.
24.
LaraM. V.BorgesS. (2014). Learning objects as adjuvants to the teaching and learning process of human physiology. Biochemistry Teaching Journal, Rio Grande do Sul, 12(1), 36–44.
LopezM.Gavin KearneyG.HofstädterK. (2020). Seeing films through sound: Sound design, spatial audio, and accessibility for visually impaired audiences. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619620935935
27.
LyrioE.DelouC.MarinhoL.CastroH. C. (2014). ATMK: A Monera Kingdom Atlas for presenting cell morphology and biotechnology for visually impaired students. Creative Education, 5(4), 290–296.
28.
MarinhoL.CastroH.LyrioE.DelouC. (2016). Construction of an affordable, tactile, didactical and inclusive material aimed to teach biology and biotechnology to blind and visually impaired students. Creative Education, 7, 2666–2677.
29.
MichelottiA.LoretoE. L. S. (2019). Use of tactile didactic models as a methodology for teaching cell biology in inclusive classes with visually impaired people. Context & Education Magazine, 34, Article 10.
MrechL. M. (2001). What is inclusive education?Integration, 10(20), 37–40.
32.
NicolaidesC.FernandesV. (2007). Autonomy: Criteria for the choice of teaching material and its implications. In LeffaV. J. (Ed.), Production of teaching materials: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 44–68). Pelotas: Educat.
PalaioS. C. S.AlmeidaM. V. L.PatrezeC. M. (2018). Development of 3D printed models for science education. Teaching Science and Technology in Magazine, 8(3), 70–82.
35.
PereiraR. S.De Abreu FreitasR. G.SilvaF. A. S.LazzarettiA. N.PeixotoA. A.de LimaE. T. C.. . . de Carvalho CamargoW. L. (2021). IFAC science space: Teaching, research and extension in favor of meaningful learning. In Discourses, practices, ideas and subjectivities in education (Vol. 4, pp. 119–131). Organizers: Américo Junior Nunes da Silva, Ilvanete dos Santos de Souza, Reinaldo Feio Lima, Atena.
36.
PinhoT. M. M.DelouC. M. C.LimaN. R. W. (2016). Origami as a tool to teach geometry for blind students. Creative Education, 7(17), 2652–2665.
37.
PowerC.JürgensenH. (2010). Accessible presentation of information for people with visual disabilities. Universal Access in the Information Society, 9(2), 97–119.
38.
QiannaS. (2021). Evaluation model of classroom teaching quality based on improved RVM algorithm and knowledge recommendation. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 40(2), 2457–2467.
39.
ReedM.CurtisK. (2012). Experiences of students with visual impairments in Canadian higher education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(7), 414–425.
40.
RuleA. C. (2011). Tactile Earth and space science materials for students with visual impairments: Contours, craters, asteroids, and features of Mars. Journal of Geoscience Education, 59(4), 205–218.
41.
SantosJ. F. L.BritoM. F. G. (2019). Inclusive education: Fish didactic model for visually impaired students in Science and Biology teaching. Science & Ideas Magazine, 10(3), 203–206.
42.
SoaresK. D. A.CastroH. C.DelouM. C. (2015). Astronomy for the visually impaired: Innovating in accessible teaching materials. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 14(3), 377–391.
43.
SouzaR.DelouC. M.MyriamB. V.MachadoS.RodriguesC. R.CastroH. C. (2012). Blindness and fungi kingdom: A new approach for teaching a biological theme for students with special visual needs. Creative Education, 3(5), 674–678.
SupaloC. A.IsaacsonM. D.LombardiM. V. (2014). Making hands-on science learning accessible for students who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(2), 195–199.
WedlerH. B.BoyesL.DavisR. L.FlynnD.FranzA.HamannC. S.. . .TantilloD. J. (2014). Nobody can see atoms: Science camps highlighting approaches for making chemistry accessible to blind and visually impaired students. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(2), 188–194.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
