Abstract
With complex, visual concepts prevailing in science and mathematics curricula, these subjects are often inaccessible to students with visual impairments (VI), leading to their underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers. While researchers have identified strategies that can facilitate students with VI’s learning within special schools, less is known about how students with VI access science and mathematics within a mainstream context, even though this is where the majority are educated. This seems important to address given the additional barrier students with VI face within mainstream schools, including negative attitudes from mainstream teachers. Consequently, the current study was conducted to explore how students with VI’s access to and learning of science and mathematics can be improved within the mainstream context. Two interviews were conducted with qualified teachers of children and young people with vision impairment (QTVIs), revealing the importance of classroom adaptations, such as hands-on experience and increased lesson time, to facilitate students with VI’s learning of science and mathematics. These findings are discussed in relation to policy and practice, suggesting mainstream teachers should be trained to make small but effective adaptations in their teaching, and that students with VI are given the opportunity to learn skills needed to become independent learners.
Keywords
Introduction
Exclusion and missed opportunities are experiences common to all people with visual impairments (VI), but especially within the realms of education. Historically, children with VI were educated in schools specifically designed for students with these disabilities; however, this approach came under scrutiny, with some arguing that the segregation of disabled children failed to promote a fully inclusive educational experience (Reiser & Mason, 1992). Consequently, over the years, there has been a movement away from special schools towards the inclusion of children with VI within mainstream education. Currently, 7 in 10 pupils with VI are educated in mainstream schools (Keil, 2012).
Although the inclusion of children with VI within mainstream schools enhances their social integration with sighted peers and can teach students to be accepting of individuals regardless of their disability (Metatla et al., 2019; Perles, 2010), the mainstream environment presents significant challenges for learners with VI: unlike special schools, mainstream schools have been designed primarily for children without disability where the requirements of learners with VI may not be met. These difficulties may become acute within the area of science, where teaching relies heavily on visual instruction. For example, Sahin and Yorek (2009) highlighted students with VI’s difficulty in understanding abstract concepts in science because they are typically presented visually as two-dimensional (2D) drawings (e.g., cell structure). The need for seeing becomes greater as students progress towards higher education and laboratory experiments become an essential part of their science curriculum; so much so, for some students with VI, they are never given the opportunity to conduct their own laboratory experiments, relying on teachers and peers to demonstrate them instead (Sahasrabudhe & Palvia, 2013). Students with VI face similar difficulties when engaging in the area of mathematics, where visual input, such as geometric shapes and graphs, are used to convey information that learners with VI have struggled to access (Sahasrabudhe & Palvia, 2013; Smith & Smothers, 2012). Unlike in science, visual instruction may be relied upon less as mathematics becomes more advanced; in some cases, visual aids are ineffective at conveying the more complex and abstract concepts found in higher-level mathematics (Bilal, 2017). However, the heavy reliance on visual instruction in the earlier stages of mathematics frequently dissuades students with VI from continuing with this subject to a high level (Bell & Silverman, 2019). In turn, there has been a low representation of students with VI in Science and Mathematics courses at university (Yusof et al., 2019) and in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers (Martin et al., 2011). Although there have been a number of foundational guides to assist teachers with methods of inclusive education (e.g., Argyropoulos & Gentle, 2019; Best, 1992; Holbrook & Koenig, 2000; Mason & McCall, 1997), it is clear that there is a need to understand how students with VI’s access to science and mathematics education can be improved within a mainstream context.
Interestingly, in schools for the blind, students with VI were provided with three-dimensional (3D) and tactile models of scientific and mathematical concepts (e.g., planets), so they could touch, explore, and understand these abstract concepts (Sahin & Yorek, 2009). Importantly, students with VI needed more time to learn these concepts than their sighted peers due to the time it took to explore the tactile models (Jones et al., 2004; Sahin & Yorek, 2009). Yet, when these accommodations are provided, students with VI have been found to master higher-order science and mathematics concepts just as well as their sighted peers (Jones et al., 2006; Klingenberg et al., 2012). Therefore, the inaccessibility of science and mathematics to learners with VI is not due to their own incapacity, but that there are insufficient accommodations in their learning environment. If mainstream schools are able to provide specialised pedagogical strategies and modified curricula similar to those used in special schools, it should enable students with VI to interpret and understand these visual concepts.
However, there needs to be caution when translating strategies from special schools to a mainstream context because they are different environments with their own individual challenges. Specifically, a significant barrier to students with VI’s learning within a mainstream context has been mainstream teachers holding negative attitudes towards teaching students with VI mathematics; students lost confidence in their own ability to learn mathematics mainly because their teachers gave them the impression that this subject was inaccessible to learners with sight problems (Bayram et al., 2015). These experiences have been echoed by students with VI in other research (Maguvhe, 2015; Sahasrabudhe & Palvia, 2013); therefore, even if learners with VI are provided with specialised materials and curricula in mainstream schools, such accommodations may be compromised by teacher attitudes. These findings highlight the barriers students with VI face when learning science and mathematics within a mainstream context and the need for support to allow effective inclusion to take place.
In the United Kingdom, this support is often provided by qualified teachers of children and young people with vision impairment (QTVIs): special education needs teachers (employed by local authorities) who teach specialist skills to students with VI (e.g., Braille, the use of specialist equipment and technology), while working closely with mainstream schools to ensure they are providing inclusive teaching for students with VI (Royal National Institute of Blind People [RNIB], 2015). Despite the crucial role of QTVIs in the education and support of students with VI, some local authorities and schools have reduced the employment of specialist staff to save money, leading to a shortage of QTVIs and unmanageable caseloads for those that are left (RNIB, 2015). Consequently, many students with VI are not receiving sufficient support when learning in mainstream schools (VIEW, 2020).
One solution, however, may be to encourage mainstream teachers to adopt an inclusive teaching approach, so that QTVIs are not entirely responsible for supporting students with VI in mainstream education. It has been found that mainstream teachers’ negative attitudes towards including students with VI in science and mathematics education stemmed from their lack of confidence and ability to teach these students (Maguvhe, 2015; Rule et al., 2011); if mainstream teachers are equipped with the knowledge and skills to adapt their teaching methods for learners with VI, these students can be equally as engaged and successful as their sighted peers in science and mathematics (Rule et al., 2011). Yet, although there is a large body of research exploring mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, less is known about the adjustments teachers should make when teaching students with VI in science and mathematics (Lamichhane, 2017): a gap that the current study aims to address.
It is clear from the above evidence that there are barriers preventing students with VI from studying science and mathematics within mainstream schools, even though this is where the majority are educated. Thus, the current study explores how students with VI’s access to and learning of science and mathematics can be improved within the mainstream context. Although there are differing types and degrees of VI, this study focuses particularly on the totally blind because they are considered to be the most vulnerable when learning science and mathematics within mainstream classrooms (Fraser & Maguvhe, 2008). Since science and mathematics curricula are highly visual in nature (Bell & Silverman, 2019), firstly the study aims to identify strategies and techniques that assist learners with VI to interpret this content. However, as previous research indicates (Bayram et al., 2015), equipping students with VI solely with strategies is insufficient; thus secondly the study aims to explore how learners with VI also need to be encouraged by teachers who have positive attitudes towards them and adapt their teaching methods accordingly. Therefore, by interviewing teachers, this study extends previous research that focuses solely on the way the learner with VI accesses their science and mathematics curricula (e.g., Sahin & Yorek, 2009), to incorporate and understand the role that mainstream teachers can play in improving learners with VI’s education. Here, we engaged in a qualitative research project using thematic analysis as this is a method that acknowledges participants as collaborators, allows for unanticipated insights, and for social as well as psychological interpretations of the results (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and followed best practice guidelines for this methodology (Levitt et al., 2018).
Method
To achieve the above aims, QTVIs were interviewed due to their experience in supporting students with VI’s learning in mainstream schools and training mainstream teachers to employ inclusive practices in their classroom. Given the topic’s underexplored nature, a qualitative approach was adopted because narrative accounts reveal unique insights into people’s experiences and recommendations for practice (Clarke & Jack, 1998), providing an in-depth exploration of the ways students with VI’s science and mathematics learning can be accommodated within the mainstream context.
The nature of education for children with VI in the United Kingdom is distributed, resulting in a concomitant lack of expertise in those who might be tasked with such teaching. The value of this research is in going in depth with two experts who are able to not just describe current practices but identify continuing challenges and potential solutions that need to be developed. Thus, the approach here is a qualitative study seeking depth and uncovering new insights rather than a broader (but more superficial) quantitative study where numerical reliability or a larger sample size would have been appropriate (Boddy, 2016). Our approach sought to maximise information power, often characterised as saturation in qualitative studies, that a focussed study with thematic analysis can provide (Malterud et al., 2016).
Interviews were conducted over telephone to enable the inclusion of teachers geographically far from the researcher. Moreover, the anonymous nature of telephones can help participants to feel relaxed, resulting in more open dialogue (Chapple, 1999). Two phone interviews were conducted and transcribed (using pseudonyms to protect interviewees’ anonymity). First, Qualified Teacher 1 (QT1) was interviewed, a QTVI who supports students with VI in their learning of science and mathematics in mainstream secondary education and advises mainstream teachers in making adaptations for learners with VI. Second, Qualified Teacher 2 (QT2) was interviewed, who leads a group of VI specialist teachers, teaches VI primary school level pupils, and runs training for mainstream teachers in mainstream schools. The QTVIs gave consent to participating in an interview that explored the methods they use when teaching students with VI science and mathematics, and how they believed mainstream schools could better accommodate learning for students with VI. An interview schedule was created for this study; it employed a semi-structured approach to encourage the QTVIs to bring forward experiences and knowledge they felt was important to the research topic, resulting in rich data (Gall et al., 2007). To help the QTVIs feel at ease and develop rapport at the start of the interview, they were invited to talk about the work they do, both with mainstream teachers and students with VI. Then, the QTVIs were asked to reflect on the challenges they face when teaching science and mathematics within mainstream schools, in light of the barriers students with VI have experienced within this context (Bell & Silverman, 2019). Given that there is limited research on the role of mainstream teachers in the inclusion of children with VI (Lamichhane, 2017), the QTVIs were asked how teaching methods can be adapted to support learners with VI in science and mathematics. Finally, evidence has revealed that some teachers hold negative attitudes towards teaching students with VI science and mathematics, which can impede their learning (Bayram et al., 2015; Maguvhe, 2015; Sahasrabudhe & Palvia, 2013); therefore, the QTVIs were asked whether they had experienced such attitudes when working with mainstream teachers. If so, the QTVIs were encouraged to reflect on where these attitudes might stem from and, most importantly, how to mitigate them; this approach was taken to fill a gap in the research literature and go beyond the state of the art in terms of guidance texts available (e.g., Argyropoulos & Gentle, 2019; Best, 1992; Holbrook & Koenig, 2000; Mason & McCall, 1997).
The interview data were analysed using thematic analysis to identify important patterns or ‘themes’ relating to the research aims (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The analysis was conducted following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) steps: (a) familiarising with the data by repeatedly reading the transcripts; (b) coding the data deductively (directed by previous literature) and inductively (guided by the data itself); (c) assimilating similar codes into themes; (d) reviewing the themes; (e) naming the themes according to their overarching message; and (f) writing up the analysis findings. The thematic analysis resulted in the development of five, key themes, which are explored below.
Findings
Exploring through experience
Unsurprisingly, science and mathematics were identified by interviewees as the most challenging subjects for students with VI to learn because their curricula are dominated by visually oriented concepts and information:
Concept development refers to the basic understanding of concrete objects (e.g., car, rabbit) and intangible ideas and feelings (e.g., colours, emotions) that is necessary to make sense of one’s world (Olayi & Ewa, 2014). Given that children develop an understanding of concepts through active exploration and play (Piaget, 1936), concept development is often delayed in children with VI because they lack the visual cues which drive a child to interact with their environment (Durkel, 2004). Thus, as QT2 highlights, it is vital that children with VI are provided with direct, hands-on experience to allow them to develop a strong conceptual foundation.
Examples of how to incorporate such experience within the classroom were given:
3D models can provide children with VI with a means of exploring visual stimuli often presented two-dimensionally. However, QT2 highlights a limitation of this method, in that children cannot gain an understanding of the size and scale of the object that the 3D model is representing. Therefore, where possible, it is important to provide the child with VI with an opportunity to explore the object in real life. In turn, the child is able to relate and integrate separate pieces of information (e.g., leaf, stick) to form a meaningful, overarching concept (e.g., tree).
Providing hands-on experience can become more challenging, however, as the child progresses into secondary education, and scientific and mathematical concepts become more abstract. For instance, during a scientific experiment, a student with VI is unable to use touch to detect a colour change in a chemical reaction. Yet, technology might provide a solution to this problem:
Indeed, smartphone applications (e.g., EyeMusic, vOICe) have been developed to provide students with VI with a multisensory perception of colour change observed in chemical experiments: the ‘Titration ColorCam’ records and converts colour information (e.g., hue, saturation) into beep sounds and vibrations to denote colour change and an experiment’s endpoint (Bandyopadhyay & Rathod, 2017). Consequently, technology can enable students with VI to actively engage in laboratory experiments – an aspect of the science curriculum that students with VI have previously been discouraged from (Sahasrabudhe & Palvia, 2013).
Understanding visual data
Not only have experiments been typically inaccessible for learners with VI, but a prevalent issue in science and mathematics is data analysis, which often relies on the visual presentation of data. Indeed, in Cahill, Lineham, McCarthy, Bormans and Engelen’s (1996) research, blind students rated the graphical-spatial aspects of mathematics as being the most difficult. Thus, there is a need to convey this information in an alternative format:
It seems, therefore, that graphs will be more accessible and have greater educational value for students with VI if they can be ‘read’ using the sense of touch. Similarly, sonification has been used successfully to provide students with VI access to data presented visually in graphs (Metatla et al., 2016); in auditory graphs, values on the y-axis are represented through different pitches (i.e., data points low on the axis have a low pitch), whereas those on the x-axis are mapped spatially (i.e., data points on the left of the axis are played through the left speaker).
Yet, according to QT2, simply having access to specialist equipment or technology is insufficient if the child with VI does not possess the skills to use it:
Here, QT2 highlights the importance of a specialist curriculum, where the QTVI teaches learners with VI the skills and knowledge needed to interact and actively participate with their learning, such as how to ‘read’ tactile stimuli. In this way, the teacher can ‘scaffold’ the child’s learning (Wood et al., 1976), equipping them with basic tactile skills that can be used as a foundation to master more complex, tactile imagery in the future. Whereas in a school for the blind, skills lessons are often incorporated into the core timetable (New College Worchester, 2019), in the mainstream context there are time constraints because learners with VI have to be taught these skills in addition to an already full academic curriculum. Yet, as QT2 notes, without these skills, students with VI find it difficult to learn core curriculum subjects such as mathematics and science; thus, it is vital to find ways of integrating the specialist curriculum within the mainstream context.
Finding time
The volume of work in science and mathematics curricula can present further problems when learners with VI are utilising their specialist equipment in the mainstream classroom:
Since VI are a low-incidence disability, the student with VI is often the only learner with VI in their mainstream class (de Verdier, 2018). Therefore, lesson speed is more likely to be determined by the ability of the majority (i.e., sighted pupils) which poses problems for the learner with VI who is using time-consuming, specialist equipment. Nonetheless, placing the student with VI in a lower set may provide a solution:
Therefore, living with VI does not mean an individual is incapable of excelling at certain activities in a mainstream classroom though they may require more time to cover the same topics as their sighted peers (Jones et al., 2004; Sahin & Yorek, 2009), which a lower set might facilitate.
Further, time can be saved by preparing specialised materials in advance (e.g., raised diagrams) and this also ensures that students with VI are more self-reliant:
Small adjustments make the biggest difference
The role of QTVIs in supporting students with VI in their science and mathematics education does not exempt mainstream teachers from their responsibility to provide an accessible learning environment. It is essential that mainstream teachers plan accommodations in their teaching methods and content prior to each lesson:
However, a common finding in previous literature is that mainstream teachers have insufficient knowledge of how teaching can be adapted to suit students with VI’s needs (Mwakyeja, 2013). Nevertheless, QT1 was able to provide some valuable insight:
Although there is a lack of confidence among mainstream teachers in the implementation of inclusive teaching for students with VI, QT1 suggests it is not as complex as it may seem: simple modifications in teaching can make the biggest differences for learners with VI.
Training the teacher
It seems, therefore, that there is a need to train mainstream teachers in how to adapt the science and mathematics curricula for those without sight:
Unsurprisingly, some mainstream teachers are more willing than others to learn how to meet the needs of learners with VI. Reluctance might stem from the various pressures teachers are under and they may feel overwhelmed by the responsibility of supporting a learner with VI in addition to their heavy workload. However, working in a team with the VI specialists may alleviate some of this pressure, creating a sense of shared responsibility towards supporting the learner with VI:
Further, it seems unrealistic to expect mainstream teachers to learn all the specialist skills necessary to meet the needs of students with VI, given that they may teach for many years, or even for their whole career, without having a pupil with VI in their class (Training and Development Agency for Schools, 2009). Instead, it may be better to focus on mainstream teachers learning to make small adjustments to their teaching, which benefit all students:
Discussion
With abstract, visual concepts prevailing in science and mathematics curricula, these subjects have traditionally been inaccessible to students with VI (Sahin & Yorek, 2009). Thus, the current study was conducted first to identify strategies that could assist learners with VI in interpreting this visual content. Throughout the interviews, incorporating hands-on experience within the mainstream classroom was identified as essential. As highlighted in previous literature (Sahin & Yorek, 2009), 3D models allow children with VI to explore and understand concepts typically presented two-dimensionally, such as the solar system and mathematical shapes. However, the current study emphasises that, where possible, children should be given the opportunity to actually explore real objects, to learn about the world and develop a strong conceptual foundation (Piaget, 1936). In fact, hands-on teaching has also been found to enhance sighted students’ learning of and achievement in science and mathematics (Savelsbergh et al., 2016); this is due to the brain’s superior ability to learn and memorise information when processed through multiple senses (Shams & Seitz, 2008). Consequently, implementing multisensory teaching methods (e.g., tactile, 3D models of planets) can benefit all children in mainstream education, regardless of whether or not they have a disability.
Although implementing hands-on activities and resources becomes more challenging within secondary education as concepts become more abstract, emerging technologies (e.g., ‘Titration ColorCam’) and creative solutions (e.g., raised graph paper) can empower students with VI to actively engage in all aspects of the science and mathematics curricula. However, it is essential that students with VI are taught, in advance, the skills needed to effectively utilise specialist equipment. In the United Kingdom, this knowledge (alongside independence and social skills) is taught by the QTVI as part of the ‘additional curriculum’, which is viewed not as superfluous to the core curriculum but integral to it (Keil, 2016). Nevertheless, since mainstream schools in England are assessed on how well their pupils attain academically, provision for students with VI tends to focus on short-term benefits (i.e., providing learning materials in accessible formats) rather than taking a long-term perspective and teaching students with VI the skills needed to become independent learners (Keil & Cobb, 2019). Indeed, similar to the current study, research revealed the challenges of incorporating an additional curriculum into the school day, especially at secondary school level which is dominated by the academic timetable; Pavey et al. (2002) observed that creating space in crowded timetables for mobility training often meant withdrawing students with VI from non-academic subjects or break times: ‘It seems ironic that some of the lessons (and social times) which provide opportunities for including mobility and independence in mainstream education are sacrificed’ (p.70). There seems to be a need to develop a framework that provides solutions to these problems; as recommended by Keil and Cobb (2019), these guidelines could be created from evaluating current work in VI services that focuses on combining the specialist VI and standard academic curricula.
Additional challenges in the mainstream context were revealed in this study, including time pressures when students with VI are using specialist equipment due to fast-paced and content-heavy lessons. Further adaptations are therefore essential, such as placing students with VI in lower sets and preparing materials in advance. These findings highlight the importance of research within mainstream schools to identify and mitigate against challenges specific to this context. Yet, previous literature in this field has tended to look within the special needs context (e.g., Fraser & Maguvhe, 2008; Sahin & Yorek, 2009), even though now most students with VI attend mainstream schools. By addressing this gap in literature, it is hoped that the current study makes a valuable contribution to the research knowledge and can serve as a future reference for similar studies.
A further contribution of this study is that it explores the role of mainstream teachers in the education of learners with VI because arguably, students with VI will not excel in science and mathematics as long as the teaching methods applied in the classrooms are not conducive to them (Mmbaga, 2002). Indeed, in the current study, interviewees emphasised the importance of QTVIs working with mainstream teachers to include accommodations for students with VI in their lesson plans; yet, mainstream teachers may be reluctant to do this due to existing work pressures. Thus, it may be more effective to train mainstream teachers in making smaller adaptations that benefit all students (e.g., standing in one place, facing students, clear descriptions), rather than all the specialist skills needed to accommodate students with VI’s education. These findings are consistent with previous research recommending that mainstream teachers undergo training to be equipped with the knowledge and skills to teach students with VI (Maguvhe, 2015; Mwakyeja, 2013), but they also extend this literature by specifying the type of training required (i.e., small but effective modifications in teaching methods).
While this study offers important insights, the small-scale qualitative design calls for future research that can extend these findings. As noted, here we focussed on information power and qualitative depth (Boddy, 2016; Malterud et al., 2016), yet future works that take a quantitative approach on a wider scale for confirmation would be informative. It would be interesting to investigate if equipping mainstream teachers with the skills to implement inclusive practises has an impact on their attitudes and students with VI’s engagement in science and mathematics. In addition, it may be valuable for researchers to observe and compare the teaching of science and mathematics to students with VI in special needs and mainstream contexts, to identify strategies that may be effective in both settings and the challenges specific to these contexts. Observation seems particularly important to incorporate in the methodology of future research because through observation, it was found that teachers did not adapt methods to teach students with VI in the same way they reported in interviews (Mwakyeja, 2013).
Overall, educating students with VI within a mainstream setting has been said to improve social integration between sighted and non-sighted pupils (Perles, 2010); yet, without sufficient accommodations, students with VI will feel anything but included. It is hoped that this study offers valuable insight into the ways students with VI’s learning can be improved within the mainstream context and alongside future research, can enable these students to explore the realms of science and mathematics that have been so difficult for them to learn for so long.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: M.J.P. research is partially supported by funding from the EPSRC (grant no. EP/T022523/1) for CAMERA 2.0, the UKRI Centre for the Analysis of Motion, Entertainment Research and Applications, and the AHRC (grant no. AH/T004673/1); M.J.P. is now also affiliated with Reality Labs Research, Meta LLC.
