Children studied and were then tested for immediate recall of the braille and the Fishburne alphabets. Half studied braille first, the rest Fishburne. Comparisons both within subjects and between subjects showed better performance with the Fishburne alphabet and more frequent identification of its structure than of that of braille. Possible uses for the Fishburne alphabet are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Dixon, M., (1991), personal communication, 24 May.
2.
Newman, S.E., Bardi, C.A. and Craig, R.A. (1989), Learning alphabets for the blind: Effects of study time and test order, presented at meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
3.
Newman, S.E., Craig, R.A., Inman, L.K., Pitt, E.L. and McKinnon, M.A. (1990), Effects of congruence of study- and test-orders on learning alphabets for the blind, presented at meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.
4.
Newman, S.E. and Hall, A.D. (1988), Ease of learning the Braille and Fishburne alphabets , Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 82, 148-149.
5.
Shafrath, M.R. (1986), An alternative to Braille, Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 80, 955-956.
6.
Stone, C.V., Newman, S.E., Craig, R.A. and Brugler, T.S. (1987), Learning alphabets for the blind: Effects of information about structure, presented at meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Seattle, WA.
7.
Thurlow, E.R. (1986), Some comparisons of characteristics of alphabetic codes for the deaf-blind, Human Factors, 28, 175-186.
8.
Thurlow, W.R. (1988), An alternative to Braille, Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 82, 378.
9.
Young, P.S. (1979), A new alphabet for the blind, The Record, 5, 7-8, 20.
