This article discusses the assessment procedures based on the Look and Think Checklist. The theoretical justification for the inclusion of some of the tasks is questioned on the grounds that they rely on age, intelligence and level of experience, rather than on vision. The results of two pieces of small-scale research are given in support of the conclusions reached.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barraga, N.C. (1964), Increased Visual Behaviour in Low Vision Children , American Foundation for the Blind, New York.
2.
Bower, T. (1977), The Perceptual World of the Child, Fontana.
3.
Bryant, P. (1974), Perception and Understanding in Young Children , Methuen, London.
4.
Chapman, E.K., Tobin, M.J., Tooze, F.H. and Moss, S. (1979), Look and Think: a Handbook for Teachers, Schools Council (RNIB), London.
5.
Chapman, E.K., Tobin, M.J., Tooze, F.H. and Moss, S. (1989), Look and Think: a Handbook for Teachers, (2nd edition), RNIB, London.
6.
Dunnett, J. (1991), The development of a checklist of functional vision in young children, unpubhshed MSc. dissertation, Cranfield Institute of Technology.
7.
Lindstedt, E. (1985), How well does a child see?, SRF Tal and Punkt, Stockholm.
8.
Miller, P.H. (1983), Theories of Developmental Psychology, Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
9.
Piaget, J. (1965), How Children Form Mathematical Concepts; in P.H. Mussen, J.J. Conger and J. Kagan, Readings in Child Development and Personality, Harper and Row.
