Adequacy of the Regular Early Education Classroom Environment for Students With Visual Impairment

Abstract

This study describes the classroom environment that students with visual impairment typically experience in regular Australian early education. Adequacy of the classroom environment (teacher training and experience, teacher support, parent involvement, adult involvement, inclusive attitude, individualization of the curriculum, physical environment, and vision aids) for students with visual impairment in early regular education was assessed at the start and the end of one year. A total of 20 students with visual impairment (age M = 5.4 years) attending regular early education participated. In general, teacher-reported curriculum individualization and the physical environment were adequate. However, support provided for staff, teacher training, adult involvement, access to visual aids, and inclusive attitudes were less than adequate. More than 40% of students experienced fewer than four out of nine adequate environmental features. These results indicate that strategies to improve teacher training, support, attitudes, and access to vision aids are needed.

Keywords

visual impairment Australian early education teacher–student interactions early childhood

The inclusion movement has resulted in an overhaul of educational legislation and policies, but questions remain regarding whether this has translated into inclusive education practices. Inclusive education refers to regular education programs appropriate to the physical, curricular, and social needs of all students, including those with disabilities (Foreman, 2008). As per students with disabilities in general, concerns exist about the experience of inclusion for students with visual impairment in regular classrooms (Brambring, 2001; McGaha & Farran, 2001). Parents report that the quality of inclusion varies dramatically among Australian schools (Royal Blind Society [RBS] & Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children [RIDBC], 1999). This poses a significant issue for students with visual impairment.

Visual impairment ranges from low vision to total blindness and has a potentially negative effect on all domains of development (Dale & Sonksen, 2002). In addition, it limits access to visual instruction (Pagliano, 2002) and can impede interaction with peers (Erwin, Alimaras, & Price, 1999). Attendance at regular, local schools is the norm for most children with visual impairment in Australia. However, it is unknown whether regular schools provide an adequately inclusive environment for these students.

The International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (World Health Organization, 2001) argues that the environment is an important modifier of participation. Environmental factors relate to the physical elements of an environment as well as the supports and relationships, attitudes and services, and systems and policies found within a specific context. Despite the perceived importance of environmental factors, little is known about the adequacy of the environment for students with visual impairment in regular education. The relative importance of the environmental factors in the inclusion of young students with visual impairment has been examined in only one study (Lane, 2008), in which the collective views of multiple stakeholders (students with visual impairment and their parents, teachers, and service providers) were canvassed and prioritized. The top nine environmental stakeholder-generated factors were: inclusive attitude of the teacher, attitude of the school, individualization of the curriculum, support for the teacher, parent involvement, teacher training and experience in inclusion and visual impairment, the physical environment, adult involvement, and access to vision aids and equipment. Although this represents stakeholder beliefs that these are critical factors, the adequacy of these factors for students with visual impairment in Australia is unknown. What is known is further described under four broad categories.

Services, Systems, and Policies

The Australian Disability Standards for Education came into effect in 2005 under the Disability Discrimination Act (2006). The standards specify the ways in which school enrolment, participation, curriculum development and delivery, and student support services are to be made accessible to students with disabilities. However, Australian teachers and parents report that the underlying systems to support inclusion—training (Loreman, Deppeler, & Harvey, 2005; RBS & RIDBC, 1999), resources (Ingram, 2004), and support for teachers (Epstein-Frisch, 2000; Loreman & Deppeler, 2000)—are currently insufficient to meet these standards.

In Australia, itinerant teachers of the vision impaired (TVIs) and allied health professionals (e.g., occupational therapists, speech pathologists, and orientation and mobility instructors) provide support to regular classroom teachers and students with visual impairment. The student may also qualify for an education assistant in the class. The allocation of time and support provided generally depends on the needs of the individual student, the severity of his or her condition, education department guidelines, resourcing, and workforce availability. The current study assesses the level of support and training that is provided to the staff who teach students with visual impairment.

Supports and Relationships

Two types of relationships are investigated in this article: parental involvement in their children’s schooling and the appropriateness of the involvement of other adults with students with visual impairment in the classroom. Previous research has not addressed parental involvement. However, studies of students with visual impairment have observed that the balance of responsive and nonintrusive adult involvement can influence social and academic inclusion in early education (Crocker & Orr, 1996; Erwin et al., 1999; Kekelis, 1992). In contrast, authors warn that overly attentive adults may lead to overdependence among students with visual impairment (Lewis & Allman, 2000). The close presence of an adult has been observed to interfere with social interactions (Kekelis, 1992) and independent work (Davis & Hopwood, 2002). It is unknown whether these are isolated instances or whether students commonly experience inadequate levels of adult support.

Attitudes

This study examines the attitude of schools and of classroom teachers toward inclusion. Parents have emphasized that these attitudes are important for the inclusion of students with visual impairment (RBS & RIDBC, 1999). Disturbingly, teachers have reported negative attitudes toward the inclusion of students who are blind and an “uncertainty” toward those with moderate visual impairment (Wall, 2002). Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the commitment of Australian schools toward inclusion (Forlin, 1995), and it has been suggested that many schools require a serious shift in the way that inclusion and the teachers who are providing it are viewed within schools. These concerns are addressed in this article.

Physical Factors

The adequacy of the general physical classroom environment and of specific vision aids and equipment for students with visual impairment is examined in this study. Accepted guidelines exist for the general physical features of the school and classroom for students with visual impairment. They relate to the physical layout (e.g., student seating position) and the use of lighting, contrast (e.g., bold or color-contrasted activities, whiteboards rather than chalk blackboards), magnification (e.g., large print books), and tactile and audio features. However, reports have described situations where such appropriate physical accommodations were not made in regular classrooms (Leyser & Heinze, 2001; Lieberman, Robinson, & Rollheiser, 2006). Furthermore, specialized optical and nonoptical vision aids (e.g., magnifiers, CCTVs) and equipment (e.g., Braille writers) are commonly prescribed to provide access to visual activities for people with low vision and blindness. However, educators commonly perceive that these aids act as barriers to social interaction (Ingram, 2004; Smith, Geruschat, & Huebner, 2004). This perception may limit their use in regular classrooms.

This article examines the environment that students with visual impairment experience in regular early education. It describes the adequacy of the environmental factors identified by Lane (2008), 10 weeks into a school year. It also describes changes in these environmental factors at the conclusion of the school year. Changes are described to test the assumption that schools and parents would implement changes to improve the environment for students with visual impairment during the course of the year.

Method

Design

A prospective design was used (a) to describe the environment that students with visual impairment experience in regular early education, (b) to compare their outcomes to sighted peers, and (c) to examine the factors predicting positive outcomes up to 2 years later. This article reports findings on the adequacy of the environment (Lane, 2008) for students with visual impairment during the first year only. Other results will be reported elsewhere.

Participants

Students from across Australia with visual impairment attending a regular classroom in a regular early education program or school were the focus of the study. Those with disabilities secondary to visual impairment were included. Early education included both compulsory and noncompulsory education and ranged from grade levels two years prior to Grade 1 (i.e., kindergarten and preprimary programs) through to Grade 1. In Australia, the level immediately prior to Grade 1 is typically called preprimary, whereas the level or levels prior to that are typically called kindergarten. Students who had been retained a grade level or commenced school late were excluded from the study.

To obtain a sufficient sample, two cohorts of participants were recruited: one cohort commencing school in 2005, the other in 2006. This article reports on the combined sample. Students with visual impairment were recruited by letter of invitation sent via vision agencies in four Australian states: Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. Following parent consent, principal and teacher consent was obtained. The Curtin University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee and state departments of education, where required, provided ethical approval. Support was also obtained from the vision agencies involved. Procedures adhered to the National Health and Medical Research Committee, Australia.

Variables and Measurement Tools

Demographic information

Parents reported visual, disability, and sociodemographic data about their children.

Teacher Opinion Questionnaire

The Teacher Opinion Questionnaire (Larrivee & Cook, 1979), modified for the Australian context (Bennet, 2003; Hudson & Clunies-Ross, 1984), measured teachers’ attitude toward inclusion. The modified 15-item, three-factor scale that was use used has demonstrated strong reliability and internal consistency (Bennet, 2003; see Table 1). Items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (never to always) were summed (with scores reversed for relevant items), with high values indicating positive attitude.

Table 1.

Content and Administration of Instruments Used

Instrument	Administration	Item content	Dichotomous cutoffs
Teacher Opinion Questionnaire	15-item teacher-rated questionnaire	General Attitudes: teacher’s perspective of the benefits of inclusion	Good: total score 60–75
		Teacher Ability: teacher’s perception of his or her expertise and training to include students with disabilities	Poor: total score 15–59
		Social Ability: teacher’s perspective of the ability of a student with disabilities to work independently and develop skills in a regular classroom
Parent Involvement Questionnaire	6-item parent-rated questionnaire	Involvement in class activities, school boards, training opportunities, and helping others understand the students’ needs	Good: average score > 2–3
			Poor: average score 1–2
Vision aids and equipment	4-item teacher-rated questionnaire on a 4-point scale	Availability of vision aids in the classroom	Good: total summed score 13–16
		Timeliness of access to the specialized equipment; staff training in the use of the equipment	Poor: total summed score 1–12
		Student training in the use of the equipment
Teacher training and experience	5-item teacher-rated questionnaire	Undergraduate, postgraduate units and professional development hours completed regarding inclusive education and/or vision impairment	Good: total summed score 11–30
		Previous experience teaching students with (a) disabilities and (b) vision impairment	Poor: total summed score 0–10
QIEM Program Goals and Purposes scale	18 items: researcher review of school philosophy documentation, semistructured interviews, and questionnaires with teachers and principals	School attitude toward inclusion: incorporation of inclusive ideals in the school philosophy and staff understanding of this; personal philosophy; importance of and school commitment to inclusion	Good: good or excellent quality
			Poor: very poor to mediocre quality
QIEM Staff Supports and Perceptions scale	12-item principal- and teacher-completed questionnaires	Adequacy of the support provided to teachers: training, planning time, materials, and other assistance provided by administration, specialist input (from teachers of the vision impaired and/or other allied health professionals as applicable), family communication, and adult role definition in the classroom	Good: good or excellent quality
			Poor: very poor to mediocre quality
QIEM Individualization scale: Actual Implementation subscale	9-item structured teacher interview	Teacher perceptions of the level of individualization of the curriculum for students with vision impairment: addressed specific strategies used, the extent to which daily activities were used, allocation of staff responsibility to teach individual student objectives, and generalization of the objectives to other situations	Good: good or excellent quality
			Poor: very poor to mediocre quality
QIEM Accessibility and Adequacy of the Physical Environment scale	Researcher observation of classroom and outside area	Appropriateness of the physical environment for the student with vision: classroom equipment and environment; materials, participation of the student in classroom areas, playground, and outside play	Good: good or excellent quality
			Poor: very poor to mediocre quality
QIEM Level of Adult Involvement item (Adult–Child Contacts and Relationships Scale)	Interval observations of student interactions with adults in the classroom; rated as uninvolved, minimally, appropriately, overly, or excessively involved	Appropriateness of adult involvement: based on time spent with and assistance provided to the student to promote independent participation and appropriate behavior	Good: ≥ 70% overall percentage of interval mode were appropriate
			Poor: ≤ 70% overall percentage of interval mode were appropriate

Abbreviation: QIEM = Quality of Inclusive Experiences Measure.

Parent Involvement Questionnaire

The Parent Involvement Questionnaire (Winton & Turnbull, 1981) measured parents’ self-reported involvement in aspects of their child’s educational program on a 3-point Likert-type scale (no, maybe, yes). A not applicable option was available. A modified six-item questionnaire (see Table 1), with high internal consistency and reliability in an Australian primary-school population (Bennet, 2003), was used. Higher average scores indicated greater involvement.

Vision aids and equipment

A tool was developed for this study based on the clinical and educational literature and then tested for face validity by a panel of experts (see Table 1). Teachers rated the availability of, access to, and training in the use of vision-specific resources (e.g., optical and electronic devices, Braille resources, and contrast or tactile features). A summed total score of the categorical ratings was calculated with higher scores indicating better access. This scale was completed only for students who had specialized equipment recommended, and the items did not assess who provided the instruction.

Teacher training and experience

Teachers rated the amount of training and teaching experience they had regarding students with visual impairment and the inclusion of students with disabilities on a five-item questionnaire (see Table 1). Items relating to visual impairment weighted stronger than general items. A total summed score was attained.

Quality of Inclusive Experiences Measure (QIEM)

Five scales from the QIEM (Wolery, Pauca, Sigalove Brashers, & Grant, 2000) were used in this study: (a) Program Goals and Purposes (attitude of the school toward inclusion), (b) Staff Supports and Perceptions (support for teaching staff), (c) Individualization (of the curriculum), (d) Accessibility and Adequacy of the Physical Environment, and (e) Adult Involvement (appropriateness of the involvement of adults in the class with the student with visual impairment). The content and administration of each scale are described in Table 1. Summative item scores were converted to quality levels for each QIEM scale, ranging from very poor to excellent. The standardized scales were administered via questionnaire, structured interview, review of documentation, and/or observation conducted by the main author.

Modifications were made to the QIEM to ensure greater applicability to students with visual impairment and to improve the standardization of the observation-based scale procedures. First, observable behaviors and environmental features to be assessed were explicitly defined. Next, irrelevant items were excluded and descriptive rating scales were enumerated (e.g., ratings such as “most” were given a percentage value). Finally, interval recording was used for the Adult Involvement item rather than subjective observations. All modifications were checked for face validity with five experts and pilot tested with students not in the study. Agreement of 84.8% and intraclass correlation of .69 to 1.0 (p < .05, using a two-way mixed effects model with an absolute agreement definition; ICC_3,2) were attained between the researcher and a trained research assistant (n = 9 participants in three classrooms).

Data Collection

The Australian school year consists of four terms and commences in January or February depending on the state. Data were collected in the first and fourth terms. Time 1 commenced 8 weeks after the start of the school year (either in 2005 or 2006 depending on participant cohort). Time 2 commenced in the final term that year. Parents, teachers, and principals were mailed questionnaires at the commencement of each data collection period with a specified return date. Unreturned questionnaires were followed up for a further 6 weeks.

The researcher spent one day at the class of each student with visual impairment per data collection period. The visits were arranged on typical class days, during which the QIEM interviews were undertaken, relevant documentation was collected, and the QIEM observations of students with visual impairment were conducted. For observation scales, at least 10 two-minute intervals per item were recorded for each student.

Analysis

The adequacy of the nine factors at the start of the year was described as per the standard scoring method for each tool. Data were then converted to dichotomous scores reflecting good or poor outcomes using predefined categories developed for this study (see Table 1 for definitions). An Environment Index was calculated to determine the overall adequacy of the environment. The index score was the number of good environment features provided at the start and end of the year (range = 0–9).

Changes in median scores from the start to the end of the school year (i.e., Time 1 to Time 2) were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Exact, two-tailed p values less than .05 indicated statistical significance. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on teacher-rated variables to ensure that any potential difference was not the result of the unexpected change of two teachers during the year. Where no differences were found, total sample results are reported. Otherwise, both samples are reported.

Results

Participants

A total of 31 students with visual impairment were recruited from 166 invitations, equating to a 19% response rate. Of these, 2 students were ineligible, 6 staff members declined school involvement, and 3 participants were lost to follow-up. Hence, 20 students with visual impairment participated (see Table 2). Their mean age was 5.4 years (SD = 0.8), and half were female. Most students (n = 14) had visual acuity less than 6/18–6/60, with an average onset of visual impairment at 7.4 months (SD = 10.4). Average age at diagnosis was 14 months (SD = 18). The main causes of visual impairment were cataracts (n = 3), Leber’s congenital amaurosis (n = 3), cone or rod dystrophy (n = 2), bilateral coloboma (n = 2), and cortical visual impairment (n = 2). As reported by their parent and/or teacher, 7 students had at least one coexisting disability. Conditions included hearing impairment, significant medical conditions (e.g., hormone deficiency, kidney dysfunction, myasthenia gravis), developmental delay, acquired vascular injury, and/or cerebral palsy.

Table 2.

Demographics of Students With Visual Impairment at Time 1

Characteristic	n	%
Visual acuity/field
< 6/18–6/60	14	70.0^a
< 6/60–3/60	1	5.0^a
< 3/60 (no light perception)	1	5.0
< 10 degree visual field, unknown acuity	2	10.0
Unknown	2	10.0
Previous school experience (term; M, SD)	1.6	2.4^b
Grade
Kindergarten	4	20.0
Preprimary	10	50.0
Grade 1	6	30.0
Program attendance: Full-time	16	84.2
Primary language spoken at home: English	18	90.0

Note: N = 20. Values are n and percentage unless otherwise noted.

Includes n = 1 with visual field < 20 degrees.

n = 19.

The students attended 20 classes at 19 different schools or kindergartens in Western Australia, Victoria, and Queensland (no participants were recruited from New South Wales). This included 12 government, 4 Catholic, and 2 independent schools and 1 private kindergarten.

A total of 19 mothers of the students with visual impairment returned questionnaires. In addition, the 20 regular classroom teachers teaching the students with visual impairment participated, as did 20 principals or administrators from the schools or programs. The teachers had an average teaching experience of 11.7 years (SD = 8.6). Two teachers changed during the course of the year; however, there were no significant differences in the years of teaching experience between teachers at Time 1 and Time 2 (p > .05). Time 1 visits were conducted on average 10.7 weeks into the school year (SD = 2.8). Time 2 visits were an average of 6.4 months later (SD = 0.5).

Adequacy of the Environment

Teacher training and experience

As noted in the analysis, scores on all measures were categorized as either good or poor. Of the teachers who completed questionnaires, 68% (n = 13) reported a poor or limited overall level of inclusive training and experience at Time 1. Almost half the teachers (47%, n = 9) lacked curriculum content regarding inclusive education or visual impairment in their undergraduate education. Nine teachers had completed one to two relevant undergraduate units, and one had completed over four units. Two of these teachers had also completed postgraduate units. The majority of teachers (74%, n = 14) received between 1 and 8 hours of professional development about inclusive education or visual impairment annually; however, two teachers had received none at all. Most teachers (84%, n = 16) had previously taught a student with a disability: eleven teachers had 1 to 4 years of experience, and five had more than 4 years of experience. Five teachers (26%) had previously taught a student with visual impairment.

Staff support

Of the classes, 47% (n = 8) had a good quality of QIEM Staff Support at the start of the year as reported by teachers and principals. These teachers had adequate planning time, materials, training, specialist input (from itinerant TVIs and/or allied health professionals as applicable), and communication to include the student with visual impairment in their class. The remaining classes were of mediocre (n = 8) or poor quality (n = 1). Median Staff Support scores did not change significantly throughout the year (p > .05; see Table 3).

Table 3.

Change in Classroom Environmental Factors for N = 20 Students With Visual Impairment Over 1 Year

	Time 1 (n = 20)		Time 2 (n = 20)		Time 1 to 2
Scale	Mdn	IQR	Mdn	IQR	z	p
Teacher training and experience	7.0	4.0, 11.0^a	7.0	4.0, 11.0^a	−0.447	.654
QIEM Staff Supports	94.0	87.4, 100.0^b	97.5	89.0, 103.0^c	−0.569	.360
QIEM Program Goals and Purposes (school attitude)	68.0	62.0, 73.0^b	68.5	59.5, 72.3^c	−0.616	.375
Teacher Opinion Questionnaire	56.0	53.5, 59.0^c	55.0	51.3, 56.8^c	−1.762	.078
Parent Involvement Questionnaire	2.2	1.6, 2.6	2.2	1.9, 2.8^c	−0.189	.850
QIEM Adult Involvement	68.4	64.4, 80.2	81.5	70.2, 90.9	−3.291	.001
QIEM Individualization	35.0	29.5, 38.0	37.0	32.0, 39.0	−1.746	.081
QIEM Accessibility and Adequacy of the Physical Environment	16.0	14.0, 17.0	16.0	15.0, 18.0	−1.414	.157
Vision aids and equipment	12.0	10.8, 13.0^d	13.0	11.5, 14.0^b	−0.883	.883

Note: IQR = Interquartile range; QIEM = Quality of Inclusive Experiences Measure; z = Wilcoxon z score. Only teachers who taught the entire year were included in Time 1 and Time 2 analyses of teacher attitude.

n = 19.

n = 17.

n = 18.

n = 14.

School attitude

Of the schools and programs, 61% (n = 11) had a poor (negative) overall attitude toward inclusion on the QIEM Program Goals and Purposes scale at Time 1. These schools failed to sufficiently incorporate inclusion in the school philosophy. In addition, the principals and teachers reported unenthusiastic views toward inclusion and reported that their schools had limited commitment to inclusion. Specifically, two schools were of poor quality, nine were mediocre, six were good, and one was excellent. Median Program Goals and Purposes scores did not change significantly over the year (p > .05; see Table 3).

Teacher attitude

Two teachers (11%) reported a good (positive) attitude toward inclusion at the start of the year on the Teacher Opinion Questionnaire. The median General Attitudes domain score was 30/35 (Interquartile range [IQR] = 27.2, 31.0), whereas both the median Teacher Ability domain and Social Ability score was 13/20 (IQR = 11.3, 14.0). The median Teacher Opinion Questionnaire score did not change significantly from Time 1 to Time 2 (p > .05) among teachers who taught during the entire first year (see Table 3).

Parent involvement

At Time 1, 65% of parents (n = 13 of 20) had a good overall involvement in their child’s schooling on the Parent Involvement Questionnaire. Most parents (81%, n = 13 of 16) volunteered to be involved in activities within the class and outside the class, where this opportunity existed. Two parents served on a school policy board (of 16 with the opportunity, 13%). Eight parents attended parent training opportunities where offered (of 17, 47%), and twelve parents (67%) helped others to understand their child’s special needs. Overall, 72% of parents (n = 13) reported that they played a role in their child’s school, where desired. The median Parent Involvement Questionnaire score did not change significantly over the year (see Table 3).

Adult involvement

Seven students (35%) received a good (appropriate) level of adult involvement from classroom teachers, staff, and volunteers at the start of the year. Of the remaining students, eight (40%) typically received a “minimal” level of adult involvement and five (25%) typically experienced “over involvement” from adults in the class. Median QIEM Adult Involvement scores improved over the year (p < .001; see Table 3), such that at Time 2, 80% (n = 16) of students experienced a good level of adult involvement. Two children continued to experience minimal involvement, and two had over involvement from adults.

Individualization of the curriculum

All teachers reported that they provided a good overall level of individualization of the curriculum for their students with visual impairment. This included 65% who reported an excellent quality (n = 13), which referred to situations where specific strategies were embedded in daily activities to teach individual student objectives and the strategies were changed in response to the students’ progress toward the objectives. The QIEM Individualization scores did not significantly change over the school year, with scores remaining at the good level (p > .05; see Table 3).

Physical environment

Programs scored highly on the QIEM Accessibility and Adequacy of the Physical Environment scale. Four classes were of excellent quality, nine were good, and seven were mediocre. The proportion of programs with a good overall physical environment level increased from 65% (n = 13) at the start of the year to 95% (n = 19) at the end of the year (n = 20). Although these changes did not reach significance for the total sample (see Table 3), additional analysis of data for the 18 classes that retained the same teacher showed significant improvements in the median scores during the school year (Mdn = 16.0, IQR = 3.2 vs. Mdn = 16.5, IQR = 3.0, z = −2.14, p = .03). It must be noted with caution that two classes affected the significance of the results.

Vision aids and equipment

Of the 14 students who had been recommended vision aids and equipment at the start of the year, 4 had a good overall level of access. Specifically, although half of the teachers (n = 7) reported that most of the recommended resources were available to the student with visual impairment in the classroom, only four reported that all resources were available. Only one teacher reported that the recommended vision aids were always available at the appropriate time. The majority of teachers had received some training in the use of the vision aids and equipment (88%, n = 12); however, only three of these teachers reported that the training was sufficient. Similarly, 5 children had received sufficient training, 4 had received some training but needed more, and 2 children had not received any training in the use of their visual aids. The median vision aids and equipment score did not change significantly over the year (p > .05; see Table 3); however, at Time 2, 17 students had been recommended equipment, 12 of whom (71%) had a good overall level of access and training. Increases were evident in the proportion of classes with resources always available at the appropriate time (68%) and students who had received sufficient training (41%).

Environment Index

The combined Environment Index reflected the number of good environmental features that students were exposed to each time period. At Time 1, the index ranged from 2 to 7 good factors (see Table 4). Of students, 53% (n = 9) were exposed to four or fewer good features (out of a possible nine). This declined to 41% (n = 7) at Time 2, at which point the minimum index score was three good factors. Nine environments improved during the year (n = 3 by one factor, n = 5 by two factors, and n = 1 by three factors), four remained the same, and four worsened (by one factor).

Table 4.

Environment Index Score of N = 17 Students by Time Period

	Time 1		Time 2
Number of good factors	n	%	n	%
2	5	29.4	0	0.0
3	1	5.9	2	11.8
4	3	17.6	5	29.4
5	4	23.5	4	23.5
6	2	11.8	5	29.4
7	2	11.8	1	5.9
Total	17	100.0	17	100.0

Note: The Environment Index is the total number of good environmental features. A value of 0 was assigned if no vision aids or equipment had been recommended or used. The table excludes participants with incomplete data.

In summary, results indicate that teacher-reported curriculum individualization, parent involvement, and physical environment were generally adequate. However, support provided for staff, teacher training, adult involvement, access to visual aids, and inclusive attitudes were less than adequate. More than half the students experienced four or fewer adequate environmental factors at the start of the year, and more than 40% at the end of the year.

Discussion

This research has described the situation that students with visual impairment experience in regular early education in three states in Australia. The adequacy of key aspects of the classroom environment was described and monitored over time. As suggested in the literature (RBS & RIDBC, 1999), there was variation in the environment that students with visual impairment were exposed to in early education. Although some children (29%) experienced as few as two positive elements in their environment, others (< 12%) were in inclusive environments with as many as seven positive elements. Evidently, some limited schools were providing inclusive environments. However, typically there were widespread inadequacies in the regular classroom environments these students attended.

Inadequacies were observed in the systems underlying the inclusion of students with visual impairment—preservice training, professional development, and the support provided to staff. The level of preservice training in inclusion reported by teachers in this study was low. This is understandable since the majority of teachers had obtained their teaching qualification prior to the inclusion movement (an average of 15 years prior). Nevertheless, Australian universities still lack uniformity in providing dedicated training in inclusion, with many failing to offer compulsory units on any aspect of inclusion (Loreman et al., 2005). Furthermore, the limited professional development undertaken by teachers in this study is incongruent with key workforce up-skilling strategies aimed to reform inclusive education (Department of Education and Training Western Australia, 2004). It appears that most teachers had not attended any further professional development in inclusion beyond the 1-day annual training offered by itinerant TVI agencies at the commencement of the school year. Limited training, combined with inadequate specialist input, personnel, planning time, and resources to support staff, poses a serious challenge for teachers to implement inclusion for students with visual impairment. Unfortunately, these are commonly reported problems (Ingram, 2004; RBS & RIDBC, 1999).

Few teachers and schools reported a positive attitude toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. It is likely that the limited experience, training, and staff support found in this study affected teacher attitudes. It has been argued that inadequate resourcing of inclusive education leads to increased teacher stress and negative attitudes toward inclusion of students with visual impairment (Leyser & Heinze, 2001). Teachers’ previous experiences involving students with visual impairment and their confidence in their ability to teach them are also thought to affect teachers’ attitudes (Wall, 2002). Even so, the lack of overall school commitment to inclusion found in this study is concerning. It appears that a paradigm shift is required at schools if students are to be included. Principal leadership may be critical to shaping the school climate toward one that promotes and rewards inclusive practices (Riehl, 2000).

Two factors were commonly adequate in the early education environment. First, teachers were generally aware of inclusive strategies to address individual student objectives—evidenced by the good level of knowledge of methods to individualize the curriculum. However, since the Individualization scale data were based on teacher report rather than observation, the extent to which teachers implemented these individualized strategies in their daily routine is unknown. Second, the features of the physical environment examined in this study were of an adequate standard for students with visual impairment in most classrooms. Suggestions for environmental modifications are typically offered by itinerant TVIs and specialists such as occupational therapists. However, it is likely that the materials used in early education generally comply with “bigger, brighter, contrast” features that are appropriate for students with low vision. It would be interesting to assess the appropriateness of the physical environment in the classrooms of older students.

In contrast to general physical accessibility, the provision of specialized vision aids and equipment was poor. The limited availability of the aids in the classroom may be associated with anxiety commonly experienced by teachers in using this equipment (Smith et al., 2004). This is likely, given the reportedly limited training that staff and students received to use the equipment. Alternately, the equipment may have been unavailable because of limited departmental loan pool stocks. Inadequate access to recommended vision aids further restricts student access to information and materials that are critical to learning and development. It is important that the recommended aids are in place from the start of the school year.

Few students with visual impairment experienced an appropriate level of adult involvement at the start of the year. Rather than providing a balance of interaction, many adults either completed tasks for the student or failed to provide sufficient scaffolding for the child to participate in activities. Both methods have the potential to restrict student participation. The findings may reflect a lack of knowledge regarding more appropriate ways of interacting with a student with visual impairment (Russotti & Shaw, 2001). Indeed, few teachers in this study had prior experience with a student with visual impairment. Nevertheless, adult involvement improved throughout the year. It is unknown whether these improvements were the result of parental input throughout the year or specialist assistance or if they were in response to feedback from interactions with the student. However, based on the study findings, a structured handover for teachers who will have a student with visual impairment in their class in the new school year may be warranted, so that more appropriate interactions will be fostered from the outset.

Like adult involvement, it appears that other aspects of the early education environment are amenable to change over time. Nine of the students were in better environments at the end of the year than they were in at the start of the year. This was evidenced by an increase in the number of good features in their environment. It is important to determine which strategies are effective in improving the early education environment.

In summary, systemic problems were observed in this study. They stemmed from inadequacies in preservice teacher training and principal-led inclusive school philosophies through to the provision of adequate resources and classroom staff interactions. Although these inadequacies are consistent with those found in previous reports, the implications for students are concerning. Students with visual impairment already face educational risks—they have limited access to visual instruction, are at risk of developmental delay, and often experience restrictions in their communications with young peers. A less than adequate early education environment poses yet another risk to their development, learning, social inclusion, and meaningful participation in education. Strategies are warranted to improve the early education environments to that they are congruent with inclusive practices.

Conclusion and Implications for Practice

Although the small sample size is acknowledged as a limitation, this study has described the regular classroom environment that students with visual impairment typically experience in Australian early education across many schools in three states. The adequacy of the environmental features varied among schools. The majority of students with visual impairment were educated in classes where teachers described an adequately individualized curriculum and most were educated in an adequate physical class and school environment. However, many were also exposed to classroom situations where the attitude of teachers and principals toward inclusion was not positive and where there was less than adequate support for staff, teacher training, adult involvement, and access to vision aids and equipment. Strategies to improve these factors are warranted. Future research needs to quantify the effect of these environmental factors on inclusive student outcomes. Research should also investigate whether students with visual impairment are able to achieve inclusion within these regular classrooms.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: The authors received funding from the Occupational Therapists’ Registration Board of Western Australia, the Australian Federation of University Women Western Australia, and the Commonwealth of Australia Postgraduate Scholarship.

References

Bennet

K. S.

(2003). Factors associated with the social skills of children with physical disabilities included in mainstream schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.

Brambring

(2001). Integration of children with visual impairment in regular preschools. Child: Care Health and Development, 27, 425–438.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2006). Disability Standards for Education 2005. Canberra, Australia: Author.

Crocker

A. D.

Orr

R. R.

(1996). Social behaviours of children with visual impairments enrolled in preschool programs. Exceptional Children, 62, 451–463.

Dale

Sonksen

(2002). Developmental outcome, including setback, in young children with severe visual impairment. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 44, 613–622.

Davis

Hopwood

(2002). Including children with a visual impairment in the mainstream primary school classroom. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2(3), 1–11.

Department of Education and Training Western Australia. (2004). Plan for government schools 2004–2007 (Report). Perth, Australia: Author.

Epstein-Frisch

(2000). Inclusive education in NSW. Interaction, 14(2–3), 18–23.

Erwin

E. J.

Alimaras

Price

(1999). A qualitative study of social dynamics in an inclusive preschool. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14, 56–67.

10.

Foreman

(2008). Inclusion in action (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Thomson.

11.

Forlin

(1995). Educators’ beliefs about inclusive practices in Western Australia. British Journal of Special Education, 22, 179–185.

12.

Hudson

Clunies-Ross

(1984). A study of the integration of children with intellectual handicaps into regular schools. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 10, 165–177.

13.

Ingram

(2004). Australian Blindness Forum national parent focus group report. Canberra, Australia: Australian Blindness Forum.

14.

Kekelis

L. S.

(1992). A field study of a blind preschooler. In Sacks

S. Z.

Kekelis

L. S.

Gaylord-Ross

R. J.

(Eds.), The development of social skills by blind and visually impaired students: Exploratory studies and strategies (pp. 39–58). New York, NY: American Foundation for the Blind.

15.

Lane

(2008). Predictors of successful inclusion for children with vision impairment in early education (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.

16.

Larrivee

Cook

(1979). Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher attitude. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 315–324.

17.

Lewis

Allman

C. B.

(2000). Educational programming. In Holbrook

M. C.

Koenig

A. J.

(Eds.), Foundations of education: History and theory of teaching children and youths with visual impairments (Vol. 1, pp. 218–259). New York, NY: AFG Press.

18.

Leyser

Heinze

(2001). Perspectives of parents of children who are visually impaired: Implications for the field. RE:view: Rehabilitation and Education for Blindness and Visual Impairment, 33, 37–48.

19.

Lieberman

L. J.

Robinson

B. L.

Rollheiser

(2006). Youth with visual impairment: Experience in general physical education. RE:view: Rehabilitation and Education for Blindness and Visual Impairment, 38, 35–48.

20.

Loreman

Deppeler

(2000). Inclusive education in Victoria: The UNESCO Education for All 2000 assessment. Interaction, 14(2–3), 13–17.

21.

Loreman

Deppeler

Harvey

(2005). Inclusive education: A practical guide to supporting diversity in the classroom. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

22.

McGaha

C. G.

Farran

D. C.

(2001). Interactions in an inclusive classroom: The effects of visual status and setting. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 80–94.

23.

Pagliano

(2002). Using all the senses. In Ashman

Elkins

(Eds.), Educating children with diverse abilities (pp. 237–253). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson.

24.

Riehl

(2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70, 55–81.

25.

Royal Blind Society & Royal Institute for Deaf and Blind Children. (1999). The needs of children and young people (0–19 years) with vision impairment in New South Wales and ACT. Parramatta, Australia: North Rocks Press.

26.

Russotti

Shaw

(2001). In-service training for teaching assistants and others who work with students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 483–487.

27.

Smith

A. J.

Geruschat

Huebner

K. M.

(2004). Policy to practice: Teachers’ and administrators’ views on curricular access by students with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98, 612–628.

28.

Wall

(2002). Teachers’ exposure to people with visual impairment and the effect on attitudes towards inclusion. RE:view: Rehabilitation and Education for Blindness and Visual Impairment, 34, 111–119.

29.

Winton

P. J.

Turnbull

A. P.

(1981). Parent involvement as viewed by parents of preschool handicapped children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 1, 11–19.

30.

Wolery

Pauca

Sigalove Brashers

Grant

(2000). Quality of Inclusive Experiences Measure. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.

31.

World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.