Abstract
Introduction:
The purpose of the study was to survey orientation and mobility (O&M) instructors who are blind concerning the identification of accommodations, teaching techniques, and resources to teach students with visual impairments (i.e., blindness or low vision).
Methods:
The study utilized an online survey via Qualtrics (2019) with 27 closed- and open-ended items to identify accommodations, teaching techniques, and resources needed. The survey was e-mailed to membership and certification organizations requesting O&M instructors who are blind to participate for 12 weeks. The participants were 15 O&M specialists, mostly male and Caucasian. Survey data were then analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results:
Forty percent of the participants reported that there were minimal standards that they had to demonstrate prior to their admittance into an O&M program. About one-fourth of the participants mentioned their program was modified because of their visual impairment. Eleven participants (73%) reported that their nonvisual instructional strategies and techniques were predominantly gained through their university programs or other visually impaired instructors (27%, n = 4).
Discussion:
Aspects of this study that are similar to the current literature are smaller faculty-to-student ratios for blindfold or simulation cane courses, accommodations used by participants, and suggestions for monitoring the safety of students. The results revealed the participants’ strong belief in the importance of immersion training, the use of the Structured Discovery Cane Travel (SDCT), nonvisual skills during O&M instruction, sleep shades, and students’ problem-solving abilities.
Implication for practitioners:
Although the participants had received SDCT immersion training, most personnel preparation programs approved by the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of Blind and Visually Impaired do not use this method. For this reason, it is important for faculty to identify best teaching practices from among all programs and to integrate these practices into their curricula. Sharing best practices could strengthen all programs. Moreover, students with visual impairments should be taught early about self-advocacy and the ability to have helpful knowledge about one’s skills at a university and in the workplace.
by answering questions on this article. For more information, visit: http://my.aerbvi.org/AER-Store/Publications/BKctl/ViewDetails/SKU/AER.☑ Earn CEs Online
People who are visually impaired (i.e., those who are blind or have low vision) have historically used a variety of methods to safely navigate their environments, including dog guides, canes, geese, and staffs. These methods have been taught to individuals by home teachers, mobility technicians, dog guide trainers, and “orientors” (Koestler, 1976). Navigation training provided by home teachers, some of whom were themselves blind, was “a hit or miss proposition, satisfactory enough for indoor orientation but hardly adequate for safe unescorted movement on unfamiliar city streets” (p. 316). The first formally trained professional teachers of people who are blind were the orientors at Valley Forge Army Hospital, for whom a training manual was developed and used to train future orientors for many years. Then, in 1959, a tentative curriculum for the preparation of mobility instructors was developed at a conference hosted by the American Foundation for the Blind. This curriculum was first used by Boston College to train orientation and mobility (O&M) instructors (Bledsoe, 1997). During the 1959 conference, the attendees recommended that only sighted people teach mobility skills to people with blindness (Koestler, 1976). Accepting this recommendation, the American Association of Workers for the Blind, the agency that certified O&M instructors at the time, did not certify anyone without 20/20 vision or if they were in bad health (Wiener & Siffermann, 2010). Over time, the vision requirement changed to 20/40, followed by the development of a Functional Abilities Checklist that required candidates to demonstrate the ability to monitor their students rather than candidates having a certain visual acuity. In 1996, the certification process changed to allow certification of instructors who are blind if they met the criteria on the University Orientation and Mobility Competency Form (Wiener & Siffermann, 2010). This practice concerned the National Federation of the Blind (NFB). In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibited discrimination based on disability. As a result, in 1994, the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER), the certifying body at that time, stopped requiring a physical examination for O&M certification (Wiener & Siffermann, 2010). As a result of NFB’s political activism and the passage of the ADA, sight requirements were eliminated for certification as an O&M instructor.
In 1997, Louisiana Rehabilitation Services was awarded a grant by the Department of Education “to develop a master’s degree program [in O&M] that was nondiscriminatory to blind persons” (Ferguson, 2007, p. 135) and to establish an alternative to the AER O&M Certification Program called the National Orientation and Mobility Certification (NOMC; Bell & Mino, 2011; Wiener & Siffermann, 2010), which was administered by the National Blindness Professional Certification Board (NBPCB; Ferguson, 2007). In July 2001, NOMC awarded its first certifications to blind individuals. To be certified as O&M instructors, NOMC required applicants to pass a performance travel test without vision and a written examination designed to evaluate their knowledge of Structured Discovery Learning Model, cane travel, and the NBPCB Code of Professional Ethics (Wiener & Siffermann, 2010). Universities and apprenticeship programs provided training for certification, and many of those certified as O&M instructors had visual impairments (Bell & Mino, 2011).
A descriptive study by Bell and Mino (2011) offers a picture of NOMC-certified professionals and explains the services that they provide to people who are blind. Prior to their study, little research had been conducted into the characteristics of NOMC certificate recipients, including their employment status and individual characteristics. Fifty-five NOMC instructors completed the online survey (Bell & Mino, 2011). The mean age of the participants was 46.1 years, 69% were blind, and the majority were Caucasian males. Most of the participants were employed full-time, and their median annualized salary was 45,976 USD, a salary similar to that of other teaching jobs (Bell & Mino, 2011). The participants had an average of 7.14 years of experience, and they employed teaching strategies based on Structured Discovery Cane Travel (SDCT), which their university instructors used. Many of the participants taught adults and youths with visual impairments to use a white cane, a result that reveals the extent to which nonvisual instruction underpins the NOMC certification process (Bell & Mino, 2011). An implication of this study for practitioners is that NOMC certification is an important qualification.
SDCT
In 1960, Kenneth Jernigan, director of the Iowa Commission for the Blind, opened a center that offered an alternative to traditional training in O&M services. Central to this center’s alternative model, the Structured Discovery Learning Model, was the belief in the ability of people who are blind to conduct cane training. Nebraska Rehabilitation Services for the Visually Impaired adopted the new model and began hiring O&M instructors who are blind (Ferguson, 2007). Dr. Allen Dodds, a senior research fellow at the Blind Research Unit of Nottingham University in England, visited the Nebraska program and described its success in the New Beacon (Ferguson, 2007).
Structured Discovery Learning Model draws from cognitive learning theory and adopts a consumer-driven approach to the delivery of rehabilitation services. It calls for student-centered instruction in which students are responsible for their own safety, instructor feedback is delivered at the end of the lesson, self-monitoring is conducted by the students, and the training focuses on nonvisual cane travel and problem-solving skills (Morais et al., 1997). Structured Discovery Learning Model instructors need to be skilled cane travelers with intensive immersion training under a sleep shade (Ferguson, 2007).
Initial study
Both blind and sighted individuals interested in becoming O&M instructors enroll in university preparation programs. When an individual who is blind enrolls in such a program, the university’s faculty, personnel, and office of disabled students need to be aware of the accommodations that the student needs to succeed. However, little research has been conducted into the accommodations used by students who are blind who are enrolled in O&M preparation programs.
Two studies were conducted to fill this gap in the research. The initial study, “Survey of Faculty Training Orientation and Mobility Specialists Teaching Students Who Are Blind” (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2019), surveyed faculty of O&M training programs to identify the accommodations, teaching techniques, and other resources that were needed by students with visual impairments who were enrolled in university blindfold simulation cane courses. The second and present study surveyed O&M instructors who are blind to identify the accommodations and teaching strategies they use when providing O&M services.
The results of the initial study (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2019) revealed variations in the accommodations and teaching strategies employed in blindfold–low vision-simulation cane courses. The results also revealed that university offices for disabled students generally did not know how to accommodate the students with visual impairments in these courses. Some of the participants recommended that before accepting students who are blind into O&M personnel preparation programs, faculty should request documentation of their O&M skills. In summary, the present study is a direct response to the policy recommendations received in the first study.
Method
Survey development
An online survey was administered via Qualtrics to identify the accommodations, teaching techniques, and resources used by O&M instructors who are blind in providing O&M services to students who are visually impaired. The survey consisted of 27 closed- and open-ended items and was divided into four sections: (1) participants’ demographic information (e.g., information on gender, ethnicity, years of teaching, and education level); (2) participants’ training backgrounds; (3) accommodations and resources for teaching students who are blind; and (4) formats, durations, and teaching strategies used in blindfold simulation cane courses. Some of the items were based on the results of a previous research study that surveyed the faculty of O&M personnel preparation programs who led blindfold cane simulation courses with students who are blind (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2019).
To gather more information on the participants’ backgrounds related to the training they received while they were O&M students, the O&M instructors we surveyed were asked to provide the following pieces of information on their university-level professional preparation programs: the duration in hours of blindfold simulation cane courses, the minimal standards, the number of O&M specialists with visual impairments who were enrolled in the program, and the faculty-to-student ratio. The next part of the survey gathered information on the accommodations and modifications that the university provided, including waived courses, additional supervision, additional courses, and personal assistants. The survey also asked how these accommodations were determined, whether they were relevant, whether the students were satisfied with their accommodations, whether the respondents had suggestions for additional improvements, and whether the respondents felt ready for the job duties and responsibilities of an O&M specialist. The final part of the survey gathered information on the participants’ practice after they became O&M instructors. It asked them what kinds of nonvisual instructional strategies and techniques they used in their teaching, where they learned these strategies and techniques, and whether they needed professional development training in O&M.
Once a draft of the survey had been developed, it was reviewed by four experts, including three O&M instructors and one statistician. These experts provided feedback on the wording of the items and suggestions for additional items. The survey was modified based on their suggestions.
Survey administration
Before the study was conducted, permission was obtained from the Human Research Protection Program of Texas Tech University. The participants were blind O&M instructors who taught O&M skills to people with visual impairments. An e-mail invitation was sent to potential participants which contained a short description of and the URL for the survey, which was open for 12 weeks, from December 18, 2018, to March 15, 2019. Two e-mails were sent to prospective participants to remind them to complete the survey. Informed consent was obtained for all participants, who were required to read a consent page before accessing the survey. A random drawing was conducted, and two participants received 25 USD gift cards.
Twenty O&M instructors responded to the invitation, and 15 participated in the survey. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic characteristics of the participants and their responses to the survey items.
Results
Participants
Fifteen O&M specialists certified with NOMC by NBPCB participated in the survey. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the participants. Most of the participants were male (66.7%), Caucasian (66.7%), and had near-total or total vision loss (53.3%) per self-report. The causes of the participants’ blindness included amblyopia, cataracts, congenital cone-rod dystrophy, glaucoma, optic neuropathy, retinitis pigmentosa, and accidents. All of the participants had a college degree: 86.7% had a master’s degree, while 13.3% had a bachelor’s degree. Most participants had a master’s degree (86.7%) that was relevant to O&M. About half of the participants had more than 5 years of teaching experience (53.4%), and 80% were currently providing O&M services to students or adults who are visually impaired.
Demographics of the participants.
University preparation
The participants’ responses to the closed-ended survey items are summarized in Table 2. Forty percent of the participants reported that before they were admitted to their universities’ O&M preparation programs, they were required to meet minimum standards specific to their disabilities, including passing a travel assessment administered by an agency director and participating in blindfold immersion training. When blindfold immersion training was required, the simulation ranged from 400 to 1,300 hours, and the content included instruction in daily living skills. This requirement was waived if the potential applicant had attended a rehabilitation center that used SDCT. All participants, except for one who did not respond, completed their programs in 1–2 years.
Experiences in O&M preparation program.
Note. O&M = Orientation and mobility.
The professional preparation programs had, on average, 4.17 (SD = 1.19) O&M specialists who are visually impaired. During their blindfold simulation cane courses, most of the participants (93.3%) were trained by specialists who are visually impaired. The most common instructor-to-student ratios were 1:2 (26.7%) and 1:4 (26.7%).
The programs of approximately one-fourth of the participants (26.7%) were modified because of their blindness. Table 3 describes how the programs were modified. Although the participants were satisfied with their modifications in all four reported cases, in three of the cases, the participant reported that they were unsure whether the modifications were relevant.
Why O&M instructors felt that they were prepared for their duties and responsibilities.
Note. O&M = Orientation and mobility.
When the participants were asked after graduating whether they felt prepared to assume the job duties and responsibilities of a beginning O&M specialist, 100% (n = 15) reported that they felt prepared. See Table 4 for their explanations of preparedness.
Why O&M instructors felt that their program was open and prepared to have a person with a visual impairment matriculate through it.
Note. O&M = Orientation and mobility.
One hundred percent of the participants (n = 15) reported feeling that their university programs were open and prepared to accommodate a person with a visual impairment. Table 4 gives their reasons. Thirty-three percent (n = 5) did not provide specific reasons.
Nonvisual instructional strategies
Eleven participants (73%) responded to the following question, while 27% (n = 4) chose not to respond: “What nonvisual instructional strategies and techniques have you used when teaching O&M to monitor the safety of your students?” The participants’ strategies and techniques are summarized in Table 5. The participants reported that they learned their strategies and techniques through their university programs (27%, n = 4), the Nebraska Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired (prior to attending university) and Louisiana Tech (7%, n = 1), a university and other visually impaired instructors (27%, n = 4), and on their own after graduation (13%, n = 2).
Specific nonvisual instructional strategies and techniques O&M instructors used to monitor the safety of their students when teaching O&M.
Note. O&M = Orientation and mobility.
Seventy-four percent of the participants (n = 13) said that they had learned their techniques from other blind O&M instructors in their university programs or from others (no participants identified these others). Twenty-seven percent (n = 4) did not respond to this question.
The nonvisual strategies and techniques that participants reported using to monitor dynamic environments included open communication (13%, n = 2), SDCT (13%, n = 2), a Louisiana Tech textbook about blind instructors (7%, n = 1), and O&M skills and strategies (e.g., auditory and tactile methods and listening to sounds similar to those found in Table 5; 40%, n = 6). Twenty-seven percent of the participants (n = 4) did not respond to this question.
Other strategies and techniques that the participants reported they found helpful included debriefing with students after a lesson (7%, n = 1); learning to use new technology such as haptic technology “to keep track of my client” (7%, n = 1); “created games to fine-tune skills” (7%, n = 1); learning more about how policy and administration work, especially in public schools (7%, n = 1); “turning the cane upside down when monitoring students so the student does not know my whereabouts” (7%, n = 1); using their teaching experience (13%, n = 2); and using braille, longer canes, and hand-over-hand teaching (7%, n = 1). Forty-seven percent (n = 7) did not respond to this question.
Professional development
Forty-six percent of the participants reported feeling that they needed professional development and 26% did not. Specific areas of professional development the respondents mentioned included current information about the changing demographics of people who are blind, new and evolving technologies used to facilitate independent travel (e.g., GPS, apps for iPhones), and new counseling methods.
Information needs
When the participants were asked what they now knew about teaching O&M that they wished they had known on their first day of teaching, one participant (7%, n = 1) said that an instructor’s idea of success can differ from that of their students. Another (7%, n = 1) stated that they would have sought employment in an environment that supported blind instructors. Others commented that vocational rehabilitation agencies expect O&M instructors who are blind to support sheltered workshops (7%, n = 1), have knowledge of a variety of assessments used in public schools (7%, n = 1), and obtain professional and academic qualifications (27%, n = 4). Forty-seven percent (n = 7) did not respond to this question.
Discussion
The present study surveyed O&M instructors who are blind to (1) identify the accommodations, teaching techniques, and resources they used to provide O&M services to students who are visually impaired; (2) determine how they felt about their training; (3) determine how their training could have been improved; and (4) assess their needs for professional development. The results revealed that the participants believed strongly in the importance of immersion training, in the use of SDCT, in the use of nonvisual skills during O&M instruction, in sleepshades during training, and in developing students’ problem-solving skills. Participants’ comments in these areas included the following: “The only effective and safe method for a blind person to teach O&M is with Structured Discovery Learning Model methodologies.” “Sleepshades [sic]…. allowed us to be comfortable in any type of situation because we were using nonvisual monitoring techniques and not relying on vision.” “We were encouraged to take responsibility for problem-solving while working with students and while completing our program. This most closely resembles the real-world job market[,] as it is the employee that is, first and foremost, responsible for doing his or her job successfully regardless of disability.”
Many of the participants reported feeling that these methods are the only way to prepare O&M instructors who are blind.
Aspects of this study were similar to aspects of the initial study by Griffin-Shirley et al. (2019), including smaller faculty-to-student ratios for blindfold simulation cane courses, the accommodations used by the participants when they were students (e.g., readers, materials provided in braille, and computers for assignments), and tips for monitoring students’ safety (see Table 5 for a list of the teaching strategies). The participants reported faculty-to-student ratios for their blindfold simulation cane courses of 1:2 and 1:4, while Griffin-Shirley et al. (2019) reported instructor-to-student ratios of 1:4 and 1:6. Participants reported engaging in between 400 and 1,300 hours of blindfold immersion training in their university programs, far more hours than did the participants of Griffin-Shirley et al. (2019) research (they reported meeting between 1 and 14 hours per week over the course of one or two semesters).
The participants suggested some of the same techniques as do Bell and Mino (2011) for O&M instructors who are blind. Their suggestions included the following: Instructors should walk close to their students when indoors and ask questions about the use of echolocation to locate intersecting hallways, open doorways, and so on. While traveling on the sidewalk, instructors should walk behind and beside their students and parallel to the curb, so the instructor can intervene if the student veers into traffic. Instructors should discourage the use of guide and protective techniques by telling students to learn to trust their canes and problem-solving abilities. Instructors should act as role models for their students by using their nonvisual skills to travel independently. Instructors should stress the importance of students traveling independently with their canes using nonvisual techniques.
In addition to these suggestions, Morais et al. (1997) argued that it was important for instructors to stay near students in noisy areas and to act as role models, especially when problem-solving with their students.
Some participants said that it is important for university students who are blind to know which accommodations they need before entering their O&M personnel preparation programs, while others said that when programs focus on immersion training using nonvisual skills, accommodations are not an issue. For example, one participant commented, “I believe it is the blind person’s responsibility to communicate about any accommodations he or she might need.” Another said, “A program focusing on non-visual teaching techniques.…[would] eliminate…the need for individualized accommodations based on visual acuity”; therefore, accommodations would not be necessary. Since many of the personnel preparation programs in O&M do not require a set number of hours of immersion training, it is important for incoming students who are blind to clearly articulate their accommodation needs to their universities’ disability offices (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2019).
Blind students as self-advocates
Two of the participants suggested that students who are blind in personnel preparation programs could “collaborate with instructors to find creative ways to know what accommodations to ask for and how to problem-solve to be successful.” They also said that “by the time students with disabilities are in a university program…they should know what to ask for and how to problem-solve to be successful.” To facilitate collaborative efforts among students and faculty, faculty can encourage students to ask O&M instructors who are blind which strategies were successful in their own programs. The participants also stressed the importance of acquiring good travel skills before entering a university program and the need for assessments of such skills. This suggestion should be further explored, as should the emphasis of some programs on the teaching of O&M, rather than on making good travelers.
Limitations
One limitation of this study was that it used a small sample size, limiting its generalizability. In statistical analysis, a small sample provides less information than do large samples. Hackshaw (2008) opines that the principal problem with small sample studies is the interpretation of results. In view of the results emanating from this study’s small sample of 15 participants, generalizing about the entire population of blind O&M instructors is hampered.
Another limitation of this study is that it assumed that potential participants had access to the Internet and that it did not include follow-up interviews with the participants. As Dale (2006) suggests, participants may provide different responses when different methods of data collection are used. This study could also have included interviews or focus groups.
Implications for practice
Although the participants had received SDCT immersion training, most personnel preparation programs approved by AER do not use this method. For this reason, it is important for faculty to identify best teaching practices from among all programs and to integrate these practices into their curricula. Sharing best practices could strengthen all programs.
As noted in the expanded core curriculum, teachers of students with visual impairments and O&M specialists should focus on the importance of self-advocacy (Allman & Lewis, 2014). For example, students who are blind must know their own skills to succeed at university and in their future workplace.
Professional development could also focus on O&M for school-age children who are visually impaired. One participant commented on their need for more information on this topic, which was not discussed at their university program. Such information could help O&M instructors who are blind to teach children who are visually impaired more effectively.
Conclusion
These findings are preliminary, and more research will be needed to gain a thorough understanding of the accommodations and teaching techniques that students with visual impairments use in their universities’ O&M preparation programs and once they graduate. Future research could also address the following questions: Should students who are blind be required to complete travel-skill assessments when they apply to university O&M preparation programs? What accommodations are recommended for university O&M programs that do not require extensive immersion training? Given the increasing numbers of students with blindness and other disabilities in their programs, should faculty be offered training in effective teaching strategies and ways to monitor safety? Since personnel preparation programs in O&M have graduates who are blind, what strategies are used and continue to be used by these students? As Griffin-Shirley et al. (2019) argue, evaluating the effectiveness of specific accommodations and observations and interviewing students and O&M instructors who are blind about their teaching strategies would add to the existing literature. A published collection of nonvisual instructional strategies would also be helpful to the profession.
Footnotes
Acknowledgment
Special acknowledgment extends to Edward Bell, secretary-treasurer, National Blindness Professional Certification Board; Christopher Tabb, chair, Orientation and Mobility Division, Association for Education and Rehabilitation of Blind and Visually Impaired; and Kathleen Zeider, president and chief executive officer, Academy for Certification of Vision and Rehabilitation Professionals for their help with the creation of the survey and its dissemination.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.