Literary Braille Instruction: A Review of University Personnel Preparation Programs

Abstract

Introduction: Braille literacy for students who are visually impaired (i.e., those who are blind or have low vision) can be a critical component for school and postsecondary transition success. This survey study was a modified replication of previous studies that examined the instruction of literary braille in university preparation programs for professionals who work with students with visual impairments. Methods: Nineteen university instructors of literary braille responded to a survey about instructional formats, books, and tools, as well as assessment issues, such as test formats, scoring, and requirements for demonstrating proficiency. Results: Survey responses indicated that some instructional strategies at the university level have remained the same over the last 20 years, but there are also some changes. Most notably, updated books and resources are being used and instructors represent the same demographic group, Caucasian females over 45 years old. But, the level of experience has substantially dropped and there has been a shift to increased online learning. All programs indicated focusing instruction on Unified English Braille (UEB) code. Discussion: Prior concerns about the challenges of teaching UEB have been somewhat satisfied. Proficiency exams are now required by programs, which could contribute to better prepare teachers for students with visual impairments. Implications for Practitioners: The shift to online learning affects practice. The use of braille simulation software might alter the way practitioners think about erasures. In preparing for distance learning, instructors must consider how to make courses accessible, rigorous, and of high quality. Although university braille proficiency exams should continue to be used to evaluate the skills of future professionals, educators might advocate for tests at the state or province level prior to licensure and common standards for minimal competency.

Keywords

braille instruction personnel preparation Unified English Braille literary braille blindness low vision visual impairment

Access to braille and the development of braille proficiency are of critical importance to many children with visual impairments (i.e., those who are blind or have low vision). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) stated that instruction in braille must be provided for this population unless the individualized education program team determined otherwise. The presumption was that braille would be the primary literacy medium for students in this population. The first decade of this century ushered in an increased examination of the values of teaching braille (National Federation of the Blind, 2009; Wall Emerson et al., 2009; Wolffe & Kelly, 2011). Wall Emerson et al. (2009) documented that children with visual impairments lagged behind their sighted peers in the area of literacy. A secondary analysis of the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 data by Wolffe and Kelly (2011) found significant relationships between the use of braille and positive postsecondary outcomes for individuals with visual impairments. The studies above suggested that educational success can hinge on timely and intensive direct instruction in braille reading and writing.

Literature in the area of teacher preparation related to braille literacy instruction has primarily explored college coursework, both provided in-person and through remote learning (Amato, 2002; Hong et al., 2017; Koenig & Robinson, 2001; Lewis et al., 2012; Rosenblum et al., 2010). Certification requirements, in-service training and practice, and braille teaching and learning resources have also been regularly discussed issues in the field of visual impairment (Howley et al., 2017; Rosenblum et al., 2010). A challenge for braille literacy teacher preparation has been consistency in expected minimum competencies across programs (Amato, 2002; Bozeman & Zebehazy, 2014; Rosenblum et al., 2010). Online instruction, program standards, and new teacher competencies, including learning resources and level of accuracy, have been critical issues in preservice teacher training.

In attempts to train more future teachers of students with visual impairments, many organizations moved to online instruction. Koenig and Robinson (2001) noted that online instruction tended to be effective when students were highly motivated, self-directed, and technologically savvy. Students also needed easy access to appropriate equipment and a “high-quality, rigorous approach” to course delivery (Koenig & Robinson, 2001, p. 543). The researchers conducted student interviews on course effectiveness, which led them to the following suggestions: (1) assess technology access and abilities, (2) incorporate instructional videos demonstrating brailler usage, (3) increase interaction by utilizing the online discussion board, and (4) include assignments in which students must use the brailler. Bruce and Hwang (2001) also discussed the necessary adjustments for moving a campus course to an online format. Along with direct instruction through web-based lectures, demonstration videos, and hands-on practice, these authors stressed the need for mentorship from an experienced braille user, increased interaction between students, and increased instructor contact with students during the online course.

To maintain and improve student access to high-quality braille instruction from qualified educators, it is important to ensure that personnel preparation programs, whether online or in-person, are meeting the needs of future teachers of braille learners. Studies by Amato (2002) and Rosenblum et al. (2010) offered insight into the state of educator preparation in braille literacy. These studies found great diversity and little consistency among university programs with respect to instructional format, instructional content, expected student outcomes, and criteria for competence or proficiency. Each study called on the need for more consistency and the adoption of minimum standards to ensure that educators who provide braille literacy instruction are equipped with high-quality braille skills (Amato, 2002; Rosenblum et al., 2010).

Amato (2002) surveyed 45 instructors in 34 teacher preparation programs in the United States and Canada. Results indicated that literary braille code competence was determined by each program, leading to inconsistent expectations for future teachers of braille. These inconsistencies prompted Amato's suggestion to develop national standards and objective outcomes for future teachers of students with visual impairments. Rosenblum et al. (2010) designed a survey study, completed by 21 university instructors, to assess whether a consensus had been reached between university programs for determining the minimum competencies for future literary braille teachers. Results indicated that the inconsistencies found in Amato's study had not been resolved.

Lewis et al. (2012) designed parallel Delphi studies to ascertain the possibility of instructors and practitioners coming to consensus on standards for teacher preparation for braille instruction. After three rounds that were conducted with 21 university instructors and 20 teachers of students with visual impairments, both groups were able to agree on a set of seven competencies for new teachers of braille. These included two writing competencies, one reading competency, and five knowledge competencies. Instructors and practitioners came close to consensus on nine other competencies but disagreed either on the resources to be used or the level of accuracy to be expected. One disagreement between groups tended to be about the use of slate and stylus versus electronic braille note-taking tools. Although the seven competencies agreed upon were found to have content validity and could have been used to design standards, the authors reported that the work was still in progress.

With the work on standards incomplete, inconsistencies between programs were once again highlighted as the country moved toward the adoption and implementation of the Unified English Braille (UEB) code. One hundred forty-one teachers of students with visual impairments from 28 U.S. states responded to an online survey conducted by Hong et al. (2017) about the plans of states to transition to UEB, how teachers were learning UEB and the availability of resources related to UEB. Almost half of the respondents had not been formally trained in UEB, and the rest had taken courses through universities or other state and national organizations. Teachers in states with UEB transition plans demonstrated significant differences in survey responses about personal skills, as well as other indicators such as student success and family understanding. Hong et al. collected these data early in the transition to UEB. Now that UEB is fully implemented as the literary braille code in the United States, the experiences of teachers of students with visual impairments have shifted. It seemed the opportune time to revisit the braille literacy issue.

The purpose of this study was to assess current braille instruction methods and requirements for the preparation of teachers of students with visual impairments in university courses or programs. We were particularly interested in examining the instruction of literary braille in preparation programs to determine what had changed and what had remained the same. Literature pointed to continued discussions centered around declining rates of braille literacy of students with visual impairments and made revisiting this issue timely and warranted (Argyropoulos et al., 2019). The study presented here is a modified replication of previous studies (Amato, 2002; Rosenblum et al., 2010), which examined instruction of the literary braille code in teacher preparation programs. This research was conducted in accordance with the guidelines for human participants of the Institutional Review Board at Arizona State University, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.

In this article, we share the results of a modified replication study that examined the following questions:
What are the current practices of university programs for literary braille instruction?

How has the national adoption of UEB affected current practices of university programs for braille instruction?

How has the increased use of technology over the past decade affected current practices of university programs for literacy braille instruction?

Methods

Instrument

The survey included demographic information and information about braille instruction methods and requirements for preparation programs for teachers of students with visual impairments. The researchers contacted one of the authors of the Rosenblum et al. (2010) paper to obtain a copy of the survey questions in order to replicate the study questions as closely as possible. The researchers expanded lines of questioning in the areas of instructional format and braille proficiency testing requirements for students. The survey was modified and updated from earlier versions (Amato, 2002; Rosenblum et al., 2010) to reflect current braille instructional methods. In the context of this article, UEB is used to reference materials in a literary text that are not mathematically or scientifically based. The researchers invited participants to complete a single questionnaire for respondents to complete once.

Criteria for Participation in Study and Recruitment

The study contact list for recruitment was compiled by first accessing the University Directory for Programs in Visual Impairments, published by the Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (TSBVI) Outreach Programs in 2016. Contact information was cross-referenced with the professional preparation program list on the Teaching Visually Impaired (n.d.) website. The website list had been last updated on July 29, 2019. Forty-seven programs were compiled using both the TSBVI and professional preparation program lists.

Next, the authors cross-referenced the 47 programs by accessing the website for each program. Five of the 47 programs were no longer listed on the university websites, and one program did not have a contact email listed for the program, which reduced the list to 41 programs. Forty-one programs were invited to participate in the research study, and one university emailed the authors to confirm that their program was discontinued.

In order for individuals to participate in the study, they had to meet all six of the following criteria:
Have taught at least one university course on how to read and write the literary braille code within the last three years,

taught a literary braille course at least three different semesters or quarters at a university,

taught a literary braille course for three or more years,

the courses or courses were taught through one (or more) universities in the United States or Canada,

the course or courses provided students with skills to produce and read standard literary braille, and

be of 18 years of age or older.

Data Collection

Data for this study were collected in April, May, and June of 2020 using Qualtrics, an IRB-approved online survey program. The survey was designed to allow participants to exit and come back to complete it at another time.

Results

Demographics of Participants

Participants (n = 19) representing 24 university programs that met the criteria for participation completed the survey for this study. Twelve of the 19 participants reported that they had taught literary braille for one university and seven participants reported that they had taught a literary braille course for two universities. One university program was listed more than once and was counted only once in the program numbers, because one of the participants also taught a literary braille course at another institution. All participants taught at programs in the United States, with 18 different states represented; three states (Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas) were represented by more than one program. All 19 participants identified as Caucasian, White. Seventeen (89.47%) participants were female and 2 (10.53%) participants were male. Eight (42.11%) participants were 35–44 years old, 4 (21.05%) were 45–54 years old, 5 (26.32%) were 55–64 years old, and 2 (10.53%) were 65 years of age and over.

Seventeen (89.47%) participants were certified teachers of students with visual impairments and 8 (42.11%) participants were certified orientation and mobility specialists. Eighteen (94.74%) participants had experience teaching braille to kindergarten through 12th-grade students who are visually impaired. Six (31.58%) participants were tenured or tenure track faculty, 6 (31.58%) were nontenured faculty, 5 (26.32%) were instructors hired to teach courses (i.e., adjunct faculty), 1 (5.26%) was a doctoral student, and 1 (5.26%) marked “other” as their current job title.

Participants varied in the number of years in which they had taught literary braille courses. Four (21.05%) respondents had taught literary braille for 3–5 years, 9 (47.37%) for 6–10 years, 2 (10.53%) for 11–15 years, and 4 (21.05%) for 16 or more years. See Table 1 for data from the current study and data set comparisons on literary braille code.

Table 1.
Data Set Comparisons on Literary Braille Code.

Item Amato (Data collected 1999) Rosenblum et al. (Data collected 2009) Current study (Data collected 2020)

Respondents 34 of 39 institutions 21 of 42 institutions 24 of 40 institutions

Instructors 47% adjunct or contract
53% Tenure or tenure earning 33% adjunct or contract
47% Tenure or tenure earning
9.5% Permanent nontenure earning
9.5% Other 26.32% adjunct or contract
31.58% Tenured or tenure earning
31.58% Nontenured faculty
5.26% Doctoral student
5.26% Other

Years taught at the university level 93% More than 11 years 33.3% 3–5 years
14.3% 6–10 years
33.3% 11–15 years
19.0% More than 15 years 21.05% 3–5 years
47.37% 6–10 years
10.53% 11–15 years
21.05% More than 15 years

Textbook used 49% Dorf
51% Ashcroft et al. (2001) 31% Risjord et al. (2000)
47% Ashcroft et al. (2001)
26% Pesavento (1993) 38.89% Holbrook & D’Andrea (2014a)
16.67% NLS (2015)
30.56% Holbrook & D’Andrea (2014b)
13.89% Other

Instructional format 47% Distance learning
53% Face to face 48% Distance learning
52% Face to face 45.45% Online
18.18% Face to face
31.28% Hybrid
4.55% Other

Demonstrate use of the Perkins Brailler 100% 100% 94.74%

Demonstrate use of the slate and stylus 82% 100% (1 per course to 1 per week) 84.21%

Required an exit examination 51% require students to pass a comprehensive exit examination that includes braille 43% reported that students have to pass a state-level test 100% require students to pass a braille proficiency test at the end of the course(s)
33.33% reported that their state/province requires students to demonstrate braille proficiency (n = 18)

Types of Students Taught

All 19 participants indicated that they had taught students preparing to be teachers of students with visual impairments. Three (9.38%) respondents indicated that they also taught students preparing to be certified vision rehabilitation therapists. Six (18.75%) respondents taught students preparing to be certified orientation and mobility specialists. Four (12.50%) respondents selected “other” but did not elaborate.

Instructional Formats and Books

The participants were asked to identify how literary braille is taught, and, in some instances, participants identified more than one format option. Online was used by 10 (45.45%) respondents, face-to-face was used by 4 (18.18%), hybrid (some online, some face-to-face) was used by 7 (31.82%), and “other” was marked once (4.55%). Responses to the remaining questions were not analyzed by the mode of instruction, online, face-to-face, or hybrid, provided by the respondent. Respondents were given the option to check “all that apply” and provide open-response feedback. Participants were asked to identify the online meeting software that they used to deliver braille instruction. Zoom was used by 11 (57.89%) respondents, Go to Meeting by 1 (5.26%), Blackboard Collaborate by 5 (26.32%), and “other” was marked by 2 (10.53%). A range of hours of teacher-led literary braille instruction was used for student instruction during a semester, not including student practice time. Fewer than 15 hours (h) was used by 3 (15.79%) respondents, between 16 and 20 h by 2 (10.53%), between 21 and 30 h by 4 (21.05%), and more than 30 h by 10 (52.63%).

Participants were asked to identify the textbooks that were required for students in literary braille code courses. Fourteen (38.89%) respondents required Ashcroft's Programmed Instruction: Unified English Braille (Holbrook & D’Andrea, 2014a), 6 (16.67%) required National Library Service Instruction Manual (NLS, 2015), 11 (30.56%) required Ashcroft's Companion Reader (Holbrook & D’Andrea, 2014b), and 5 (13.89%) marked “other.” Participants then identified how much time they devoted to English Braille, American Edition (EBAE), and UEB in their literary braille courses. The majority indicated that they spent most of their course time on UEB and spent little to no time on EBAE instruction. EBAE instruction time ranged from no time recorded to five hours for the entire course. In comparison, responses ranged from 14 to 15 weeks to the entire course for UEB instruction.

Tools Used to Produce Braille

Participants were asked to identify all of the tools their program required students to use to produce braille in their courses. Eighteen (94.74%) participants indicated that the use of the Perkins Brailler was required. Seventeen (89.47%) respondents identified that the use of a computer braille program that simulates a brailler (e.g., Perky Duck) was required. Sixteen (84.21%) respondents identified that their program required students to use a slate and stylus. Online tutorials were also required for students to use to learn and practice braille, such as UEBot (n = 1, 6.25%), UEB online (n = 5, 31.25%), and others (n = 10, 62.50%). Respondents did not elaborate on the types of other online tutorials that were required.

Errors

Participants were provided with a list of possible braille errors and asked to select all of the options that they considered errors for braille literary code. Participants were fairly consistent in what they determined to be an error. One participant did not respond to questions about errors. See Table 2 for a full list of what instructors considered an error.

Table 2.
Literary Braille Errors Reported by Instructors (n = 18).

Type of error n Percentage

Not using a contraction when one is required 18 100

Using the wrong contraction 18 100

Mis-brailling a symbol (e.g., putting an “I” for an “e”) 18 100

Putting a space where it doesn't belong 16 88.89

Not spacing between words where there should be a space 18 100

Formatting incorrectly (e.g., not indenting, incorrect headings) 13 72.22

Omitting a letter 18 100

Omitting punctuation 18 100

Omitting an indicator sign 18 100

Omitting a word 18 100

Adding a symbol or letter 18 100

Not erasing accurately 16 88.89

Other 1 5.56

Respondents were asked to explain how they count errors. Seven (38.89%) respondents identified, “When a student misses the contraction for ‘must’ each time it should be used, I count it an error each time.” Ten (55.56%) respondents reported, “When a student misses the contraction ‘must’ more than once, I only count it once.” One (5.56%) individual responded “other” and explained his or her reasoning:
In the unit that a contraction or usage is introduced it is counted as one error. In later units, mastery is expected so it is counted as multiple errors. A formative learning theory is used combined with mastery learning.

Erasures

Eighteen (94.74%) of the 19 participants provided open-response feedback about erasures. The majority of the respondents (n = 13) agreed that if they felt an erasure, then it was counted as an error. Some provided further explanation stating that they should not be able to tactually read through the erasure, a person who is blind should not be able to feel the erasure, and a braille reader should not be able to detect the erasure. A small number indicated that if they saw the erasure, it was an error. Some participants identified a detectable erasure as an error.

Braille Proficiency

Responses to questions about braille proficiency were categorized under two main headings, university program requirements and state requirements.

University Program Requirements

Participants were asked a number of questions directly related to their program's expectations for braille proficiency. Participants indicated that all 24 programs (n = 19) required students to pass a braille proficiency test at the end of their courses. Respondents selected all of the requirements on their program's braille proficiency test. Sixteen (84.21%) respondents identified that the proficiency test included both braille reading and writing. Fifteen (78.95%) respondents identified that students are required to demonstrate proficiency in writing braille on a Perkins Brailler. Eight (42.11%) respondents identified that students are required to demonstrate proficiency in producing braille using electronic methods (i.e., Perky Duck). Eleven (57.89%) respondents identified that students are required to demonstrate proficiency in writing braille on a slate and stylus. Fourteen (73.68%) respondents identified that students are required to demonstrate proficiency in reading hardcopy braille embossed on braille paper.

Eighteen of the 19 participants completed the following questions about test timing and scoring. Fifteen (83.33%) respondents reported that students have a set amount of time to complete the proficiency test. Three (16.67%) respondents reported that students have an indefinite amount of time to complete the proficiency test. Respondents provided an open response to indicate a range of time provided for students to complete the proficiency test. Two respondents reported 1.5 h, 1 respondent reported 2.5 h, 2 respondents reported 3 h, 1 respondent reported 3.5 h, 5 respondents reported 4 h, 1 respondent reported 6 h across 2 days, 1 respondent reported between 10 and 15 h (5 online individually timed sessions), and 1 respondent reported 90 min for writing, 90 min for proofreading, and 60 min for multiple choice. Lastly, respondents were asked to identify the cutoff score for the proficiency test using percentages. Four (21.05%) respondents reported 70%, 1 (5.26%) reported 75%, 5 (26.32%) reported 80%, 1 (5.26%) reported 82%, 2 (10.53%) reported 85%, and 1 (5.26%) reported 88%. Three (15.79%) respondents explained that the cutoff score for the proficiency test used number of errors rather than percentages. One respondent reported, “It's not a percentage. No more than 5 errors in a full 11.5 × 11 page of braille.”

State Requirements

Of the 19 participants, representing 24 university programs, 1 participant did not complete this section of the questionnaire. Six (33.33%) respondents identified that their state requires students to demonstrate braille proficiency prior to obtaining licensure as a certified teacher of students with visual impairments. Twelve (66.67%) respondents identified that their state does not require students to demonstrate braille proficiency prior to obtaining licensure. Two (20.00%) respondents identified that their state used a performance-based assessment format. Five (50.00%) respondents said that their state/province used a multiple-choice and performance-based format. Three (30.00%) respondents noted that a test is not required, and 1 participant elaborated by stating that there are multiple-choice braille questions on the Praxis.

Discussion

The results of the study indicate that although there are many commonalities between the two previous studies (see Table 1) conducted roughly 10 years apart (Amato, 2002; Rosenblum et al., 2010), some changes have taken place when preparing university students in literary braille over the last 20 years.

University Instructors

According to the results of this survey, the current cadre of university literary braille instructors comprises primarily Caucasian females who are more than 45 years old. The overwhelming majority are licensed teachers of students with visual impairments, which is consistent with past survey studies. The percentage of braille instructors who are tenured or tenure-earning has continued to drop over the 20-year period, while the number of instructors who are nontenured faculty has increased (see Table 2). Additionally, the experience level of the instructors has decreased from a height of 93% of instructors in 2002 having more than 11 years of experience, to only 31% of instructors having more than 11 years of experience in the current study. These changes appear to mirror data that show shifts in age and level of experience of teachers in general across the United States as we experience a wave of teacher turnover brought about by retirement and fewer graduates from teacher preparation programs (Watson, 2017).

Instructional Format and Materials

Instructors use an updated version of Ashcroft's Programmed Instruction: Unified English Braille (Holbrook & D’Andrea, 2014a) text for literary braille instruction, and many programs also require Ashcroft's Companion Reader (Holbrook & D’Andrea, 2014b), to give students the additional practice of reading hardcopy braille. UEB instruction comprises the majority (at least 90%) of the literary braille instruction within a university program; whereas time spent on EBAE has decreased. This information was not reported in previous studies because they occurred prior to the adoption of UEB in the United States. This study demonstrates that UEB is the major component of literary braille instruction in university preparation programs.

The findings related to what constitutes a braille error and the allowance of erasures are similar to the previous studies. There is great agreement on what counts as an error (see Table 2), and this result is consistent with the findings of Rosenblum et al. (2010). Erasures that can be felt by touch count as errors; however, with the increase in braille-simulation software, erasures may not continue to be as large a factor in university preparation programs.

In the present study, we identified a notable increase in the use of distance-learning technology for the delivery of university braille instruction and a decrease in the use of face-to-face only instruction compared to previous studies (Amato, 2002; Rosenblum et al., 2010). Over 75% of the respondents use some form of online or hybrid instruction, which is a marked increase from previous studies. The two most common video-communication platforms for online learning are Zoom and Blackboard Collaborate, and the majority of respondents require more than 30 h of teacher-led braille instruction. An additional change from previous studies (Amato, 2002; Rosenblum et al., 2010) is the slight decrease in the use of the Perkins Brailler, an increase in the use of braille-simulation software, and a decrease in the use of the slate and stylus. The decrease may have implications in the classroom for students with visual impairments with regard to their quick access to braille. Teachers may not have access to braille-embossing software in their instructional setting or they may need to quickly braille items for the children they serve, especially when they are in a general education classroom. If teachers have had little to no experience producing hardcopy braille by hand, this deficit could be problematic for ensuring children are receiving high-quality instruction in classrooms. Finally, other instructional tools listed by participants in the current study are online braille-learning tools, such as UEBot and UEB online. UEBot and UEB online are designed to provide students the ability to practice the braille code and build braille skills in multiple ways. However, it is important to continue the use of the Perkins Brailler for building proficiency in the production of error-free hardcopy braille.

Koenig and Robinson (2001) wrote about the increasing use of online instruction for training teachers of students with visual impairments and cautioned about the need for easy access to online technology and “high quality and rigorous” instruction. They noted that accessibility, in terms of both the availability of necessary technology components (i.e., Internet, WiFi) and a fluent level of skills in the use of those technologies, is important. The current study results demonstrate that universities are increasing their use of online learning for braille literacy instruction; it is, therefore, imperative that we have high-quality tools and maintain a level of rigor in the instruction.

The increase in the use of online learning in teacher preparation programs has both positive and negative implications. Online learning allows programs to increase their reach within the state or nation and allows students to remain in their own geographical location while they complete the program. However, such a model relies on students to have consistent broadband access, which is often challenging in rural areas. It is possible to provide rigor and high-quality instruction in an online setting by requiring synchronous sessions in which students can demonstrate proficiency throughout, engage in interactive learning, and be provided multiple opportunities and tools for authentic practice. A proctored braille proficiency exam is also important to achieve these aims.

Braille Proficiency

All of the study respondents require students to pass a braille proficiency exam at the end of their braille instruction. The majority of programs assess both braille reading and writing proficiency and the ability to produce braille on a Perkins Brailler. The majority also require students to demonstrate proficiency on the slate and stylus, and 73% require students to read hardcopy braille. Most respondents require students to meet a cutoff proficiency score of 70% or higher and limit the time of the test, although the amount of time varies greatly. Previous studies (Amato, 2002; Rosenblum et al., 2010) did not examine this issue in detail, but several participants in Rosenblum et al. stated that students need to pass a university-designed test, and some mentioned that the test was timed. Amato (2002) showed that 51% of university programs required students to pass a comprehensive exit exam that includes braille. Results of the current study showed that the method of assessing braille proficiency varied among multiple-choice and performance-based assessments.

Limitations and Future Research

Individuals that were emailed the initial survey solicitation were compiled from online information that may not have been current. One participant did not respond to questions regarding errors, state or province proficiency requirements for braille, and university program proficiency requirements for braille. In addition, questions were not included that addressed how UEB is taught as a technical code versus as a literary code or if slate-and-stylus proficiency was a part of the university program or taught in a specific course, which should be addressed in future research.

Although the field of visual impairment continues to examine the need for minimum braille competencies (Lewis et al., 2012), the current study did not survey programs about their adherence to braille competency standards, such as those developed in Lewis et al.'s (2012) parallel Delphi study. Additionally, unlike Rosenblum et al. (2010), there were no survey questions in the current study regarding braille interlining, proofreading, or the use of references when testing. Questions related to adherence to braille competency standards and braille interlining and proofreading should be included in any future research. The selection criteria required participants to have taught the literary braille course for a minimum of three different semesters or quarters at a university for duration of three or more years. Selection criteria may have affected the number of participants who could meet the criteria and complete the survey. It is recommended that this study be replicated in five years’ time to see whether additional program practices can be captured from more universities.

Implications

Given the increase in online learning models, it is important that instructors stay updated on methods of producing braille beyond the Perkins Brailler and have additional options for students to practice braille using more online tools. Instructors should also ensure their ability to effectively deliver instruction in an online or hybrid model is sufficient and that student engagement can be maintained. Finally, teacher preparation programs need to continue to attract new educators who can serve as university braille instructors and work to diversify the field of educators that better mirrors the diversity of students with visual impairments.

Conclusion

Current university practices of literary braille for future teachers of students with visual impairments appear to have changed somewhat over the years. Instructors use updated resources and materials; they have also changed the method of delivery of the instruction. There continues to be high variability in the braille instruction that students receive, but there is a consistency of thought on what constitutes a braille error. The national adoption of UEB has affected university programs, and the majority of university students receive most instruction in UEB rather than EBAE.

All programs surveyed require students to pass a braille proficiency exam. The assessment of braille proficiency at the university level is not a substitute for a state or national assessment; however, it does help to ensure some level of competency among university graduates. Even though previous studies (Amato, 2002; Lewis et al., 2012; Rosenblum et al., 2010) called for the adoption of minimal standards of competence in literary braille, this goal has not been achieved. In the continued absence of minimum competencies and standards in literary braille, high-quality braille instruction can be accomplished if graduates of all programs are held to high standards and are being taught by experienced instructors at the university level.

Item	Amato (Data collected 1999)	Rosenblum et al. (Data collected 2009)	Current study (Data collected 2020)
Respondents	34 of 39 institutions	21 of 42 institutions	24 of 40 institutions
Instructors	47% adjunct or contract 53% Tenure or tenure earning	33% adjunct or contract 47% Tenure or tenure earning 9.5% Permanent nontenure earning 9.5% Other	26.32% adjunct or contract 31.58% Tenured or tenure earning 31.58% Nontenured faculty 5.26% Doctoral student 5.26% Other
Years taught at the university level	93% More than 11 years	33.3% 3–5 years 14.3% 6–10 years 33.3% 11–15 years 19.0% More than 15 years	21.05% 3–5 years 47.37% 6–10 years 10.53% 11–15 years 21.05% More than 15 years
Textbook used	49% Dorf 51% Ashcroft et al. (2001)	31% Risjord et al. (2000) 47% Ashcroft et al. (2001) 26% Pesavento (1993)	38.89% Holbrook & D’Andrea (2014a) 16.67% NLS (2015) 30.56% Holbrook & D’Andrea (2014b) 13.89% Other
Instructional format	47% Distance learning 53% Face to face	48% Distance learning 52% Face to face	45.45% Online 18.18% Face to face 31.28% Hybrid 4.55% Other
Demonstrate use of the Perkins Brailler	100%	100%	94.74%
Demonstrate use of the slate and stylus	82%	100% (1 per course to 1 per week)	84.21%
Required an exit examination	51% require students to pass a comprehensive exit examination that includes braille	43% reported that students have to pass a state-level test	100% require students to pass a braille proficiency test at the end of the course(s) 33.33% reported that their state/province requires students to demonstrate braille proficiency (n = 18)

Type of error	n	Percentage
Not using a contraction when one is required	18	100
Using the wrong contraction	18	100
Mis-brailling a symbol (e.g., putting an “I” for an “e”)	18	100
Putting a space where it doesn't belong	16	88.89
Not spacing between words where there should be a space	18	100
Formatting incorrectly (e.g., not indenting, incorrect headings)	13	72.22
Omitting a letter	18	100
Omitting punctuation	18	100
Omitting an indicator sign	18	100
Omitting a word	18	100
Adding a symbol or letter	18	100
Not erasing accurately	16	88.89
Other	1	5.56

Footnotes

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.

References

Amato

(2002). Standards for competence in Braille literacy skills in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96(3), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0209600303

Argyropoulos

Hathazi

Nikolaraizi

(2019). Undergraduate student education programs regarding braille literacy: A transnational comparative study. Higher Education Studies, 9(4), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v9n4p44

Ashcroft, S. C., Sanford, L. D., & Koenig, A. J. (2001). New programmed instruction in braille (3rd ed.). Germantown, TN: SCALARS Publishing.

Bozeman

Zebehazy

(2014). Personnel preparation in visual impairment. In P. T. Sindelar, E. D. McCray, T. Brownell, & B. Lignugaris-Kraft (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 353–368). Routledge.

Bruce

S. M.

Hwang

T. T.

(2001). Web-based teacher preparation in visual impairment: Course development, teaching, learning, and quality assurance. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95(10), 609–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0109501004

Holbrook

M. C.

D’Andrea

M. F.

(2014a). Ashcroft’s programmed instruction: Unified English Braille. SCALARS Publishing.

Holbrook

M. C.

D’Andrea

M. F.

(2014b). API-UEB companion reader supplement to Ashcroft’s programmed instruction: Unified English Braille. SCALARS Publishing.

Hong

Rosenblum

L. P.

Campbell

A. F.

(2017). Implementation of Unified English Braille by teachers of students with visual impairments in the United States. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 111(6), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1711100605

Howley

Telfer

(2017). National provisions for certification and professional preparation in low-incidence sensory disabilities: A 50-state study. American Annals of the Deaf, 162(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2017.0026

10.

Individuals with Disabilities Act, 300 § 324. (2004). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/d/300.324/a/2/iii

11.

Koenig

A. J.

Robinson

M. C.

(2001). Online instruction in Braille code skills for preservice teachers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95(9), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0109500905

12.

Lewis

D’Andrea

F. M.

Rosenblum

L. P.

(2012). The development of accepted performance items to demonstrate competency in literary braille. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(4), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210600402

13.

National Federation of the Blind. (2009). The braille literacy crisis in America: Facing the truth, reversing the trend, empowering the blind. https://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/pdf/braille_literacy_report_web.pdf

14.

National Library Service. (2015). Instruction manual for braille transcribing Unified English Braille Edition. https://www.nfb.org/programs-services/braille-certification/literary-braille-transcribing

15.

Pesavento, M. E. (1993). Braille codes and calculations. Castro Valley, CA: Exceptional Teaching.

16.

Risjord, C., Wilkinson, J., & Stark, M. L. (2000). Instruction manual for braille transcribing (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

17.

Rosenblum

L. P.

Lewis

D’Andrea

F. M.

(2010). Current practices in instruction in the literary code university personnel preparation programs. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104(9), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1010400905

18.

Teaching Visually Impaired. (n.d.). Professional preparation programs in the field of visual impairments. https://www.teachingvisuallyimpaired.com/professional-preparation-programs.html

19.

Wall Emerson

Holbrook

M. C.

D’Andrea

F. M.

(2009). Acquisition of literacy skills by young children who are blind: Results from the ABC Braille Study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103(10), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0910301005

20.

Watson

J. L.

(2017). The perfect storm: California school districts are desperately seeking teachers, but will they stay? Leadership, 46(3), 8–13.

21.

Wolffe

Kelly

S. M.

(2011). Instruction in areas of the expanded core curriculum linked to transition outcomes for students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105(6), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1110500605