The Effectiveness of Online Courses in Building Nemeth Code Within UEB Contexts Skills and Increasing Knowledge of Strategies to Support Prekindergarten Through Eighth-Grade Students in Their Mathematics Learning

Abstract

Introduction

Professional development can assist individuals in learning a variety of new skills and refining their teaching practice. The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of asynchronous online courses designed to assist individuals in building their Nemeth Code within Unified English Braille (UEB) Contexts skills and strategies for teaching the code to prekindergarten through eighth-grade students.

Methods

Four teachers of students with visual impairments designed five asynchronous online courses. The courses provided multiple opportunities for participants to actively complete course content as well as learn about strategies and resources for teaching the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts to children and youths. Each course included an initial survey, pretest, seven self-paced lessons, and posttest. Participants were also invited to complete a follow-up survey.

Results

Between spring 2020 and spring 2023, 452 participants completed between 1 and 5 of the courses for a total of 620 courses completed. Almost all completers (n = 598) scored higher on the posttest. Of the 227 individuals who completed the follow-up survey, 223 reported that what they learned in the course had positively impacted how they support or will support students who read braille in their math classes.

Discussion

Effective professional development goes beyond learning. When individuals actively consume content and reflect upon their learning, their professional practice is transformed.

Implications for Practitioners

Well-designed asynchronous instructional modules allow professionals to increase their knowledge and skills. Opportunities to practice skills and check one's work, access to instructional videos, and the availability of downloadable slides and resources are helpful to professionals.

Keywords

braille literacy braille code STEM education visual impairment (blindness and low vision)tactile graphics Nemeth Code

Students with visual impairments who read braille deserve equitable access to information and instruction so that they may successfully build their mathematics skills throughout their prekindergarten through 12th-grade education. An assortment of individuals across the United States, including paraeducators, certified braille transcribers, braillists, and teachers of students with visual impairments (TVIs) transcribe math instructional materials for students who read braille (Corn & Wall, 2002; Herzberg & Stough, 2007; Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2011). It has been well documented over the last two decades that the training and expertise of these individuals greatly vary (Corn & Wall, 2002; Herzberg & Stough, 2007; Herzberg et al., 2016; Herzberg et al., 2023; Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2011). When the accuracy of brailled math instructional materials has been examined, the majority contained errors that could affect a student's ability to understand the content, complete assignments, or both (Herzberg et al., 2023; Herzberg & Rosenblum, 2014).

The adoption in the United States of Nemeth Code within Unified English Braille (UEB) Contexts and UEB Math/Science by the Braille Authority of North America (BANA) in 2016 required individuals who transcribe math materials to learn a new or updated braille code. Some individuals have reported a lack of training and reference materials to learn and teach the codes adopted in 2016 (Herzberg & McBride, 2023; Herzberg & Rosenblum, 2022; Hong et al., 2017). For

☑Earn CEs Online

by answering questions on this article.

For more information, visit:

https://www.aerbvi.org/

example, as of July 2023, the official codebook from BANA for the updated Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts is still unavailable to individuals who transcribe math materials.

Leaders in the field of visual impairment have advocated that refresher braille courses be considered when professionals need to build or update their braille skills (Allman & Holbrook, 1999; Amato, 2002; Herzberg et al., 2016). One of the first computerized Nemeth Code tutorials was developed in 1997 by Kapperman et al. (1997). This tutorial offered an explanation of the rules and opportunities for reading and writing math problems in braille (Kapperman & Sticken, 2002). In 2014, Herzberg and colleagues offered an asynchronous online course that focused on common Nemeth Code errors and how to produce tactile graphics used in math classes. There was a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores, and more than 80% of the participants reported that they learned content that changed the way they prepared math materials (Herzberg et al., 2016). Additionally, the National Braille Association, National Library Service, in partnership with the National Federation of the Blind, and Hadley have offered a variety of webinars and courses over the last decade. Most of these offerings have focused on learning the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts, but not on strategies and resources for teaching the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts to prekindergarten through 12th-grade students. Moreover, little information about the effectiveness of these webinars and courses is publicly available.

The effectiveness of professional development varies significantly, depending on its design, intensity, duration, and format (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Kalinowski et al., 2020; Meyer et al., 2023; Sims et al., 2021). When creating professional development offerings, individuals should focus on specific content, model effective instructional practices, offer feedback, and provide opportunities for participants to be actively involved and question their own professional practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Sims et al., 2021). Asynchronous online professional development can support participants in learning new skills and improving their teaching practices when participants actively consume information (Meyer et al., 2023). Asynchronous online formats are preferred by some individuals since this format provides straightforward and fast access to the training materials, flexibility to complete the materials at the participants’ convenience, and ongoing access to the training materials after the completion of the professional development course (Meyer et al., 2023; Parsons et al., 2019; Powell & Bodur, 2019).

In order to explore the effectiveness of a series of courses designed to assist individuals in building their Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts skills and strategies for teaching the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts to prekindergarten through eighth-grade students, this study was designed to answer four research questions:

To what extent did the information in the asynchronous online courses increase the skills of participants in the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts, formatting of mathematics materials, and producing tactile graphics?

How have participants used knowledge obtained through the courses in supporting the math learning of prekindergarten through eighth-grade students who read braille?

How have participants used knowledge obtained through the courses in preparing materials for prekindergarten through eighth-grade students who read braille in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses?

What course components did the participants report as helpful in learning course content?

Method

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of South Carolina. All participants provided informed consent when registering for a course. Registration and all study instruments were administered online in Qualtrics.

Instruments

In an initial survey, participants answered demographic questions, questions about current employment, and explained why they wanted to enroll in a course. Learning was assessed through a 20-item multiple choice pre- and posttest. Following course completion, participants were invited to complete a follow-up survey that contained questions about their satisfaction with the content of the course, the value of the course content in advancing their skills and knowledge, the extent of their participation (e.g., hours completing course requirements), and the course features that were most and least valuable in their learning (e.g., print-and-braille examples provided in the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts lessons, resource list). The follow-up survey included a question about the participants’ role and six open-ended questions about how the course could be improved, what participants liked best about the course, and how they would use what they learned. The follow-up survey was only administered during the first two offerings of each course as required under the commitment with the funder. Subsequent course offerings were made available by the first author in order to support professionals, but follow-up survey data were not collected to document learner satisfaction.

Recruitment

The online courses were advertised on electronic discussion groups (e.g., AERNet, Braille, and Teach), in Facebook groups (e.g., Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments and O&M Specialists), and social media of both Paths to Literacy and Paths to Technology. Individuals who had completed a prior course were also invited to take future courses through direct email invitations.

Overview of the Courses

Four teachers of students with visual impairments created five asynchronous online courses. Three of the teachers are certified secondary math teachers and serve on technical committees for BANA. Topics covered in the courses corresponded to math content covered in the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) from prekindergarten through eighth grade. Each course included an introduction, a course walk-through video, seven lessons, an extensive annotated resource list, and two assignments. Each lesson was accessible and included video captions, video transcripts, alternate text for photos, and both large print-and-braille files for individuals who are visually impaired and unable to see the slides in the videos. More information about each course, including learning objectives, is available at https://www.pathstoliteracy.org/resource/project-inspire/. Table 1 provides an overview of the content covered in each course by lesson and when each course was offered.

Table 1.

When Courses Were Offered and Topics Covered in the Lessons of the Five Courses.

Course	When offered	Nemeth topics	Formatting topics	Methods and materials topics
Course 1: Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts and Strategies for Supporting the PreK-1st Grade Student in Building Math Skills	Spring 2020, summer 2020, fall 2022, spring 2023	(L1–2) Numbers, linear problems, switch indicators, multiple choice problems, and spatial problems	(L3) Formatting centered headings, braille page numbers, directions, and problems	(L4–7) Collaboration, strategies for supporting young students in learning Nemeth Code and math, and family engagement
Course 2: An Introduction to Nemeth Code Symbols Used in Grades 2–5 and Strategies for Supporting Elementary Students in Building Math Skills	Summer 2020, fall 2020, fall 2022, spring 2023	(L1–3) Signs of operation and comparison, switch indicators, mathematical comma, money, word problems, grouping symbols, and superscripts	(L4) Formatting braille and print page numbers directions, numbered problems, and tables	(L5–7) Supporting students in Grades 2–5 in learning Nemeth Code and math concepts, building a strong educational team, and digital workflow
Course 3: Grades 2–5: Nemeth Code Symbols for Fractions and Spatial Problems, Instructional Tools, Materials and Technology	Fall 2020, spring 2021, fall 2022, spring 2023	(L1–3) Fractions, mixed numbers, spatial arrangements, long division, and number lines	(L4) Formatting directions, transcriber's notes, example problems, numbered spatial problems, and number lines	(L5–7) Instructional tools and materials, strategies for developing students’ abacus skills, and technology skills that support digital math concepts and skills
Course 4: Geometry and Tactile Graphics for Students in Grades 3–8	Spring 2021, summer 2021, fall 2021, fall 2022, spring 2023	(L1–3) Basic shapes, angles, and the five-step rule and exceptions	(L4) Importance of the BANA Guidelines when creating tactile graphics; identifying the steps needed to plan and create a tactile graphic; guidelines for titles, keys, labels, areas, lines, and points on tactile graphics	(L5–7) Materials and strategies for geometry, information about how to create quick and efficient tactile graphics, strategies for teaching students to create their own drawings, and systematic teaching of graphics literacy to students
Course 5: Nemeth Code Symbols Used in the Middle Grades and Strategies for Supporting Math Learning	Fall 2021, spring 2022, summer 2022, fall 2022, spring 2023	(L1–2) Grouping symbols (e.g., brackets, braces), negative numbers, absolute value, superscripts, and subscripts	(L3) Formatting word problems, number lines that include inequalities, and x/y data tables	(L4–7) Strategies for supporting students in learning Nemeth Code and math, connecting middle school literature to math concepts, and teaching math skills to students with visual impairments and additional disabilities

Note. L = lesson.

Key features of effective professional development identified by Darling-Hammond (2017) were used when designing and implementing the courses. Participants were provided multiple opportunities to actively consume content by interlining and transcribing math problems and instructional materials. Answer keys were provided to participants so that they could check the accuracy of their work immediately upon completion of each exercise and assignment. Video clips modeling effective instructional practice were embedded into the lessons that focused on strategies and resources. The first or second author served as the course facilitator and was available via email and Zoom to answer questions about the content or problem-solve any technology-related issues. Each course remained open for 6 weeks in order to provide participants with an adequate amount of time to learn, practice, implement, and reflect upon new strategies and content.

Data Analysis Procedure

Demographic and background information about the participants from the initial survey were matched with pre- and posttest data. The follow-up survey responses were not matched with pre- and posttest data, since survey responses were anonymous. Initial survey, pretest, posttest, and follow-up survey data were downloaded into Excel and analyzed by the third author using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data from the open-ended responses were analyzed by the first author, using open coding methods based upon the methodology of Glaser as described by Merriam (2009).

Results

Background Information

Between March 2020 and April 2023, 452 TVIs, paraeducators, and braillists or certified transcribers completed one or more courses. Table 2 contains demographic information about these participants. They (n = 436) were from 46 U.S. states, with the most from Texas (n = 58), Michigan (n = 28), California (n = 28), and Washington (n = 27). Two participants were TVIs employed by the U.S. Department of Defense. On the registration form, participants were asked why they wanted to take the course. The most common reason participants shared for wanting to take the course was to increase their knowledge of Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts.

Table 2.

Background Information of the 452 Participants and the Number of Courses They Completed.

Demographic, N (%)
Gender (n = 418)
Female	390 (93.3)
Male	22 (5.3)
Preferred not to provide this information	6 (1.4)
Ethnicity/race (n = 417)
American Indian or Native American	4 (1.0)
Asian	13 (3.1)
Black or African American	11 (2.6)
Hispanic/LatinX	31 (7.4)
Multiracial	11 (2.6)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	1 (0.2)
Other	2 (0.5)
White	317 (76.0)
Preferred not to provide this information	27 (6.5)
Professional role (n = 452)
Teacher of students with visual impairments	284 (62.8)
Transcriber or braillist	98 (21.7)
Paraprofessional	70 (15.5)
Years of experience for teachers of students with visual impairments (n = 223)
1–3	47 (21.1)
4–6	42 (18.8)
7–9	30 (13.5)
10–12	19 (8.5)
13–15	19 (8.5)
16–18	6 (2.7)
19–21	15 (6.7)
22–25	15 (6.7)
26+	25 (11.2)
Preferred not to provide this information	5 (2.2)
Number of courses completed (n = 452)
1	334 (53.9)
2	82 (26.5)
3	25 (12.1)
4	8 (5.2)
5	3 (2.4)

Changes in Participants’ Knowledge

To measure changes in participants’ knowledge of content covered in each course, pre- and posttest scores were compared. Table 3 provides pre- and posttest score data. Across the five courses, the average number of questions participants answered correctly from pre- to posttest increased by 6.1 questions (SD = 3.12). With few exceptions (n = 22), participants scored higher on the posttest than the pretest.

Table 3.

Pre- and Posttest Score Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, and Differences.

Variable	Course 1	Course 2	Course 3	Course 4	Course 5	Total
N	152	139	100	116	113	620
Pretest M	11.6	10.2	10.2	11.3	11.8	11.0
Pretest SD	2.94	2.62	2.95	2.59	3.20	2.94
Pretest Range	0–18	4–16	7–14	6–17	4–18	0–18
Posttest M	17.6	17.0	16.6	17.3	17.0	17.1
Posttest SD	1.76	2.54	2.50	2.02	2.45	2.27
Posttest Range	11–20	7–20	11–20	9–20	8–20	7–20
Difference M	6.0	6.81	6.4	6.0	5.2	6.1
Difference SD	3.23	2.78	3.13	2.88	3.39	3.12
Negative or no difference	6	0	3	4	9	22

Participant Feedback From a Follow-Up Survey

Two hundred and thirty-four participants completed the follow-up survey, of whom 157 (67.1%) were TVIs, 38 (16.2%) were transcribers, and 39 (16.7%) were paraeducators. These percentages are similar to the percentages of professional roles of all individuals who completed one or more courses (see Table 2). In the follow-up survey, participants were asked how many hours it took them to complete the pretest, seven lessons, and posttest. Of the 227 participants who responded, 40 (17.6%) spent 5 h or less, 105 (46.3%) spent 6–10 h, 57 (25.1%) spent 11–15 h, and 25 (11.0%) spent more than 15 h.

Of the 227 participants who completed a follow-up survey, 222 (97.8%) reported watching all (n = 210; 92.5%) or most (n = 12; 5.3%) of the videos. In addition, 215 (94.7%) indicated they completed most or all of the activities embedded into the lessons. As a follow-up question, participants were asked how helpful the lesson videos and embedded activities were to their learning. Of the 224 participants, almost all (n = 220; 95.6%) reported the lesson videos were helpful (n = 34; 15.2%) or very helpful (n = 186; 83%). Similarly, of the 225 participants who responded, 215 (95.6%) reported the embedded activities were helpful (n = 42; 18.7%) or very helpful (n = 173; 76.9%). Participants were also asked to rate the value of each lesson in advancing their skills. See Table 4 for the mean and standard deviation by lesson.

Table 4.

Participants’ Mean (Standard Deviation) Ratings of the Value of the Lessons in the Courses (n = 234).

Lesson	Course 1 (n = 55)	Course 2 (n = 35)	Course 3 (n = 49)	Course 4 (n = 47)	Course 5 (n = 48)
Lesson 1	4.6 (0.56) ^a	4.6 (0.75) ^a	4.7 (0.52) ^a	4.6 (0.83) ^a	4.7 (0.72) ^a
Lesson 2	4.7 (0.51) ^a	5.0 (0.18) ^a	4.8 (0.37) ^a	4.6 (0.68) ^a	4.7 (0.55) ^a
Lesson 3	4.7 (0.55) ^b	4.9 (0.24) ^a	4.8 (0.41) ^a	4.6 (0.65) ^a	4.7 (0.54) ^b
Lesson 4	4.6 (0.78) ^c	4.9 (0.42) ^b	4.8 (0.43) ^b	4.7 (0.51) ^a	4.7 (0.55) ^c
Lesson 5	4.3 (0.78) ^c	4.3 (0.98) ^c	4.5 (0.65) ^c	4.5 (0.89) ^c	4.7 (0.58) ^c
Lesson 6	4.3 (0.86) ^c	4.6 (0.67) ^c	4.4 (0.68) ^c	4.4 (1.00) ^c	4.2 (1.12) ^c
Lesson 7	4.3 (0.88) ^c	4.4 (0.90) ^c	4.6 (0.62) ^c	4.4 (0.85) ^c	4.4 (0.88) ^c
All lessons	4.5 (0.73)	4.7 (0.68)	4.7 (0.55)	4.6 (0.79)	4.6 (0.75)

Nemeth Content.

Formatting Content.

Methods and Materials Content.

Follow-up survey participants were also asked to identify the three-course features that were most valuable to their learning. The most commonly identified course features were the print-and-braille examples provided in the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts lessons (n = 178), narrator explanation of examples in the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts lessons (n = 101), bullet points in the PowerPoints that explained the rules (n = 97), embedded activities in the lessons that participants had to interline and then check against the answer key (n = 87), embedded activities in the lessons that participants had to transcribe into braille and then check against the answer key (n = 49), photos and videos showing materials or teaching strategies (n = 49), resources from American Printing House for the Blind (APH) or other organizations (n = 41), and professionals sharing their experiences and/or perspectives via video (n = 30).

Participants were asked what they liked best about the online course. Many of the comments related to the most highly rated course features. For example, a TVI commented, “I liked that the content and pacing was not overwhelming. I appreciate that there were plenty of examples that I can use as a template to create my own materials for my student.” A paraeducator who has responsibility for preparing braille materials shared, “I LOVE the PowerPoints. So clear, great for quick review when needed, great and very specific examples of correct rules of transcription.”

Participants were asked to categorize their agreement with the following statement using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree: “This course has positively impacted how I support or will support students in [grades filled in based on course content] who read braille in their math classes.” Of 227 participants who responded, 179 (78.9%) strongly agreed with the statement, 44 (19.4%) agreed with the statement, 4 (1.8%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, and no participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. In an open-ended question, participants were asked how they would use what they learned throughout the course in their work with students who are braille readers.

Five themes emerged in the responses: (a) increased capacity to prepare accurate math materials; (b) increased capacity to teach the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts to students; (c) increased confidence in preparing math materials or supporting students in their math learning; (d) increased capacity to support other TVIs, general education math teachers, paraeducators, and families; and (e) increased awareness of materials and resources that can be used to support math learning of students who read braille. Many of the participants identified specific ways that they were using the course materials and what they learned. For example, one TVI who completed Course 4 reported,

I already ordered the Animal[Watch Vi Building Graphics Literacy] from APH and the tactile graphics that go along with it and plan to use it with my 6th grade student in the fall. I can actually say that I like Nemeth now. In the past, I had a fear of it.

A transcriber and braillist who completed Course 5 shared,

I will use the information from this course to better prepare materials for my student the way it's supposed to be. I was not very good at including numeric indicators or switch indicators, but now I am much better in knowing when and where to use them.

In addition, a TVI who completed Course 1 described how she is integrating what she learned into her instruction: “I loved the resources given regarding how to teach the iPad/Voiceover and how to introduce math apps. I am using those resources now to plan my technology lessons.”

Participants were also invited to share suggestions for improving future courses. Five themes emerged in the 66 open-ended responses: (a) include additional examples and sample transcriptions within the lessons; (b) explain prerequisite skills needed for each course; (c) offer courses specifically for certified transcribers and braillists; (d) offer a variety of end-of-course assignments so that participants can select ones most applicable to their work; and (e) provide additional opportunities for participants to ask questions and collaborate with peers throughout each course. Several participants also offered suggestions for future courses (high school, abacus, graphing, and calculus) or provided information about additional resources that could be highlighted in future courses. At the end of the follow-up survey, participants were asked to rate how likely they would be to enroll in a future course, using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Of 226 participants who responded, 186 (82.3%) strongly agreed, 37 (16.4%) agreed, 3 (1.3%) neither agreed or disagreed, and no participants disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Discussion

The present study investigated the effectiveness of asynchronous online courses in building the skills necessary to transcribe math materials accurately, teach the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts, and support elementary and middle-grade students in their math learning. Similar to the previous Nemeth Code course detailed in Herzberg et al. (2016), almost all participants in this study scored higher on the posttest and reported that what they learned would positively impact how they support students who read braille. Ongoing, high-quality professional development is essential to ensure TVIs, braille transcribers, braillists, and paraeducators are well prepared to meet the needs of students who read braille. When the guidelines for math braille codes are updated by BANA, corresponding and comprehensive training should be offered throughout the United States in diverse formats, including asynchronous online formats. State and national organizations should also be encouraged to build strong networks for sharing resources and information about training. Thirty-one percent (n = 141) of the participants in this study came from four states (Texas, California, Michigan, and Washington) that have active networks for distributing information to professionals in their state.

According to Darling-Hammond et al., effective professional development is “professional learning that results in changes in teacher practices and improvements in student learning outcomes” (2017, p. v). In order to facilitate changes in teacher practices, the course designers in this study provided multiple activities that required participants to practice the braille symbols and rules they were learning and to consider how they would use targeted resources and strategies in their day-to-day teaching practice. The qualitative and quantitative data indicate that the courses were effective: the vast majority of participants scored higher on the posttest and many of the participants who completed the follow-up survey offered specific examples of how their professional practice changed as a result of completing one or more of the courses. In illustration, one TVI offered,

I have already saved the PowerPoints of each lesson in my Drive files for quick references. They were excellent. I feel much more confident now in creating math materials for students on my itinerant caseload. I'm teaching mini-math lessons on correct formatting, flashcards for sorting [Nemeth symbols], and providing more experiences with tactile graphics. The course is so needed for anyone (teacher, school staff, families) to promote best practices for math. The motto “math is hard” would never be uttered if everyone took this course!

Limitations

The study had limitations. Since the follow-up survey was anonymous, data could not be matched with survey and pre- and posttest responses. Additionally, not all participants were provided an opportunity to complete the follow-up survey, and the authors did not keep a detailed log of questions sent by the participants. The pre- and posttest provided information about participant learning, however, the authors did not directly evaluate participants’ Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts transcribing or interlining skills, nor did they observe how those working directly with students who are braille readers applied knowledge gained through the courses.

Future Research

Future research should further explore characteristics of asynchronous online modules that contribute to positive outcomes on the individual level in the field of visual impairment education. Direct observational studies of teachers’ braille instruction and evaluation of sample braille instructional materials after the completion of asynchronous online professional development would allow researchers to have a deeper understanding of the effect of professional development. Additional research is needed to explore how less experienced, newly qualified TVIs, transcribers, braillists, and paraeducators are supporting the math learning of students who read braille.

Implications for Practitioners

Providing asynchronous online professional development allowed individuals to move through the content at their own pace. Embedding practice activities throughout each course enabled participants to actively consume the content, build their Nemeth Code skills, and evaluate their learning throughout the course. As 452 individuals completed one or more of the Project INSPIRE (Increasing the STEM Potential of Individuals Who Read Braille) courses, it is clear that there is a need for ongoing professional development opportunities for TVIs, braille transcribers, and paraeducators. As recommended by Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) and Sims et al. (2021), schools, states, and national organizations should conduct a comprehensive needs assessment so that future training can target the areas of greatest need. Administrators must allow TVIs, paraeducators, and transcribers time and resources to engage in professional development that targets topics that are essential to their professional role. Incentivizing professional development should be considered for individuals responsible for transcribing math instructional materials or teaching math braille codes to students.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Sara Larkin, Susan Osterhaus, and the guest contributors for their work in preparing the course content, the individuals who completed courses, and Charlotte Cushman for posting the courses on the Paths to Literacy website.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project was funded by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education (H235E190003). The views expressed are not necessarily those of the funding agency.

ORCID iD

C. Rett McBride

References

Allman

C. B.

Holbrook

M. C.

(1999). Providing a braille refresher course for teachers of students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 93(12), 770–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X9909301203

Amato

(2002). Standards for competence in braille literacy skills in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96(3), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0209600303

Corn, A. L., & Wall, R. S. (2002). Training and availability of braille transcribers in the United States. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0209600404

Darling-Hammond

Hyler

M. E.

Gardner

(2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311

Herzberg

T. S.

McBride

C. R.

(2023). Experiences of teachers of students with visual impairments in learning and teaching a new braille code for mathematics and science. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 117(6), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X231216472

Herzberg

T. S.

Rosenblum

L. P.

(2014). Print to braille: Preparation and accuracy of K-12 mathematics materials. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 108(5), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1410800502

Herzberg

T. S.

Rosenblum

L. P.

(2022). Information gathered to assist in designing STEM braille training materials: Survey results. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 12(1). https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/jbir/jbir22/jbir120101.html https://doi.org/10.5241/12-234

Herzberg

T. S.

Stough

L. M.

(2007). The production of brailled instructional materials in Texas public schools. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101(8), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0710100803

Herzberg

T. S.

Rosenblum

L. P.

Robbins

M. E.

(2016). Results of an online refresher course to build braille transcription skills. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 110(4), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1611000406

10.

Herzberg

T. S.

Rosenblum

L. P.

Osterhaus

S. A.

Larkin

S. K.

McBride

C. R.

(2023). Online synchronous professional development to support teachers of students with visual impairments in learning Nemeth Code within Unified English Braille Contexts. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 117(6), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X231216956

11.

Hong

Rosenblum

L. P.

Campbell

A. F.

(2017). Implementation of UEB by teachers of students with visual impairments in the United States. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 111(6), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1711100605

12.

Kalinowski

Egert

Gronostaj

Vock

(2020). Professional development on fostering students’ academic language proficiency across the curriculum—A meta-analysis of its impact on teachers’ cognition and teaching practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102971

13.

Kapperman

Sticken

(2002). A software tutorial for learning the Nemeth code of Braille mathematics. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96(12), 855–857. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0209601205

14.

Kapperman

Henry

Cortesi

Heinze

Sticken

(1997). The computerized Nemeth code tutor. Research and Development Institute.

15.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd ed). Jossey-Bass.

16.

Meyer

Kleinknecht

Richter

(2023). What makes online professional development effective? The effect of quality characteristics on teachers’ satisfaction and changes in their professional practices. Computers & Education, 200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104805

17.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. https://www.corestandards.org

18.

Parsons

S. A.

Hutchison

A. C.

Hall

L. A.

Parsons

A. W.

Ives

S. T.

Leggett

A. B.

(2019). U.S. teachers’ perceptions of online professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 82(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.006

19.

Powell

C. G.

Bodur

(2019). Teachers’ perceptions of an online professional development experience: Implications for a design and implementation framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.004

20.

Rosenblum

L. P.

Herzberg

(2011). Accuracy and techniques in the preparation of math materials for tactual learners. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105(7), 402–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1110500703

21.

Sims

Fletcher-Wood

O’Mara-Eves

Cottingham

Stansfield

Van Herwegen

Anders

(2021). What are the characteristics of teacher professional development that increase pupil achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-reviews/teacherprofessional-development-characteristics