‘A really good teaching strategy’: Secondary students with vision impairment voice their experiences of inclusive teacher pedagogy

Abstract

The inclusion of students with vision impairment (VI) into regular classes is typically made possible via a raft of technical accommodations and special educational support. This article reports key findings of a small-scale qualitative Australian study conducted with a group of secondary school students with VI about teachers’ practices that increased their access and autonomy. Participants reported that a combination of (1) using appropriate communication modes, (2) making accessible resources available to students in a timely manner, (3) being able to ‘think outside the box’ about the provision of access to diagrammatic study material, and (4) being approachable outside of scheduled lessons for individual consultations increased their inclusion in the school. Raw data are presented to illustrate the value of these practices to the students. This article concludes with a discussion of the potential of students’ views to the facilitation of inclusive practices, and the broader implication of this to the teaching profession.

Keywords

Australia inclusive practices pedagogy secondary school student voice vision impairment

Introduction

Most children and young people with vision impairment (VI) attend inclusive schools in Western countries (Foreman, 2011; Tuttle & Tuttle, 2004). To do so, they generally receive numerous adjustments to facilitate their inclusion into regular classrooms (Brown, 2009; Cox & Dykes, 2001; Hatlen, 1996; Palmer, 2005). It nevertheless seems incongruous that their education in these settings is recurrently ineffective, given that children with VI have been educated in inclusive classrooms in Australia since the 1930s (Foreman & Arthur-Kelly, 2008). The Australian Blindness Forum (ABF, 2008) observes that education programmes for students with VI are habitually inequitable and lack direction, reach, and effect. In long term, this leaves young people with VI without the requisite skills to cope beyond secondary education, unable to gain and retain employment and/or live independently.

The concept of inclusive education presents a major challenge to educators (Allan, 2008; Slee, 2011). Despite a dramatic shift away from specialist pedagogy in classrooms, the special education tradition still lingers (Miles & Ainscow, 2011). Students with special needs are generally assigned paraprofessional support in mainstream classrooms, which stifles their social inclusion and generally means that teachers spend less time engaging with them directly (Tews & Lupart, 2008). However, as Miles and Ainscow (2011) caution, ‘More inclusive schools will not be achieved by transplanting special education thinking and practice into mainstream contexts’ (p. 3). Clearly then, a greater focus must be placed on the education of students with VI in inclusive schools, specifically in terms of how the practices of class teachers facilitate their learning.

What students with VI have to say

Little is known how students with VI make sense of their education in inclusive settings. Young people with disabilities generally (Allan, 2008; Slee, 2011), and with VI more specifically, have been left out of the conversation of how best to include them in schools. It is important to listen to the voices of students who are at risk of marginalisation about their experiences, in order to learn how best to enhance inclusive practices that might facilitate their learning. Cook-Sather (2006) argues that educators should pay close attention to the voices of their students. Moss (2012) extends on this argument with a suggestion that when consulted about their educational narratives, young people can reveal alternative stories that expedite a richer understanding and interpretation of inclusion and exclusion.

The author could only find four published studies conducted in the last quarter of a century that sought the perspectives of students with VI about their schooling (Higgins & Ballard, 2000; Khadka, Ryan, Margrain, Woodhouse, & Davies, 2012; O’Brien, 1989; West, Houghten, Taylor, & Ling, 2004). Whether or not the participants of these studies felt included at school was dependent on a number of factors, including social acceptance, support, teacher pedagogy, and access to resources.

The students considered class teachers’ practices indispensable to their inclusion. However, there appeared to be a fine line between pedagogical practices that effectively included the students with VI and those that excluded them. Moreover, this line could be easily crossed in two distinct directions, which led to social marginalisation. Many teachers failed to provide instructions in classes in a way that included students with VI (Higgins & Ballard, 2000; O’Brien, 1989; West et al., 2004). Often this was the case because teachers did not adapt classroom instructions, or neglected to provide them with accessible resources. In contrast, students with VI reported that they received too much support from teachers at times, which made them feel disempowered and contributed to their being socially outcast (Higgins & Ballard, 2000; Khadka et al., 2012). Across all four studies, the students felt socially marginalised at school (Higgins & Ballard, 2000; West et al., 2004), typically because of the personal support that they received from others (Khadka et al., 2012).

Clearly then, it is a delicate balance of teacher pedagogy that provides students with VI appropriate access to their work, without being prohibitively supportive or overly reliant on heavy paraprofessional services (Whitburn, 2013). Accordingly, class teachers’ practices appear to influence social inclusion in schools for VI students. It would be useful to learn from students with VI about teachers’ practices that capably hold this balance. This article discusses the findings of a recent study that sought to do so. In particular, it focuses on the voices of secondary students with VI in relation to how educational staff contributed to their experiences of inclusion, and engaged the services of specialist support staff in so doing.

Methods

The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of secondary students with VI about their experiences of inclusive schooling, to reveal how in-school practices can affect their inclusion. This article concentrates on the students’ views of inclusive teacher pedagogy, which emerged as a part of the findings of the larger research project (Whitburn, 2014). Grounded theory was used to frame this study, which facilitated the development of a theoretical conception of findings (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In the following section, the author describes the purpose of adopting grounded theory for this type of exploratory research. In the sections that follow, ethical considerations, sampling, participants, and the research setting are described. This precedes a discussion of the grounded theory techniques (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) that guided data collection and analysis.

Exploratory research and the role of grounded theory

‘Grounded theory methods consist of systematic, yet flexible guidelines for collecting and analysing qualitative data to construct theories “grounded” in the data themselves’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. 2). In line with the objectives of this project, grounded theory enables researchers to narrow their focus by concentrating solely on the field under study, while openly constructing a theoretical explanation of their findings. The objective of this strategy is to look for meaning in the collected data before turning to published literature. Furthermore, grounded theory depends on simultaneous data collection and analysis, whereby concepts that emerge from scrutinising raw findings guide subsequent fieldwork, and so the process repeats until saturation is reached (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Ethical considerations, sampling, and participants

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee after a secondary school was identified with students who had VI enrolled in it. Five students (four boys and one girl) aged 13–17 years across years 8–12 participated in the study, after approval was sought from their parents and the school to do so. Assent was also sought from students throughout fieldwork to ensure they were willing to continue their participation in the study. Each attended the one secondary school in the Australian state of Queensland, which had a special education programme (SEP) that operated on school grounds.

The participants had disparate causes and varying degrees of VI, and each made use of specialised equipment such as Braille, large print, hand-held magnifiers, laptop computers with synthetic speech software, and electronic copies of textbooks. The students were enrolled in the SEP, which provided formatted resources and specialist instruction in VI-specific skills from the expanded core curriculum (Hatlen, 1996) as required. Despite this, all participants attended regular classes for most if not all of their scheduled school hours. Using a theoretical sampling technique advocated by Strauss and Corbin (1990), participants were selected on the basis that they were students of the research setting, and had been diagnosed with impaired vision. This sample represented a typical portrayal of students with visual impairments who enrolled in the school from year to year. Repeated access to the field provided this study with a small yet widely rich collection of data from multiple sources (Ball, 2006).

Data collection

More than 20 hr of face-to-face individual and focus group interviews were conducted with participants to generate the data of this study. These were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interviews took place in a designated meeting room, and each ranged from 20 to 60 min depending on time restraints. Participants attended interviews at different hours of the school day to avoid missing important lessons. It was believed that given the variation in ages of participants, the unique experiences of each would enrich the data, and add value to the generated theory. Moreover, repeated interviews with this sample of participants would ensure that iterative overlapping themes and patterns would emerge from the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Data analysis

Constant comparative analysis of the data as it was collected led to the development of the results, such as that presented on effective teacher pedagogy in this article. Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) formulation of grounded theory directed this process through a prescribed analytical model of open, axial, and selective coding – of which details are discussed below.

Open coding

Open coding requires the researcher to ask questions of the data and assign theoretical labels to them. Line-by-line coding (Charmaz, 2006) led the researcher to draw out interpretations from individual lines of inquiry in interview transcripts, which were then compared against one another through constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The resultant conceptions derived from open coding directed subsequent interviews from a theoretical angle.

Axial coding

Following Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) canons of grounded theory, axial coding involves the selection of a particular occurrence that emerges from open coding that appears to hold theoretical significance to the study. This is then examined by way of its underlying causes, contexts and intervening conditions, strategies (both actions and interactions), and its consequences or outcomes. Axial coding then enabled the researcher to test relationships between the derived patterns, in the process of generating a plausible theory that would explain the collected data. In the case discussed in this article, the young people spoke at length about the actions of class teachers that either facilitated or inhibited their inclusion in lessons. The implications they brought to the study following this theme were that class teachers were central to their inclusion in the school, but were equally at risk of tarnishing it.

Selective coding

Selective coding – the final step in Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) analytical paradigm – involves higher level interpretation, whereby the researcher sorts the emerging theory into a comprehensible narrative. It is at the selective coding phase where raw data are matched with coded conceptual categories. The emergent theory is then developed around a set of core categories. How the researcher of this study undertook this phase of analysis is discussed below, with specific reference to the actions of teachers.

Teachers’ impact on students’ access and autonomy

Being able to function autonomously and having seamless access to the academic and social dimensions of the school comprised the two elements fundamental to the participants’ inclusion (Whitburn, 2014). These two categories are set at the centre of the emergent theory because the students continually referred to matters of access and autonomy. For example, they coveted access to resources, teachers’ instructions, and friends. They also referred repeatedly to having autonomy – accessing these elements of their schooling without overwhelming paraprofessional support, which often arose when class teachers neglected to provide appropriate access (Whitburn, 2013).

Therefore, when class teachers appropriately adapted pedagogy to the students’ needs, they were able to study autonomously, with seamless access to learning material, to lesson instructions, and subsequently to parity with classmates. One participant spoke candidly about the value of ‘teacher support’. He noted, ‘Teachers at this school are really good with helping me outside of class and inside of class’.

For the most part, the participants believed that teachers needed to employ only minimal changes to classroom pedagogy in order to facilitate their inclusion in lessons, as exemplified by the following interview excerpt:

Researcher:

The classroom teachers. How do they help? Or what is different about their approach [that helps you in particular]?

Student:

I wouldn’t say much actually. They have to be more prepared, [for example] they have to have things earlier than usual so that I can get it Brailled up or put onto my laptop. But other than that. . . .

Results

Further investigation into how teachers enabled the participants to access their studies autonomously revealed a variety of effective pedagogical practices that they considered essential. These included (1) using appropriate communication modes, (2) making accessible resources available to them in a timely manner, (3) ‘think[ing] outside the box’ about the provision of access to diagrammatic material, and (4) being approachable outside of scheduled lessons for individual consultations. Each pedagogical strategy is discussed in turn.

Appropriate communication modes

The participants placed considerable importance on simple communication in lessons. Specifically they referred to the positive impact that voiced instructions and modelling activities provided them. A verbal chalk-and-talk style – whereby teachers dictated allowed written material that they either projected or transcribed onto the classroom blackboard – reportedly helped the students. Thick verbal descriptions of complex mathematical problems enabled them to follow the material autonomously. One participant stated that ‘it’s not like trying to follow a road map by yourself; you’re being talked through it’. ‘I think it’s a really good teaching strategy’. Another participant described how a teacher facilitated his access to the material in this way: ‘She can actually talk while she’s writing the problem so that I can write it down’, which he genuinely appreciated.

The major upshot of this heightened communication was that the students with VI were treated equally as their sighted peers. They reported that they much preferred to attend numeracy classes in which the teachers verbalised instructions more appropriately than in other subjects, and also did not draw unnecessary attention to their impairments in so doing. Another advantage was that these teachers could successfully circumvent the need for paraprofessionals to personally support the students in lessons, which they zealously preferred to forgo (Whitburn, 2013).

Making accessible resources available in a timely manner

Participants valued teachers who were able to provide them with learning materials such as worksheets, PowerPoint slides, and other hand-outs in their preferred accessible formats in a timely manner. Generally, they considered the task of formatting resources to be uncomplicated for teachers, because they simply required either enlarged photocopies or electronic versions of the material. When more intricate resources were required, and/or they had to be transcribed into Braille or tactile formats, there was an expectation that class teachers would have them sent to the paraprofessionals in charge of this task well in advance of lessons. One participant noted,

If the teacher is prepared . . . I will have it before the lesson. They’ll get it brought over here [to the Special Education Unit] and done up. That would be a preferred way to get it, because then I’d get it on time.

Participants commented that having accessible resources provided to them concurrently with their sighted peers enhanced their experiences of inclusion considerably for two reasons. First, participants felt more included in the social context of classes; second, they felt that this enabled them to maintain parity with their peers in accessing the content of study material. One participant explained that an advantage of receiving class resources promptly was that ‘instead of studying to keep up, I’m studying to get ahead’.

‘Think[ing] outside the box’ about the provision of access to diagrammatic study material

Participants believed that class teachers who were able to ‘think outside the box’ by helping them to access diagrammatic resources substantially contributed to their learning. The intricate details of graphic material often used in numeracy subjects could be unintentionally overlooked. One participant who had some functional vision noted, ‘it’s harder for us . . . because we don’t see as much detail as what everybody else . . . [is able to see]’. Participants reported that not unlike the advantages associated with heightened communication modes (noted above), some teachers gave automatic detailed verbal descriptions of pictures, and some appeared to intuitively comprehend that students might all but certainly overlook particular details of diagrams. One participant explained that on one occasion, this strategy enabled him to complete summative assessment successfully that he felt he would otherwise fail. He reported that his teacher somehow understood that he would not be able to visually identify important details of diagrammatic material, and ‘she came in, and she told me the details that I should be able to see and do myself and helped me with that’.

For participants with less functional vision, it was more complex, although one explained that a science teacher’s use of three-dimensional (3D) modelling to represent graphic material enabled him to learn accurate representations of this information by touch:

Sometimes they have to think outside the box on how they’re going to teach me. ’Cause they can’t just draw a diagram and go ‘here’ and point and whatever. So it’s good because in chemistry they actually have an atom model set. So they can create compounds with these plastic connectors and stuff, which gives me a good idea of what it looks like, so I can actually feel it rather than look at a complicated diagram.

Other participants reported that their teachers often brought actual real-life items that they were studying into classrooms. Overall, participants reported that class teachers who successfully included them in lessons using these strategies unlocked their potential to make use of visual material alongside their peers.

Being approachable outside of scheduled lessons for individual consultations

Academically orientated participants appreciated class teachers who were approachable outside of lessons for individual consultations. They reported that they would sometimes approach their teachers to seek further guidance and/or clarification of class and assessment work. Moreover, they considered that having the capacity to independently communicate with teachers outside of lessons was important because it built on important life skills. As one participant observed,

‘[I’ve started] going to them [teachers] after class, or, during my spares, or at lunch time for help. I’d never done that before, and it was something I have to get used to really in . . . my career’.

Although participants considered that teachers who made themselves available in this way provided a benefit to their learning, from time to time it was necessary that they follow up on class work after lessons in which they had not been given accessible resources on time. In cases when this occurred, participants would generally have to approach their teachers in their own time when they finally received these materials. The young people who found themselves being caught by this predicament indicated that they wished teachers would be more prepared, because then they could cover the work at the same time as their peers.

Discussion

This study provides a timely response to the problem that ‘teachers often feel at a loss and are personally distressed about the difficulties experienced by disabled children in their classrooms’ (Slee, 2011, p. 86). The students with VI who participated in this study indicated that some class teachers at a secondary school in the Australian state of Queensland employed a variety of inclusive pedagogical practices that increased their access and autonomy in lessons with minimal recourse to the SEP. This fulfils Foreman’s (2011) observation that students with diagnosed disabilities can present less of a challenge to educate than other members of the class.

Previous studies reveal that there is a delicate balance for teachers in regular classrooms between providing too little or too much support to students with VI that can have the effect of alienating them either way (Higgins & Ballard, 2000; Khadka et al., 2012; O’Brien, 1989; West et al., 2004). While this problem existed in this study for the students (Whitburn, 2013, 2014), the substance of the inclusive pedagogical practices that they cited was no more than heightened communication, intuition, resource provision, and approachability. The importance of these findings to the teaching profession is that the inclusion of students with VI in mainstream lessons can be achieved with relative ease. Of further benefit is that such practices do not draw unsolicited and sometimes embarrassing attention to students’ embodied differences to mainstream pupil populations, and can increase their social inclusion.

Teachers must learn to embrace the convenience brought by the utilisation of assistive technology. A majority of resource allocation problems are made easier as students with VI become more technically savvy. As Kelly (2009) affirms, ‘the presentation of less accessible information to students who are visually impaired is both regrettable and avoidable, given the assistive technology that exists today’ (p. 471). Communicability, intuition, and approachability, on the other hand, can only come to teachers through a greater understanding of the educational implications of VI. This would be to take a step in the direction that Slee (2011) refers to as a reframing of the field of inclusive schooling.

Conclusion

It should not come as a surprise to anybody that when asked about the actions of teaching staff that enriches their inclusion in schools, students with disabilities offer concrete, practical suggestions that are no more complicated than those discussed in this article. Their solutions concentrate more on human interaction rather than technical proficiency. Accordingly, they have the potential to change the social landscape of classrooms because they highlight ways in which educators can subvert mistaken assumptions that students’ impairments are automatic barriers to their inclusion.

Moreover, as exemplified here, considered discussion about the strategies that are useful to particular student groups can reveal ways in which teachers can remove barriers to all learners. Indeed, it is class teachers who are principally responsible for the education of all students (Rice, 2006) including those with VI (Sharma et al., 2010). Teachers must therefore be empowered to remove barriers of access to class pedagogy and resources, and to include students with VI in their lessons with relative ease. Teachers who can implement such pedagogical strategies into their work are not directly implicated in institutional discrimination (Booth & Ainscow, 2011) against students with VI.

General teachers are constantly bombarded with ‘expert’ advice on how best to educate students with VI. The ensuing chaos is ‘likely to entrench the sense of failure among teachers’ (Allan, 2008, p. 10). However, seeking simple solutions from students to increase their inclusion in schools is not a technically prohibitive project. Only when they are given the opportunity to speak up in this way are such unpretentious solutions offered. The conclusions that specific student groups reach about pedagogical practices that they consider beneficial to their inclusion in schools merit a central place in teacher professional development.

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

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Allan

(2008). Rethinking inclusive education: The philosophers of difference in practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Australian Blindness Forum (ABF). (2008). Improving life for people who are blind or vision impaired: Education and children’s service. Retrieved from http://www.australianblindnessforum.org.au/Policy/ABF%20Education%20Childrens%20Service%20policy%20final%20230408.doc

Ball

S. J.

(2006). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Ball. New York, NY: Routledge.

Booth

Ainscow

(2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools (3rd ed.). Bristol, UK: CSIE.

Brown

J. E.

(2009). Life pathways or lonely dead-ends? The transition from secondary school to post-school life for adolescents with vision impairment. In Garrick

Poed

Skinner

(Eds.), Educational planet shapers: Researching, hypothesising, dreaming the future (pp. 97–113). Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Post Pressed.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Cook-Sather

(2006). Sound, presence, and power: Student voice in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36, 359–390.

Cox

P. R.

Dykes

M. K.

(2001). Effective classroom adaptations for students with visual impairments. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 68–74.

Foreman

(2011). Introducing inclusion in education. In Foreman

(Ed.), Inclusion in Action (3rd ed., pp. 2–34). South Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cengage.

10.

Foreman

Arthur-Kelly

(2008). Social justice principles, the law and research, as bases for inclusion. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32, 109–124.

11.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishers.

12.

Hatlen

(1996). The core curriculum for blind and visually impaired students, including those with additional disabilities. RE:view, 28, 25–32.

13.

Higgins

Ballard

(2000). Like everybody else? What seven New Zealand adults learned about blindness from the education system. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4, 163–178.

14.

Kelly

S. M.

(2009). Use of assistive technology by students with visual impairments: Findings from a national survey. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103, 470–480.

15.

Khadka

Ryan

Margrain

T. J.

Woodhouse

M. J.

Davies

(2012). Listening to voices of children with a visual impairment: A focus group study. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 30, 182–196.

16.

Miles

Ainscow

(2011). Introduction. In Miles

Ainscow

(Eds.), Responding to diversity in schools: An inquiry-based approach (pp. 1–16). London, England: Routledge.

17.

Moss

(2012). Curriculum, visuality and educational research (ROSE Professorial Lecture Series). Julianne Moss, Deakin University June 4 2012.

18.

O’Brien

(1989). Mainstreaming of secondary school students with visual impairments. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

19.

Palmer

C. D.

(2005). Educating learners with vision impairment in inclusive settings. International Congress Series, 1282, 922–926.

20.

Rice

(2006). Promoting ‘Epistemic Fissures’: Disability studies in teacher education. Teacher Education, 17, 251–264.

21.

Sharma

Moore

Furlonger

Smyth King

Kaye

Constantinou

(2010). Forming effective partnerships to facilitate inclusion of students with vision impairments: Perceptions of a regular classroom teacher and an itinerant teacher. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 28, 57–67.

22.

Slee

(2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. London, England: Routledge.

23.

Strauss

A. C.

Corbin

J. M.

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

24.

Tews

Lupart

(2008). Students with disabilities’ perspectives of the role and impact of paraprofessionals in inclusive education settings. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 5, 39–46.

25.

Tuttle

D. W.

Tuttle

N. R.

(2004). Self-esteem and adjusting with blindness: The process of responding to life’s demands (3rd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

26.

West

Houghten

Taylor

Ling

P. K.

(2004). The perspectives of Singapore secondary school students with vision impairments towards their inclusion in mainstream education. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 18–27.

27.

Whitburn

(2013). The dissection of paraprofessional support in inclusive education: ‘You’re in mainstream with a chaperone’. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 37, 147–161.

28.

Whitburn

(2014). Accessibility and autonomy preconditions to ‘our’ inclusion: A grounded theory study of the experiences of secondary students with vision impairment. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14(1), 3–15. DOI: 10.1111/1471-3802.12014.