Quality, Importance, and Instruction: The Perspectives of Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments on Graphics Use by Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This study investigated the perceptions and practices of teachers of students with visual impairments in Canada and the United States regarding graphics (both tactile and print) that are used by students with visual impairments. Questions focused on quality, importance, and instruction in the use of graphics. Methods An electronic survey was disseminated. Results were summarized by percentage, based on the number of respondents who answered each question. Parallel questions that compared responses for tactile versus print graphics were statistically compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and effect sizes were computed. Results In general, teachers valued the use of graphics and the need to provide instruction. Significant differences were found in how teachers answered tactile and print graphic questions. Fewer than 50% of the respondents felt that graphics were appropriately adapted on large-scale assessments, that there was sufficient instruction in the use of graphics in mainstream classrooms, or that there was an adequate amount of instructional time to teach the use of graphics. Discussion Findings highlighted a need to gain insight into effective teaching strategies that help students gather information from both tactile and print graphics. Attention to students with low vision using print graphics needs to be part of future investigations. Implications for practitioners Advocacy for sufficient instruction time for graphics and continued monitoring of the quality and effectiveness of graphics in educational materials are important. Providing feedback to material producers can help to support quality. Increasing student independence and exposure to graphics could support the effective use of graphics on assessments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".