Teachers’ Experiences with Literacy Instruction for Dual-Media Students who Use Print and Braille
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This study analyzed survey responses from 84 teachers of students with visual impairments who had provided literacy instruction to dual-media students who used both print and braille. Methods These teachers in the United States and Canada completed an online survey during spring 2015. Results The teachers reported that they introduced braille to their students at the mean age of 7.8 years. The three most common reasons reported for introducing a student to braille were the student's diagnosis, print reading speed, and print reading stamina. The amount of instructional time in braille literacy varied widely, and slightly more than 60% of the students were initially introduced to uncontracted braille. The teachers reported that approximately half of their students were at or above grade level with their print literacy skills, but only about 25% were at or above grade level with their braille literacy skills. Discussion Both contracted and uncontracted braille were used when beginning braille instruction for students reading both print and braille. The roles of student motivation and confidence appeared to be important considerations when designing and providing braille literacy instruction. Implications for practitioners There are many factors that should be considered when determining if a student should transition from print to braille as a primary literacy medium. Motivating students to want to learn and use braille is critical. A comprehensive curriculum is needed for use with established print readers at various reading levels who are making the transition to braille.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it