The perception and use of technology within braille instruction: A preliminary study of braille teaching professionals
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
A convenience sample ( n = 35) of Teachers of Students with Visual Impairments (TVIs) and Rehabilitation Specialists completed a survey about their instructional techniques and perspectives on the relationship between braille and technology. While 62.5% of TVIs and Rehabilitation Specialists working with children, adolescents, or adults use technology in braille instruction, only 26.3% of those working with seniors use technology when teaching these clients. Rehabilitation Specialists felt significantly less knowledgeable about technologies than TVIs and used technology less frequently. TVIs felt more strongly that technology increased learner motivation and that the use of technology improved learning outcomes. These results suggest that the level of technological knowledge and instructor beliefs in the benefits such technologies provide may impact the decision to incorporate technology within braille instruction. Additional study is required to assess the validity of the motivational and learning benefits of various technologies within braille training programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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