Information Gathered to Assist in Designing STEM Braille Training Materials: Survey Results

By Tina Sue Herzberg and L. Penny Rosenblum

Tina Sue Herzberg, PhD, is Professor and Coordinator of the Visual Impairment Education Program at the University of South Carolina Upstate. Dr. Herzberg is the primary investigator for Project INSPIRE: Increasing the STEM Potential of Individuals Who Read Braille. She is a certified teacher of students with visual impairments and certified orientation and mobility specialist.

L. Penny Rosenblum, PhD, is the owner of Vision for Independence, LLC. Dr. Rosenblum is a certified teacher of students with visual impairments and a researcher.

Abstract

A survey was used to explore the training needs and preferences for professional development of teachers of students with low vision and blindness regarding the STEM braille codes. Participants were 225 teachers from 41 states who completed an online survey. The teachers rated the following topics as very important: math symbols used in upper elementary through high school, formatting STEM materials, Nemeth Code switch indicators, preparing tactile graphics, and supporting practical application of braille in STEM subjects. Approximately 25% of teachers reported knowing both codes, 50% reported knowing one code, and 25% reported that they did not know either code. The open-ended responses revealed confusion regarding the codes and a lack of resources to learn and teach the codes. Efforts should be made to assist teachers in becoming more knowledgeable of the STEM braille codes and determining the impact of adopting two STEM braille codes in the United States.

Keywords

Braille, Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts, UEB Technical, STEM, tactile graphics

Introduction

Individuals must have reliable and consistent access to content in all subject areas in order to be successful in K-12 education, post-secondary education, and many areas of employment. This is also true for visually impaired and blind students. Proficient braille skills allow visually impaired and blind students to achieve academically in primary and secondary schools and, as adults, to access post-secondary education and employment (Bell & Mino, 2013; Bell & Silverman, 2018; Holbrook et al., 2017; Musgrove & Yudin, 2013; Ryles, 1996).

Education is positively correlated to competitive employment. In a recent study of 1,153 visually impaired participants from the United States, higher educational attainment was associated with a higher employment rate (Bell & Silverman, 2018). Participants with an associate’s degree or less had an employment rate of 37%, compared with participants with a bachelor’s degree (62%) and a master’s degree (67%). Other recent studies have also supported the factor of education as predictive of competitive employment for visually impaired individuals (Bell & Mino, 2013; Giesen & Cavenaugh, 2012).

Visually impaired learners who use braille may experience challenges in STEM subjects. These subjects require knowledge of specialized braille codes (Smith, 2017). In addition, content in STEM courses is often delivered using visual charts and graphics, especially when depicting complex information (Jones & Broadwell, 2008). Time, practice, and instruction are required to efficiently and accurately explore and interpret pieces of tactual information simultaneously (Kamei-Hannan, 2009; Rosenblum & Herzberg, 2015; Rosenblum et al., 2021a, 2021b). Furthermore, although screen readers provide access to text materials, their application in mathematics is limited (Bouck et al., 2016).

The Braille Authority of North America adopted two STEM braille codes for use in the United States instead of a single code. According to a press release by the Braille Authority of North America on November 18, 2015, “The decision to use UEB [Unified English Braille] or the Nemeth Code within UEB Context for technical materials should be made based on braille readers' individual needs.” This statement implies that teachers should be proficient in both codes in order to assist in the decision-making process for each student. Yet, some teachers of students with low vision and blindness may lack the skills to instruct students in STEM braille codes (Hong et al., 2017; Rosenblum & Amato, 2004) and braille-related technologies, such as refreshable braille displays and notetakers (Zhou et al., 2012). Professionals may also lack expertise in using technology to produce high-quality mathematics and science materials in braille (Zhou et al., 2012). Hong et al. (2017) found that the 141 teachers of students with low vision and blindness they surveyed were less confident about their braille math notation skills compared to their literary braille skills. Only 30 of the teachers had received training in UEB Technical (Hong et al., 2017). Moreover, the participants reported that there were very limited professional development opportunities available to them focused on preparing higher-level mathematics materials in UEB Technical (Hong et al., 2017).

Recognizing the need to prepare professionals to produce high quality STEM braille materials and increase their knowledge of instructional methods, the U.S. Department of Education funded Project INSPIRE: Increasing the STEM Potential of Individuals Who Read Braille. Housed at the University of South Carolina Upstate, this 5-year project began October 1, 2019. One goal of Project INSPIRE is to provide online self-paced, accessible, engaging instruction to increase the capacity of teachers of students with low vision and blindness, paraprofessionals, braillists, and others to produce high quality braille, both in Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts and UEB Technical. As a first step in the design process, an online, accessible survey was conducted to gather information to guide the Project INSPIRE team in their design of the online learning materials. This article reports the data gathered through the survey.

Method

The Institutional Review Board at the University of South Carolina approved the study, and all participants provided informed consent. The survey was open from October 22 to December 5, 2019 and was widely advertised on listservs and Facebook pages frequented by teachers of students with low vision and blindness, braille transcribers, and vocational rehabilitation professionals. The survey consisted of nine sections, including: demographics, background and perceived expertise in STEM codes, preferred formats and types of activities for professional development, importance of various instructional topics, and math codes used by students/clients.

Results

A total of 343 surveys were completed, including 225 by teachers of students with low vision and blindness (referred to as “teachers” for the remainder of the article). The other surveys were completed by a large cross-section of individuals, including paraprofessionals, braillists who were not certified, braillists who were certified, vocational rehabilitation professionals, university instructors, and graduate students. This article provides the survey results for the 225 teachers, as this group comprised the largest group in the study sample.

Demographics

The teachers worked in 41 states and the District of Columbia, with two teachers reporting they worked in more than one state. The states with the highest number of participants were South Carolina (n = 30), Pennsylvania (n = 25), Minnesota (n = 13), Kentucky (n = 12), and North Carolina (n = 12). There were 13 teachers certified as a braille transcriber or proofreader by the Library of Congress, and 13 teachers certified by the National Blindness Professional Certification Board in UEB. Two teachers were certified by both organizations. Of 222 teachers, six (2.7%) reported they used braille as their primary literacy medium and nine (4.0%) used braille as their secondary literacy medium.

Braille Codes Used by Students

Teachers were asked to select a percentage range for the students they worked with who used Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts to read STEM materials. Of the 206 teachers who responded, 67 (32.5%) reported that 76%-100% of their students read this code, eight (3.9%) reported 51%-75% of their students read this code, 11 (5.3%) reported 26%-50% of students read this code, 47 (22.8%) reported 1%-25% read this code, 55 (26.7%) reported none of their students read this code, and 18 (8.7%) reported none of their students used braille.

The teachers were also asked to select a percentage range for the students they worked with who used UEB Technical to read STEM materials. Of the 206 teachers who responded, 30 (14.6%) reported that 76%-100% of their students read this code, seven (3.4%) reported 51%-75% of their students read this code, five (2.4%) reported 26%-50% of their students read this code, 27 (13.1%) reported 1%-25% read this code, 117 (56.8%) reported none of their students read this code, and 20 (9.7%) reported none of their students used braille.

Teachers were given an opportunity to share comments about their students’ use of braille codes for STEM subjects. Some teachers shared that their students were either young (e.g., preschool) or had additional disabilities, so either STEM related braille instruction had not yet begun and/or the teacher believed that their student did not have the capacity for learning braille at that point in time. There were also teachers who acknowledged that they personally needed instruction to better support their students in learning braille codes used for STEM materials. For example, one teacher commented:

While none of my students are using Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts or UEB Technical at this time, I believe it would help me to have a better understanding of this should I have a student that needs this in the future.

Other teachers noted that without curricula material, it was difficult to teach STEM braille codes; “We need more training on UEB Technical, but even more than that, we need curriculum to use with the students.”

Though these data were collected almost 4 years after UEB became the official braille code in the United States and the Braille Authority of North America recognized both Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts and UEB Technical as codes for technical materials, it appeared that some teachers were still waiting for additional guidance as evidenced by this comment:

We do not currently teach UEB for math but are considering adding that as an area for our students to learn. Our state has not made a decision one way or the other yet, but a decision would be nice so that we know as a field what is preferred to teach.

It was reported by some teachers that their states had a clear implementation plan. One teacher shared:

[My state] is a full UEB state. Our state implementation plan was very clear about when state testing would convert to full UEB. This influenced when my academic student needed to transition (starting in fourth grade). The transition for her was smooth and quick. It was important for me to obtain and produce high quality full UEB technical [sic] texts and school work.

Only one teacher described the process as individualized. They stated, “The decision about UEB Technical code or Nemeth is an IEP decision.”

There were a few teachers who taught their students both codes:

Because I provide both instruction and materials for my student, I use both Nemeth in UEB and UEB technical [sic] because I want my student to be prepared for the future if we transition from Nemeth in UEB to UEB technical [sic] [in my state]; however, I provide all assessments in math in Nemeth in UEB. My biggest concern with this approach is that when the student is brailling his work, he often uses a combination of the two [codes] without indicating a switch. We are working on this, and I believe he will adjust and be more consistent with using indicators or sticking with one code as he gets older. Personally, I believe it would be in the students' best interest for all states to go ahead and begin a transition plan to UEB technical [sic]. It doesn't make sense for some states to use Nemeth while others don't. This concerns me for college materials for our braille readers.

Some teachers were still having their students use the original Nemeth Code and, as one teacher explained, this is problematic:

There is much confusion when testing comes around for teachers and students. The teachers teach Nemeth [Code], and the students write in Nemeth [Code] all day, but when tested, the test is in Nemeth [Code] within UEB Context. I would like clarification so that there is no confusion. Which UEB signs must be taught to use Nemeth within UEB Context?

Teachers’ Preferences for Professional Development Formats

Teachers were provided three statements that used a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree, and asked about the level of value the instructional format had to their own learning. Teachers reported face-to-face instruction was most valuable (n = 203, M = 4.52, SD = .63), followed by self-paced learning (n = 205, M = 4.20, SD = .90), and then webinars (n = 205, M = 4.13, SD = .80).

Teachers were provided an opportunity to share their thoughts on the three delivery methods. Many remarked that self-paced courses allowed for flexibility and face-to-face courses allowed for immediate feedback from the instructor. Having feedback, regardless of the format of the training was important. One teacher shared:

I value self-paced courses with automatic feedback, such as the UEB online tutorials/courses provided by RIDBC of Australia. I've started working on those because the feedback forces users to correct mistakes before moving on to the next lesson. Additionally, the online format allows me to use my personal computer to complete the lessons, so I don't have to worry about other equipment while practicing. I also enjoy face-to-face workshops, but find time constraints often limit the amount of detail that can be covered each time. I dislike webinars as they do not address my own personal mistakes or formatting issues.

Several teachers noted that it is not so much the format in which the course is delivered, but rather the knowledge of the individual(s) delivering the instruction; “Use anything that works! The presenter is the most important factor for a quality learning experience.” Several participants commented that regardless of delivery format, the need for references, including those that are accessible to braille readers, is essential; “I think it is important to have good reference material to not only support learning as a teacher but during instruction of students as well. I can't remember everything.”

Teachers’ Preferences for Topics to Include in Professional Development

Teachers were provided a list of 13 topics and asked how important it was to them that the topic be included in STEM braille training. They rated the items on a 3-point Likert-type scale: not important (1), moderately important (2), or extremely important (3). Table 1 reports their ratings.

Table 1
Components Teachers Believe Should Be Included in Professional Development

	n	M	SD
Preparing tactile graphics used in STEM subjects	196	2.80	.041
Supporting practical application of braille in STEM subjects	195	2.80	.042
Infusing technology into instruction	195	2.79	.047
Empowering students to be successful in STEM post-secondary coursework and employment	195	2.76	.046
Teaching students to systematically scan tactile graphics used in STEM subjects	195	2.73	.048
Teaching students to accurately and efficiently interpret tactile graphics used in STEM subjects	195	2.73	.040
Commercially available resources for braille STEM materials	197	2.70	.047
Motivating the braille reader	197	2.63	.059
Teaming and collaborating with general educators and other professionals	198	2.60	.059
Preparing tables for STEM subjects	195	2.55	.054
Teaching students to create graphs and plots used in STEM subjects with a braillewriter	196	2.34	.065
Teaching students to create tactile graphics using assorted materials in STEM subjects	196	2.34	.062
Teaching students to create number lines with a braillewriter	196	2.22	.066

Several teachers reported that their university training did not adequately prepare them on many of the topics listed in Table 1. Some teachers commented on the importance of tactile graphics and how they often did not have adequate time to teach their students tactile graphics skills. One teacher reported, “In working with students in STEM subjects, the use of tactile graphics is extremely important and time consuming. I don't always have time to teach my students to create tactile graphics, which is a big problem.” There were teachers who shared their belief that when students spend time creating tactile graphics, they then spend less time learning content. A teacher commented:

When teaching blind students STEM subjects, I've had the experience that students spent so much time trying to create their own tactile graphics that the content being taught was lost. The focus of the lesson became the creation of the tactile graphic instead of the lesson content.

A few teachers described the relationship between their role and that of the general educator. One teacher explained:

I think all of the topics above have value and should be included, but sequenced or divided into modules that allow teachers to first learn how to work with general education teachers to determine which concepts are most important to be represented in braille, then how to create/locate materials and work with them, then transferring the knowledge to students, and finally motivating students to reproduce or create their own materials.

Along this same vein, a teacher noted:

The use of tactile graphics is vital for braille students in STEM, especially because these days very few [general education] teachers use commercial textbooks (which might have graphics in the braille edition of the book). The emphasis is on online learning, and braille students have little or no access to graphics presented in this way. Verbal descriptions of print graphics are NO substitute for getting those graphics under your fingers so you can really “see” them!! The challenge is in constructing or getting access to enough tactile graphics to keep up with the students' classes, because the process can be very time- and labor-intensive, and those of us without access to transcribers simply don't have the time we need to do this.

There were also teachers who commented on the importance of technology and how technology and braille instruction must go hand-in-hand. The need to begin instruction early was also pointed out by a few teachers. One teacher shared, “EARLY teaching and USE of Nemeth and technical codes from elementary level schooling [is important]. It is very difficult to teach an older student (middle and high school) these codes without a base knowledge from earlier grades.”

Teachers’ Knowledge of Braille Codes

The teachers were asked if they could read and write symbols in the currently adopted STEM braille codes. Ninety-two teachers reported they could only read and write symbols in Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts, and nine teachers reported they could only read and write symbols in UEB Technical. Sixty-four teachers reported that they could read and write symbols in both codes, and 60 teachers reported that they did not know either STEM braille code. See Table 2 for information about how the teachers learned the STEM braille code(s).

Table 2
Methods Teachers Used to Learn Braille Codes

	Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts (n = 156)	UEB Technical (n = 73)
University courses	75	17
Face-to-face workshops and/or professional development course	34	21
Online professional development course	33	22
Webinars and online tutorials	30	11
Guidelines for technical material from the International Council on English Braille	-	25
Resources and references	26	27
Self-study	73	46

The 156 teachers who reported that they could read and/or write one or more symbols in Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts were then asked to rate their skills in this code. Seventy-eight (50.0%) of the teachers rated themselves as beginner readers, 64 (41.0%) rated themselves as intermediate readers, and 14 (9.0%) rated themselves as advanced readers. They also rated their skills at writing Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts with 89 (57.1%) of the teachers rating themselves as beginners, 54 (34.6%) rating themselves as intermediate, and 13 (8.3%) rating themselves as advanced.

The 73 teachers who reported that they could read and write one or more symbols in UEB Technical were asked to rate their skills in this code. Forty (54.8%) of the teachers rated themselves as beginner readers, 26 (35.6%) rated themselves as intermediate readers, and seven (9.6%) rated themselves as advanced readers. They also rated their skills at writing UEB Technical with 42 (57.5%) of the teachers rating themselves as beginners, 24 (32.9%) rating themselves as intermediate, and seven (9.6%) rating themselves as advanced.

Math Topics and Braille Codes

Teachers were provided a list of 12 topics (10 for both codes and one each for Nemeth within UEB Contexts and UEB Technical) and asked to rate how important each topic was to include in professional development. Using a 3-point Likert-type scale, they rated each topic as extremely important (3), moderately important (2), or not important (1). The mean ratings and standard deviations are reported in Table 3.

Table 3
Teachers’ Ratings of the Importance of Topics to Include in Professional Development

	Nemeth within UEB Contexts			UEB Technical
Topics	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
Nemeth Code switch indicators	186	2.65	0.62	-	-	-
Formatting STEM materials	187	2.65	0.61	178	2.54	0.66
Pre-kindergarten/first grade material (signs of operation, linear problems)	186	2.50	0.67	180	2.47	0.72
Elementary level spatial (vertical) problems	187	2.49	0.69	179	2.46	0.71
Elementary level symbols, including dollar sign, cent sign, percentage, degrees, directly under, and directly over	186	2.57	0.64	179	2.54	0.68
Word problems and when to use Nemeth code switch indicators within them	186	2.61	0.62	-	-	-
Word problems	-	-	-	179	2.54	0.68
Symbols used in upper elementary/middle grades (pi, congruent, prime, absolute value, greater than or equal to, parentheses, exponents, ratio, square roots)	186	2.69	0.57	178	2.58	0.67
Algebra (variables, delta, subscripts, exponents with exponents, logarithms, matrices)	186	2.69	0.57	180	2.54	0.69
Geometry (rays, lines, shapes, permutations, combinations)	186	2.67	0.60	178	2.55	0.68
Science (chemical abbreviations, formulas)	186	2.69	0.58	178	2.56	0.67

Teachers were asked to share their thoughts about the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts topics listed in Table 3. Some teachers commented that they were in a UEB state, and they did not teach Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts to their students, so, therefore, they did not need to receive professional development on the topics. Some teachers stressed the importance of starting early with their students. One teacher explained:

Now that Nemeth within UEB Contexts needs to be taught early so when the more involved symbols and switch indicator come up in secondary and beyond courses more focus can be on the STEM content instead of learning the Nemeth and Technical code found in these courses.

Yet a few teachers had the opposite thoughts: “Why would we use Nemeth Code in Kindergarten or Elementary anymore, to me it is confusing. Start with just UEB.” A small number of teachers commented on students’ beliefs about the two braille codes. One teacher shared, “My students all use Nemeth for all [math] classes. They despise UEB because it makes the problems so much longer, especially at the algebra and beyond stages.” For those teachers who were teaching Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts to their students, an issue they identified was access for themselves to information on the topics and developing their own understanding of rules. One teacher commented, “I only know what Nemeth [Code within UEB Contexts] I have looked up online. I don't know if there are specific rules to go along with symbols. I know very little.”

Teachers were asked to share their thoughts about the UEB Technical topics. There were teachers who commented that they were not familiar with UEB Technical and/or, since their state did not require they use this code, they were unsure of its importance. An example comment from a teacher was, “Our district is preparing all our technical materials with Nemeth [within] UEB [Context] to keep it streamlined for our braillists, TVIs, and students. Especially since UEB technical [sic] has not been officially adopted by the US and our state.” There were also teachers who were not clear on the difference between Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts and UEB Technical as evidenced by this comment from a teacher: “I'm not sure of the difference of UEB Nemeth and UEB Technical so I answered these questions as I would for Nemeth.” Other teachers readily admitted they had much to learn. For example, “Since I am not familiar with this term ‘UEB Technical,’ I think it's fairly important for me and others to learn about it and how it applies to transcribing for and teaching braille students in all related capacities.” Some teachers commented about materials available to learn UEB Technical. One teacher reported:

Based on my experience, there is more information available for UEB technical compared to Nemeth within UEB. I believe training isn't all that important for UEB technical [sic] in the younger grades. Once you get to the content that is presented in the middle and high school level STEM subjects, then training is more essential.

Activities to Engage in When Learning Braille Codes

Teachers were provided a list of seven activities that could be utilized in professional development to build their skills with STEM braille codes. For each they rated the activity using a 4-point Likert-type scale as very helpful (4), helpful (3), somewhat helpful (2), or not helpful (1). The number of teachers providing the ratings, the mean, and standard deviation are reported in Table 4.

Table 4
Activities Teachers Reported Would Increase Their Understanding of Nemeth Code Within UEB Contexts and UEB Technical

	Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts			UEB Technical
Activities	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
Clearly written descriptions of rules of the code	181	3.62	0.77	181	3.62	0.77
Examples illustrating the code	178	3.68	0.70	178	3.68	0.70
Opportunities to interline braille prepared in the code	179	3.42	0.81	179	3.42	0.81
Opportunities to braille material in the code and compare my transcription to an answer key	178	3.52	0.80	178	3.52	0.80
Opportunities to work in small groups to discuss materials in the code	178	3.39	0.84	178	3.39	0.84
Opportunities to complete proofreading exercises using the code	180	3.39	0.84	180	3.39	0.84
Opportunities to take self-graded quizzes to assess my skills using the code	178	3.47	0.75	179	3.55	0.71

Teachers were also given the opportunity to share thoughts about the activities that might be used in professional development. There were mixed responses from teachers as to what activities would be most beneficial. One teacher noted:

While I value working with other professionals, I think small groups may not be the best as many of us will be working independently in the future. I know people “phone a friend” to proofread or look over materials, but I would prefer to know I'm successful on my own.

In contrast, another teacher shared:

Having the opportunity to work in a small group at a conference or workshop I am already attending (such as AER conferences or other state meetings) might be helpful. Perhaps doing mini-sessions over breakfast or lunch at a conference for those who want to do this would work. 

Several teachers indicated that having clear information and practice activities with answer keys would be helpful:

I would love to see a clearly written description of rules on the use of Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts. I think instruction on using the BANA [Braille Authority of North America] template in the latest version of Duxbury for Nemeth [Code] within UEB [Contexts] would be helpful for many. 

Some teachers recognized that there was a need for more resources for both codes. One teacher shared:

I wish there were more or better online resources for looking up specific symbols and/or rules that accompany them...especially with UEB Technical. It would be great to practice with an answer key to practice skills. It would also be great for tutorial resources and reference guides to aid in the learning process.

As training models are developed, it is imperative that there is recognition that different people are at different levels in their own knowledge. One participant explained, “Teachers are on different levels when it comes to UEB knowledge. It would be helpful to have different levels of training such as beginner and advanced. I feel like I need more training for upper level math.”

The Need for Consensus

The teachers taking part in the survey recognized the need for professional development. One explained:

I tend to learn symbols and formats “on the fly” as I have students who need them, but it would probably be better for me to solidify my overall knowledge of these, so I don't have to spend extra time learning them when the need arises.

It was also recognized by some participants that since states and individuals differed in what code they had students use for STEM materials, this impacted professionals and students alike. A participant commented, “It seems like there needs to be a national consensus, and maybe that's what you're working toward, on how to present these materials. It's hard on students and teachers.”

Discussion

As a beginning step in a 5-year project to provide professional development to professionals in STEM braille codes, Project INSPIRE staff completed a needs assessment. This article reports the data for 225 teachers who provided their thoughts in late 2019.

Limitations

The teachers who completed the survey provided self-report data that were not verified by other means. It is probable that the respondents were interested in the topic and, therefore, took the time to complete the online survey. Other teachers may not have had similar experiences or beliefs. Since the survey was advertised online and the survey was completed online, it is possible that teachers who do not use listservs or social media may not have learned about the survey and thus did not have the opportunity to choose whether to participate. The authors did not define “Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts” or “UEB Technical” at the beginning of the survey. We should have defined terms and provided sample problems in order to ensure all respondents clearly understood the two braille codes they were being asked about. Respondents were asked to provide their thoughts on braille code topics using a Likert-type scale. We should have also provided respondents a choice of “not familiar with.” It was clear from the responses to the open-ended questions that some teachers were not familiar with the braille code the question focused on.

Teachers’ Knowledge of Braille Codes

Twice as many teachers reported they knew Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts compared to UEB Technical. Though the teachers were not tested on their ability to read and write either braille code, more teachers reported they were at the beginning level with both codes than did teachers who reported they were intermediate or advanced in their knowledge of either code. It should also be noted that 60 teachers reported that they did not know either STEM braille code.  

Confusion

It was clear from the results of this survey that having two adopted STEM braille codes (Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts and UEB Technical) in the United States is still resulting in confusion and uncertainty on the part of some teachers. In referring to the two codes, one teacher commented, “I am still not understanding why we should mix them.” Confusion coupled with lack of knowledge of the codes by teachers can limit student learning, as students may not be receiving accurate instruction or materials in either STEM braille code. When students have limited knowledge of STEM braille codes, it can negatively impact their ability to be successful in learning and generalizing STEM content. Ultimately, lack of high-quality instruction may impede student success in post-secondary education and/or the workforce.

Conclusion

As one teacher shared, “Blind/visually impaired students should have the same opportunities to just be as successful as their sighted counterparts in school, college and in their careers.” From these data, it is clear that having the United States use two braille codes for STEM is resulting in confusion for teachers, and that limited resources are being divided when designing professional development materials as some individuals use Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts and some individuals use UEB Technical. We are a mobile society and both professionals and students may move to different states during their lifetimes. Thus, a student or professional who only knows one braille code for STEM may find themselves in a situation down the line where knowledge of the other code is imperative to access to information, learning, and success in education and/or employment.

Though our initial purpose in conducting this survey was to seek guidance on which topics to include in professional development courses and in which format to deliver the material, the larger issues this study uncovered leave us urging all those invested in the education of individuals who read braille to come together and consider the impact of adopting two braille codes for STEM in the United States, as well as how to support teachers and students in learning the STEM braille codes.

Authors' Note:

The research reported in this article was funded by the US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (H235E190003). The views expressed are not necessarily those of the funding agency. The authors wish to thank the individuals who completed the survey and the members of the Project INSPIRE design team and advisory board.  

References

Bell, E. C., & Mino, N. M. (2013). Blind and visually impaired adult rehabilitation and employment survey: Final results. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 3(1). https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/jbir/jbir13/jbir030101.html

Bell, E. C., & Silverman, A. M. (2018). Rehabilitation and employment outcomes for adults who are blind or visually impaired: An updated report. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 8(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/8-148

Braille Authority of North America. (2015, November 18). BANA takes action at fall meeting in Crystal Lake, IL [Press release]. http://www.brailleauthority.org/pressreleases/pr-2015-11-18.html

Bouck, E. C., Weng, P. & Satsangi, R. (2016). Digital versus traditional: Secondary students with visual impairments’ perceptions of a digital algebra textbook. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 110(1), 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1611000105

Giesen, J. M., & Cavenaugh, B. S. (2012). Transition-age youths with visual impairments in vocational rehabilitation: A new look at competitive outcomes and services. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(8), 475-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210600804

Holbrook, M. C., D’Andrea, F. M., & Wormsley, D. P. (2017). Literacy skills. In M. C. Holbrook, C. Kamei-Hannan, & T. McCarthy (Eds.), Foundations of education: Instructional strategies for teaching children and youths with visual impairments (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp.374-426). AFB Press.

Hong, S., Rosenblum, L. P., & Campbell, A. F. (2017). Implementation of Unified English Braille 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

Jones, M. G., & Broadwell, B. (2008). Visualization without vision: Students with visual impairment. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 283–294). Springer.

Kamei-Hannan, C. (2009). Innovative solutions for words with emphasis: Alternative methods of braille transcription. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 103(10),709 –721. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0910301014

Musgrove, M., & Yudin, M. K. (2013, June 19). Dear Colleague letter on Braille. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education & Rehabilitative Services. http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/brailledcl-6-19-13.doc

Rosenblum, L. P., & Amato, S. (2004). Preparation in and use of the Nemeth braille code for mathematics by teachers of students with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 98(8), 484-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0409800804

Rosenblum, L. P., & Herzberg, T. S. (2015). Braille and tactile graphics: Youths with visual impairments share their experiences. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109(3), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1510900302

Rosenblum, L. P., Zebehazy, K. T., Gage, N. A., & Beal, C. R. (2021a). Experiences building graphics literacy skills: Interviews with teachers and students. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 115(6), 538-549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X211061619

Rosenblum, L. P., Zebehazy, K. T., Gage, N. A., & Beal, C. R. (2021b). Pre-algebra students’ performance locating and interpreting data in graphs and maps. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 115(6),550-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X211061588

Ryles, R. (1996).  The impact of braille reading skills on employment, income, education, and reading habits. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 90(3), 219-226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X9609000311

Smith, D. (2017). Mathematics. In M. C. Holbrook, T. McCarthy, & C. Kamei-Hannan (Eds.), Foundations of education: History and theory of teaching children and youths with visual impairments (pp. 479-509). AFB Press.

Zhou, L., Ajuwon, P. M., Smith, D. W., Griffin-Shirley, N., Parker, A. T., & Okungu, P. (2012). Assistive technology competencies for teachers of students with visual impairments: A national study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(10), 656-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210601010

The Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research is copyright (c) 2022 to the National Federation of the Blind.