Cheating in Structured Discovery Adjustment-to-Blindness Training

By Justin M. H. Salisbury

Justin Mark Hideaki Salisbury, MEd, NOMC, NCRTB, has taught cane travel, braille, and home management at residential and non-residential training centers. Currently, he is a graduate student and graduate teaching assistant in the Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education in the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Abstract

The keystone of the rehabilitation process is the emotional adjustment to blindness; thus, this adjustment is the overarching goal of Structured Discovery adjustment-to-blindness training. This manuscript proposes a context-specific definition of cheating based on that overarching goal.  Major reasons why students cheat include (a) insufficient self-trust, (b) fear, (c) convenience, (d) shame, and (e) not believing that a task is possible for anyone. Students know when they are intentionally selling themselves short, and relationships with students help instructors to understand students’ actions and decisions. Instructors strive to prevent cheating by having good rapport with students and talking to them about it proactively. Training center culture can influence the likelihood of cheating. Instructors must also be able to detect and then correct cheating, and they must be careful how they talk about suspected cheating. Since emotional adjustment is the overarching goal for each student, the emotional adjustment must take priority over skill development and task accomplishment. Illustrative examples are offered from literature and the author’s professional experience.

Keywords

Structured Discovery, cheating, adjustment, blindness, training

Structured Discovery Adjustment-to-Blindness Training

Structured Discovery adjustment-to-blindness training is an educational experience through which blind people learn alternative techniques and problem-solving skills, but most importantly achieve an emotional adjustment to blindness (Salisbury, 2017). Training should emphasize a common-sense approach with one person teaching and mentoring another person (Hill, 1997a, 1997b). Residential training programs typically include classes in access technology, braille, cane travel, home management, industrial arts, and philosophy, with occasional deviations from the weekly rotation for field classes (Omvig, 2002/2005; Salisbury, 2018b; Tigges, 2004). In Structured Discovery training, students wear sleepshades, or blindfolds, which help them focus on nonvisual stimuli and overcome barriers created by negative attitudes in society (Mettler, 1995/2008; Olson, 1982; Omvig, 2002/2005; Salisbury, 2017; Tigges, 2004). Encountering unexpected situations, obstacles, and barriers prompts students to learn to problem-solve (Hairston, 2015; Maurer, 2011; Maurer et al., 2006; Mino, 2011). As the lessons become more advanced, so does the problem-solving (Salisbury, 2017; Tigges, 2004). The keystone of the blindness rehabilitation process is the emotional adjustment to blindness, which includes strengthening self-efficacy, self-esteem, and feelings of first-class status (Omvig, 2002/2005; Salisbury, 2018a, 2020b). With a substantial emotional adjustment, students have less self-doubt and shame about their blindness (Omvig, 2002/2005, 2009; Salisbury, 2018a; Tigges, 2004). Furthermore, they feel a greater sense of belonging and more confidently approach new experiences and challenges (Salisbury, 2018a, 2020d; Tigges, 2004).

Proposed Definition of Cheating

In Structured Discovery adjustment-to-blindness training, cheating is anything a student intentionally does that undermines the emotional adjustment process. Cheating is not limited to one class or one type of activity. Cheating in any part of training affects every part of training. The emotional adjustment process is threaded through all program activities—scheduled and unscheduled, formal and informal. Since the emotional adjustment is holistic, the commitment to it must also be holistic.

Reasons for Cheating

Nora and Zhang (2010) wrote that students may cheat at a difficult task to guard themselves against feeling overwhelmed, stressed, confused, frustrated, or embarrassed. Common reasons for cheating in Structured Discovery adjustment-to-blindness training include:

1. Insufficient self-trust. Students may cheat because they do not trust themselves to accomplish a task without cheating (Tigges, 2004). Abramson et al. (1978) described personal helplessness as a subset of learned helplessness. For example, a student in industrial arts may not trust that they could make a straight cut with a saw without using their vision, so they may peek out from under their sleepshades. Typically, students who do not trust themselves have internalized societal negative attitudes and low expectations for blind people and attributed these attitudes and expectations to themselves (Omvig, 2002/2005). Even if they notice that other blind people around them can perform certain tasks, they are unable to believe that they personally can replicate those achievements.
2. Fear. Students may cheat out of fear of any kind of harm to oneself or others. If a cane travel student is afraid that they may be about to be hit by a car, they may lift their sleepshades to try to see where the car is, or they might ask a nearby pedestrian to determine for them if they are safe. Millar (2021) confessed that she panicked in the middle of an intersection and lifted her sleepshades to try to see her surroundings, only to be flooded with light and ultimately more disoriented than she had been prior to lifting her sleepshades.
3. Convenience. Students may cheat because it is simply more convenient to cheat than to complete the work involved in their assignment. A home management student may be instructed to grocery shop using a braille shopping list, reading it as they walk through the grocery store (Salisbury & Laconsay, 2020). If producing and using braille is inconvenient for the student, they may cheat by printing out a shopping list and handing it to a sighted shopping assistant.
4. Shame. Students may cheat due to shame. Consider a cane travel assignment that requires asking directions while walking around a city. If the student is too ashamed to approach people to ask them for directions, they may avoid following the required instructions. They could also be ashamed of being a blind person, ashamed of looking like they do not know something that they think they should know, or maybe ashamed about limitations in their physical stamina. Students may also cheat to shield friends or family from shame about their blindness (Brown, 2019; Tigges, 2004).
5. Belief that a task is impossible. Students may determine that an assignment is simply not possible for anyone (Bagienski et al., 2022; Salisbury, 2020c) and thus cheat. One student declared that his classmate had been ecorched—set up to an impossible task that was likely to overwhelm or even kill him (Salisbury, 2018c). Requesting certain kinds of help is sometimes appropriate, and students should be told what kinds of help they can receive when given an assignment (Hairston, 2015). If a student in home management believes it impossible to make liquefied nacho cheese in the training environment, they may try to purchase some commercially-made nacho cheese, sneak it into the kitchen, and present it as their own work.

Detection

There are many ways to detect cheating. If students are navigating past obstacles far more smoothly than they likely would at their skill level, this may be a sign that they are cheating. In cane travel, this might mean that a student walks through a crowded store without their cane touching any of the racks, displays, or aisles. This student might be peeking or quietly taking help from a human guide. If an instructor can be sure that a human guide is not present, then peeking becomes more likely.

Students may reveal that they are cheating by responding to environmental stimuli that the instructor did not perceive non-visually. Such detection does not require that the instructor is blind or blindfolded, but it does require that the instructor is attentive and has an intuitive understanding of nonvisual stimuli. Sighted instructors can undergo blindfolded immersion training and develop these perceptual skills and intuition (Gabias, 2022). An access technology student might walk into the classroom and ask why the computer monitor is on, which is unlikely to be perceived non-visually. In these situations, it may help an instructor, whether they are fully sighted or blind but with some residual vision, to teach while wearing sleepshades themselves to help them notice what information a student might be obtaining visually.

Students may reveal that they are cheating by demonstrating a drastic change in speed. For example, a cane travel student may be walking down a sidewalk and suddenly increase speed. This could be associated with a change in the incline, smoothness, or width of the sidewalk. If there is no obvious environmental reason why the student might gain speed, the instructor may consider the possibility of cheating. If a cane travel student is on an independent travel route and completes the route too quickly, this may be a sign of cheating. It could be an honest mistake that led to an unintended shortcut, which the instructor can tease out with strategic questioning during the debrief process.

Students may reveal that they are cheating by not implementing any of the taught nonvisual techniques but still accomplishing a task without a clear strategy. If a student in home management opens an oven and knows that a cooking project is done without reaching in to touch anything, this might be a sign of cheating. They could be peeking, or they could be declaring it done without supporting evidence to avoid the discomfort of reaching into the oven. In either case, this is still cheating. There is some possibility that the student could be using the smell of the food to determine it done, so an instructor should ask some questions about how the student knew that the food was done before concluding that they were cheating.

Students may reveal that they are cheating by correcting a problem too quickly or not getting into a problem that would typically divert them. A student could achieve this by peeking or getting help from an outside source to avoid the discomfort of the assignment. If a student in cane travel typically struggles to locate a seam between a parking lot and street with their cane as they walk across the mouth of a parking lot, but yet appears to find the seam perfectly and unusually, this may be a sign that the student is cheating. If a braille student typically struggles to locate the correct section of books on a bookshelf but then goes immediately to the book that they want, they may be cheating.

Sometimes, students will reveal clues that they have been cheating while they debrief with their instructors at the end of lessons. Debriefs are most common in cane travel but can be a valuable part of any class to help a student process what they have learned. Instructors will often start by asking a student some variant of “How did it go?” to lead them to describe how the activity went from the student’s perspective. As the student goes into their perceptions of the activity, they will typically reveal how they perceived certain elements of it. The student may be an open book, or they may require some coaxing. Once the students are talking about the things they perceived during the lesson, some part of their narrative may not add up. They also may reveal some perception that happened visually or some shortcut which they were not supposed to take.

Sometimes, an instructor may be inspired by some of these other signs of cheating to investigate further signs of cheating. An instructor—blind or sighted—may consider asking another staff member—blind or sighted—familiar with nonvisual techniques to monitor a student in the middle of an assignment, without the student knowing, to see if they notice anything that indicates cheating. This monitoring could be nonvisual or visual. Sometimes, an instructor may assign students an independent route but note to the student that they may be in the area while they are performing this route. The instructor might make a point to cross paths with the student a few times during the route to notice what the student is doing. An instructor may also trail a student for an entire independent route. Instructors in indoor instructional spaces may turn off the lights to see if the student reacts. One sign of cheating may lead to other signs of cheating.

Ultimately, detecting cheating comes down to an instructor’s intuition. There are no limits to creativity and the complexity of emotions, so an instructor must always be flexible and attentive. Sometimes, cheating can be identified in ways completely outside any planned or expected way to notice cheating. For example, one student returned from a cane travel route with a bloody welt at the widow’s peak of his forehead. The immediate priority was first aid. The student reported that he had been using his sleepshades and cane properly and that a bus stop sign pole had hit him square in the forehead. He had a history of peeking, including leaning forward and tilting his head downward, so that the widow’s peak of his forehead would be the first part of his body to break a plane. Straining to see can disrupt a student’s gait or posture (Mount et al., 2001). The instructor visited the pole and verified that it had not been altered. This situation came down to common sense, which is a vital part of detection.

Correction

Cheating learned or reinforced in educational settings can form habits that undermine a person’s subsequent occupational or civic performance, so it must be addressed (Cizek, 2003). When an instructor and student have strong rapport and trust, it enhances the instructor’s ability to correct cheating. The more students trust their instructors, the easier it is to let them into their emotions to help with the emotional adjustment (Salisbury, 2021). There are many approaches to correcting cheating.

One common approach to correcting cheating is talking students through the problem. For example, a home management student carried a half-gallon carton with a screw top from the refrigerator into the dining room, where students and staff were enjoying lunch, possibly without sleepshades, and asked, “Can someone with some vision tell me if this is the milk?” Students in training should not use the residual vision of their classmates (Altman, 2012). An instructor asked the student, “How else can you figure out if that is the milk?” The student replied, “Well, I really don’t want to taste it. It’s just easier to ask.” The instructor told the student to unscrew the cap and smell the contents of the carton, which the student did and then concluded that it was milk. This student needed to trust themself and problem-solve creatively. If they had simply been given the answer, it would have undermined their development of problem-solving skills and self-trust.

Sometimes, students cheat because they experience extreme and possibly irrational fear. If students frequently experience irrational fear, the instructor could encourage and support them to seek mental health services, but this may not be the first step. Omvig (2002/2005) wrote that blind people make up a cross-section of society, since blindness affects people from all demographics. Some students arrive at the training center with mental health issues, but it is important that the training center does not assume that mental health issues are automatic consequences of blindness (Omvig, 2002/2005). The training center can collaborate with nearby mental health service providers to build relationships and bolster the cultural competencies of the providers to work with the blind. It is important to make mental health service referrals prudently so students understand that blindness does not automatically catalyze a need for mental health services. Omvig (2002/2005) insisted that adjustment-to-blindness training program staff members must be able to differentiate between an ordinary fear of blindness and a clinical emotional problem. In most cases, where the fear is an ordinary fear of blindness, the instructors can use creative approaches to help the students overcome that fear. For example, if a cane travel student is afraid of trains, perhaps the instructor could spend some extra time with the student waiting near some train tracks, teaching the student how to ensure that they are safe when a train is coming, and learning about how trains and railroad crossings work so that the student becomes comfortable with them.

If students cheat out of laziness or convenience, instructors can help by making them think about their priorities. Motivational interviewing can help. Miller and Rose (2009) framed motivational interviewing, not as an active treatment itself, but as something to be paired with an active treatment to enhance a behavioral change intervention. Motivational interviewing involves leading clients to voice their motivations for change, called “change talk.” The observed commitment language is not itself a cause for change, but it is a signal that the related psychological events that produce change are happening. The degree of accurate empathy of the clinicians providing motivational interviewing was positively correlated with success in behavioral change and inversely correlated with relapse. A guiding principle of motivational interviewing is to have the client, rather than the counselor, provide the arguments for change, and this technique can be effective in adjustment-to-blindness training. It can be used for prevention or correction. Ultimately, motivational interviewing should seek to have students make the case for the kinds of changes that the adjustment-to-blindness training program is designed to offer in their lives rather than focusing on the cheating behavior. Focusing on the changes they want can help them overcome the urge to cheat.

Being proactive can be very beneficial with chronic cheating. If students are cheating, instructors or other training center staff should address it with them right away. It is important that cheating does not become a habit (Nora & Zhang, 2010). One student was suspected of cheating in cane travel, but it was very difficult for her instructors to pinpoint how she was cheating. Her progress was excellent from the beginning of training, or so it appeared, but eventually, she was performing complex tasks without displaying nonvisual information gathering processes. Multiple instructors suspected cheating by peeking as she advanced through the program, but it was so difficult to pinpoint how it was happening that they struggled to confront it. By the end of training, as those suspicions had continued, her achievements were tarnished by suspicion. Discussions with her about cheating were painful for her and for her instructors because they had all become so emotionally invested in her success, with all the work that had gone into her training. It was essentially too late to recover from any cheating that may have happened; at the end of training, the primary outcome of the discussions about cheating were the erosion of the relationship between the student and the staff. Addressing potential cheating immediately is typically more effective than waiting until the problem has lingered.

Instructors and center staff should be open with students about how different features of the training program work. One caveat should be considered: if an element of surprise or mystery is important for a student to benefit from a feature of the program, the instructor may have to delay discussion of that feature until a student has had the relevant experience or simply talk more broadly about what training does and suggest that the student will come to realize how that feature fits into the broader program.

To correct peeking around sleepshades, an instructor can make it harder for the student to perform the physical act of peeking. A student may wear a bandana underneath their sleepshades to provide extra sealant. If a student has modified their sleepshades in a way that compromises their light-blocking functionality, the student may need to use another pair without those alterations. Another way to make it harder for a student to peek is to alter the lighting of the instructional environment so that the student cannot see in that environment. If the student needs substantial lighting to see, the instructor could shut off the lights in the classroom for the time that the student is in class until it breaks them of this habit. If the instructor asks the student to turn off the lights, the student is participating in preventing their own peeking.

Prevention

Training centers should operate with a community or family culture, where students feel supported by their classmates and community (Omvig, 2002/2005; Salisbury, 2018a; Tigges, 2004). This community culture can help prevent cheating. Anderman and Murdock (2007) found that students who believed that their peers condemned academic dishonesty were less likely to cheat. Jendrek (1992) found that students were reluctant to report incidents of their peers cheating to authority figures or to intervene to stop the cheaters. Whitley and Spiegel (2002) proposed that students could help prevent academic dishonesty by expressing their disapproval of it since peer attitudes and cheating behavior were interrelated. McCabe et al. (2001) described a variety of reasons why students do not report their cheating peers to authority figures, including the idea that cheating is none of their business, the fear of making an enemy of the cheater, and friendship-based loyalty to the cheater. Treviño and Victor (1991) proposed that students avoid confronting their peers about their dishonesty and informing authority figures about their peers cheating because groups tend to create norms supporting in-group loyalty. Such norms promote group cohesion and help members of the group develop feelings of security—that their group members have their back. In this normative system, peers reporting peers to authority figures violates group norms of loyalty, and those members of the group who report their peers would often be ostracized, accused of harassment, condemned, or expelled from the group. A strong family and community culture of a training center helps students and staff understand that they are on the same team while they confront the common enemies of low expectations and societal misperceptions about blindness. If cheating is handled in caring and supportive ways, students will not fear punishment and thus feel little betrayal if they are reported for cheating. Bushway and Nash (1977) wrote that the moral climate of an educational institution influences the amount of cheating. Cizek (2003) explained that, if cheating becomes a part of the culture of an educational institution, it erodes the sense of community, respect, trust, and student motivation for learning. Nora and Zhang (2010) found that honor codes can help students understand that reporting incidents of cheating are explicit parts of their role responsibilities, increasing the probability of reporting and decreasing the probability of cheating. The intentional culture of the training center must focus on preventing and correcting cheating rather than allowing a passive code of silence to emerge.

Students are less likely to cheat if they avoid conditions that make it easier for them to cheat (Bushway & Nash, 1977; Wesley, 1964). Wearing glasses under sleepshades can prop them up, allowing the students to peek under them, so wearing glasses should not be allowed. If students like to ask other pedestrians for information that their instructor does not want them obtaining from other pedestrians, the instructor may send them into areas with very little foot traffic or into areas where very few of their fellow pedestrians will speak the same language(s) as they do.

Students should be as comfortable as possible while wearing their sleepshades. Black sleepshades can get hot, especially in environments with a strong sun. If that heat creates discomfort for the student, they can add a new outer surface to their sleepshades, such as applying lightly-colored and/or reflective paint, contact paper, or foil tape. As long as the sleepshades look respectable and presentable, students should be encouraged to personalize their sleepshades. 

Early successes support self-efficacy and the broader emotional adjustment to blindness (Salisbury, 2020b). Because cheating relates to the emotional adjustment, early successes also help to inoculate them against cheating. Students with stronger self-efficacy are less likely to cheat (Cizek, 1999; Finn & Frone, 2004; Murdock et al., 2001). Mastery experiences help build a foundation of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1997). Particularly, when students have mastery experiences with tasks that they thought were impossible, this is a stellar source of self-efficacy (Bagienski et al., 2022). Though it is ordinary for students with residual vision to fear for their safety while using sleepshades for the first time, a few hours of experiencing predictable success begins to pacify that fear (Morais et al., 1997). Instructors should get to know their students and use their understanding of the student to develop activities that fall within the student’s optimal band of stimulation. If tasks are too easy, they will not offer sufficient challenge to create physiological arousal, or stress, which students can learn to manage, further supporting self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1997). When students are still early in their acquisition of blindness skills and emotional adjustment, basic tasks can be challenging. As students advance, the assignments given to them should also advance (Salisbury, 2017). Prolonged instruction occurring over an extended time period is key to helping students experience more successes and develop familiarity with more than just the initial struggle of being blind with no skills (Silverman, 2015; Silverman, et al., 2015). Since students come to training with unique life experiences, skills, strengths, and worldviews (Salisbury, 2020a), they also come to training with different optimal bands of stimulation. Early successes can help students build self-efficacy, which makes them less likely to cheat. As their self-efficacy increases, their likelihood of cheating decreases.

Proactively talking with students about why they do everything that they do in training can help reduce the instance of cheating. Some students come into training with the misperception that using sleepshades is purely to prepare students for what life will be like if they lose the rest of their residual vision. In fact, training under sleepshades will help them even if they do not lose any more vision. Training under sleepshades helps students focus on nonvisual stimuli, develop nonvisual skills and techniques, learn from their peers, and develop a wholesome emotional adjustment to blindness (Salisbury, 2017). If students do not expect to lose any more vision, they may not understand the relevance of using sleepshades, so talking about the purposes of the sleepshades may help them stay committed to those purposes. Motivational interviewing is not simply a tool to correct cheating; when used proactively, it can also help prevent cheating by keeping students committed to the motivations that led them to seek training.

Instructors may plant seeds for the cheating discussion at the very beginning of training, which can help to prevent cheating but can also help make correction much easier. Srikanth and Asmatulu (2014) concluded that academic dishonesty was a stigma in an education system and thus students may not want to be caught. Students in adjustment-to-blindness training may feel a sense of stigma about cheating and thus attempt to hide or cover up their cheating. Cheating in training may be effectively addressed, not by stigmatizing cheating, but by acknowledging that cheating is a manifestation of the low expectations and misperceptions about blindness that society has fed to everyone. Students should feel like they are on the same team as their instructors as they work together to take on these negative social constructs. Authoritarian-compliance approaches to adjustment-to-blindness training may prevent students from feeling as if they are on the same side as their instructors. Instructors may choose to say something like, “At some point, you may hear us use the word ‘cheating’ to describe something that you might be doing that might be undermining your emotional progress. I don’t want you to feel like you’re being accused of a crime if we ever do talk about that, but it is better to talk about it than avoid talking about it because the emotional progress in this program is most important.” If students know from the beginning of training that discussions of cheating are not to vilify, shame, or stigmatize the student but instead to keep the student on track for a wholesome emotional adjustment, the student can be much more inclined to discuss an urge to cheat, admit any cheating, and resist the urge to cheat.

Instructors may choose to tell all new students, that if they ever feel the urge to cheat, to let their instructor know so that they can work out another solution together. Such an approach requires explaining to the students what cheating really is, which in turn requires explaining the overall purpose of training. If a student trusts their instructor and feels comfortable stopping in the middle of a lesson and saying, “I really want to peek right now,” this allows the instructor to help them problem-solve. If a student is lighting a charcoal grill and feeling afraid of the flame, they can just stop and say, “This flame is really freaking me out, and I want to see that I’m safe” prompting the instructor to talk them through it. When instructors are talking students through those situations, students are learning how to problem-solve on their own. Feeling comfortable voicing the cheating urge to their instructor facilitates learning and growth.

Implications for Practitioners and Families

Since the overarching goal of Structured Discovery adjustment-to-blindness training is a wholesome emotional adjustment to blindness, cheating should be assessed in terms of undermining that adjustment. This article proposed a context-specific definition of cheating for Structured Discovery adjustment-to-blindness training. Cheating is anything a student intentionally does that undermines the emotional adjustment process. Some major reasons why students cheat have been outlined: (a) insufficient self-trust, (b) fear, (c) convenience, (d) shame, and (e) not believing that a task is possible for anyone. Practitioners may choose to plant seeds proactively for the cheating discussion, reducing the likelihood of cheating and destigmatizing cheating in the training center culture. The training center should have a family-oriented culture, where students understand that they are on the same team as the staff. This team works together to challenge and overcome the socially-constructed problems, rooted in misperceptions and low expectations, which hold back blind people individually and collectively. Students who feel tempted to cheat should feel encouraged to voice that temptation to summon the help of their instructors to overcome that temptation. Preventative and corrective measures are important, but the training center culture should be clear that classmates and staff will not turn their back on a student who falters. When students cheat, the entire training center has a collective duty to come together to help them to get back on course. Students do not need to be perfect, but they do need to be committed to adjustment. Detection of cheating may require as much creativity as the cheating itself, but it ultimately comes down to the instructor’s relationship with the student, intuition, and common sense. Correcting cheating relies heavily on the relationship between instructor and student; instructors must strive to ensure that students will not interpret them as adversarial.

Implications for Future Research

Future literature should document more strategies for preventing, detecting, and correcting cheating. Alternative definitions of cheating in adjustment-to-blindness training could also be explored. The following research questions could be considered:

1. Public agencies often find that the social outcomes of their work are difficult to measure, thus they often feel a pressure to misrepresent their quantitative output to satisfy bureaucrats and donors (Bohte and Meier, 2000). Does administrative cheating support a culture of cheating within a training center?
2. What are the implications of intersecting cultural identities on cheating and interventions to address it?
3. How does cheating differ in non-residential training centers or itinerant instruction?
4. How do students and alumni reflect on cheating?
5. How do instructors perceive the impacts of student cheating on their own reputations as instructors?

References

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49

Altman, J. T. (2012). When the sleep-shades aren’t on. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 2(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/2F2-30

Anderman, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2007). Psychology of academic cheating. Elsevier Academic Press.

Bagienski, S. E., Kuhn, G., Goddard, L., & de Almeida e Souza Brodtkorb, S. (2022). Mastering the impossible: Piloting an easier-than-expected magic intervention that acts as a source of self-efficacy. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000332

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 13(9), 4-7.

Bohte, J., & Meier, K. J. (2000). Goal displacement: Assessing the motivation for organizational cheating. Public Administration Review, 60(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00075

Brown, J. (2019, August/September). Not without question: The difference of the Federation philosophy in our lives. Braille Monitor. https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm19/bm1908/bm190815.htm

Bushway, A., & Nash, W. R. (1977). School cheating behavior. Review of Educational Research, 47(4), 623-632. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047004623

Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it and prevent it. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cizek, G. J. (2003). Detecting and preventing classroom cheating: Promoting integrity in assessment. Corwin Press.

Finn, K. V., & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating: Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.97.3.115-121

Gabias, J. (2022, March). The benefits of immersion training. Braille Monitor. https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm22/bm2203/bm220313.htm

Hairston, E. L. (2015). Blind ambition: One woman’s journey to greatness despite her blackness. Brown Girls Publishing.

Hill, A. (1997a). Teaching cane travel: A blind professional's perspective. American Rehabilitation, 23(3/4), 23-25.

Hill, A. (1997b, April). Teaching cane travel blind? Braille Monitor. https://www.nfb.org/sites/www.nfb.org/files/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm97/bm970402.htm

Jendrek, M. P. (1992). Students’ reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development, 33(3), 260–273.

Maurer, M. M. (2011). Examining highly skilled cane travelers: A preliminary study. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 1(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/2F1-5 

Maurer, M. M., Bell, E. C., Woods, E., & Allen, R. (2006). Structured discovery in cane travel: Constructivism in action. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4) 304-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608800412

McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Dishonesty in academic environments: The influence of peer reporting requirements. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649132

Mettler, R. (2008). Cognitive learning theory and cane travel instruction: A new paradigm (2nd ed.). Nebraska Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired. (Original work published 1995)

Millar, L. (2021, June). The need for consent when participating in orientation and mobility and other structured discovery adventures. Braille Monitor. https://nfb.org//images/nfb/publications/bm/bm21/bm2106/bm210606.htm

Miller, W. R., & Rose, G. S. (2009). Toward a theory of motivational interviewing. American Psychologist, 64(6), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016830

Mino, N. M. (2011). Problem solving in structured discovery cane travel. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 1(3). Retrieved from https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/jbir/jbir11/jbir010302abs.html. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5241/2F1-21

Morais, M., Lorensen, P., Allen, R., Bell, E. C., Hill, A., & Woods, E. (1997). Techniques used by blind cane travel instructors, a practical approach: Learning, teaching, believing. National Federation of the Blind.

Mount, J., Howard, P. D., Dalla Palu, A. L., Grafstrom, A., Pinto, D. M., & Rudy, S. L. (2001). Postures and repetitive movements during use of a long cane by individuals with visual impairment. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 31(7), 375-383. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2001.31.7.375

Murdock, T. B., Hale, N. M., & Weber, M. J. (2001). Predictors of cheating among early adolescents: Academic and social motivations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1046

Nora, W. L. Y., & Zhang, K. C. (2010). Motives of cheating among secondary students: The role of self-efficacy and peer influence. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(4), 573-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9104-2

Olson, C. (1982). On the use of the blindfold. Nebraska Department of Public Institutions, Division of Rehabilitation Services for the Visually Impaired.

Omvig, J. H. (2005). Freedom for the blind: The secret is empowerment. National Federation of the Blind. (Original work published in 2002)

Omvig, J. H. (2009, January). Why use the word “blind”? Braille Monitor. https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm09/bm0901/bm090107.htm

Salisbury, J. M. (2017). On the duration of sleepshade training in the adjustment to blindness. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 7(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/7-122

Salisbury, J. M. (2018a). Cultivating feelings of first-class status. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 8(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/8-142

Salisbury, J. M. (2018b). Field classes in residential adjustment to blindness training programs. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 8(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/8-146

Salisbury, J. (2018c, February). Ecorched. Braille Monitor. https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm18/bm1802/bm180203.htm

Salisbury, J. M. H. (2020a). Past career experiences: Enhancers to or detractors from the adjustment to blindness. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 10(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/10-172

Salisbury, J. M. H. (2020b). Supporting the emotional adjustment to blindness from the beginning of cane travel instruction. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 10(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/10-161

Salisbury, J. M. H. (2020c). Habit formation in the adjustment to blindness. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 10(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/10-192

Salisbury, J. M. H. (2020d). Taking a gap year for adjustment-to-blindness training. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 10(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/10-186

Salisbury, J. M. H. (2021). Client-centered therapy versus rational emotive behavior therapy: Applications in adjustment-to-blindness training. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 11(1). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/11-196

Salisbury, J. M. H., & Laconsay, K. S. (2020). Personal and home management classes in residential adjustment-to-blindness training programs. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 10(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/10-193

Silverman, A. M. (2015). The perils of playing blind: Problems with blindness simulation, and a better way to teach about blindness. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 5(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.5241/5-81

Silverman, A. M., Gwinn, J. D., & Van Boven, L. (2015). Stumbling in their shoes: Disability simulations reduce judged capabilities of disabled people. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(4), 464-471. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614559650

Srikanth, M., & Asmatulu, R. (2014). Modern cheating techniques, their adverse effects on engineering education and preventions. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 42(2), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.7227/IJMEE.0005

Tigges, S. (2004). Slaying dragons: Building self-confidence and raising expectations through orientation center training. American Rehabilitation, 28(1), 30-39.

Treviño, L. K., & Victor, B. (1991). Peer reporting of unethical behaviors: A social context perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 38–64.

Wesley, D. A. (1964). Prevent cheating some useful tricks of the trade. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 39(4), 233-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1964.11476683

Whitley, B. E., & Spiegel, P. K. (2002). Academic dishonesty: An educator’s guide. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

The Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research is copyright (c) 2024 to the National Federation of the Blind.