Structured Discovery Professional Preparation: Constructivist Teaching Strategies in University Programs

By Kristen Sims

Kristen Sims, MEd, NOMC, NCUEB, is an Instructor of Orientation and Mobility at Louisiana Tech University. She holds national certifications in Orientation and Mobility and Unified English Braille and has over two decades of experience working with students who are blind or visually impaired. Ms. Sims is a graduate of Louisiana Tech University and a long-time advocate of Structured Discovery Cane Travel. She has presented nationally and internationally on early cane use, braille instruction, and professional training. Ms. Sims is actively involved in the National Federation of the Blind and serves on the Board of the Orientation and Mobility Specialist Association.

Abstract

This proposed framework examines the application of constructivist teaching methods in university programs for preservice teachers as applied to the Structured Discovery Cane Travel (SDCT) program for orientation and mobility instructors. Findings suggest methods and principles that may be used in further development and expansion of programs to train professionals in work with SDCT personnel. Implications for practice in online and hybrid learning are included. Further research is recommended to assess the feasibility of implementing these methods in orientation and mobility training programs, with a focus on professional development for university personnel and course design considerations.

Keywords

Constructivism, problem-based learning, flipped classroom, SDCT, blended learning

Structured Discovery Professional Preparation: Constructivist Teaching Strategies in University Programs

There is a critical shortage of orientation and mobility instructors in the United States (Ambrose-Zaken, 2017; American Foundation for the Blind, 2023; Jacobson, 2005). Orientation and mobility, or O&M, refers to instruction for blind individuals in using the techniques for independent mobility, often with the aid of a long white mobility cane. Studies have shown that instruction in orientation and mobility leads to improved quality of life for individuals who are blind (Ambrose-Zaken, 2017; Kamali & Ashori, 2021). Bell and Mino (2015) found that training using Structured Discovery Cane Travel (SDCT) correlated with higher employment rates and noted a negative relationship to reinstruction. This evidence suggests that SDCT leads to long-term results, which could alleviate the critical shortage by reducing the demand for instructors.  

SDCT refers to a set of methods and principles employed by National Orientation and Mobility Certified instructors, NOMCs (National Blindness Professionals Certification Board, 2024). The strategies used in this method include nonvisual travel skills, problem-solving, personal attitudes, public misconceptions, and giving back. While there is direct instruction of foundational skills, the student begins the learning process when they apply these skills through experiential learning opportunities without the support of an instructor (Maurer et al., 2006; Mettler, 1994). NOMC instructors complete rigorous training under blindfold and learn to facilitate student problem-solving using educational psychology and counseling theories to build student understanding of their perceptions, assumptions, and knowledge of the world (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2021; Mettler, 1994).

There is only one university offering a pathway toward the National Orientation and Mobility Certification (Orientation and Mobility Specialists Association, 2021). In 1998, Louisiana Tech University established a graduate degree program for SDCT based on an existing apprenticeship model (Professional Development and Research Institute on Blindness, 2024). In 2017, a graduate certificate program was added, and several courses were moved online. The existing coursework across the concentration courses contains the same content as the in-person program, which relies heavily on implicit learning that occurs through authentic experiences (Altman & Cutter, 2004; Griffin-Shirley et al., 2021, 2023; Maurer et al., 2006; Mettler, 1994). To preserve the authentic experience of the program, the use of constructivist learning theory frameworks within curriculum development and design may be a way to maintain quality as the program moves toward online learning.

SDCT utilizes components of constructivism in that it utilizes student-centered pedagogical methods (Cook et al., 2002). Traditional coursework predominantly uses instructional methods founded on instructor-centric frameworks for teacher preparation courses (Lefoe, 1998). SDCT instructors use student-centered approaches when teaching such as reflection, discovery learning, and questioning techniques to scaffold problem-solving (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2023). Pre-service instructors also benefit from learning through student-centered, authentic learning experiences, which could allow them to develop greater understanding of the process from a learner’s perspective which in turn may lead to increased utilization of these methods (Cook et al., 2002).

The purpose of analyzing university-based personnel preparation programs is to identify those with the greatest efficacy in resulting in high-quality outcomes for learners. By investigating successful constructivist learning methods used by teacher preparation programs, a comprehensive program could be designed to increase student experiential learning opportunities, improve student retention, and allow for replication at other universities. The following sections will explore the methods used, results of the research including the themes that arose from the investigation, discussion and implications to the SDCT program at Louisiana Tech University, and concluding remarks on application, limitations, and future research.

Importance of Constructivist Learning Methods in Teacher Preparation Courses

Perkan Zeki & Güneyli (2014) investigated the effects of constructivist teaching methods on preservice teachers through an elective course based on student-centered learning. The course design included discovery and experiential learning, collaborative learning, problem and project-based learning, and authentic learning activities. Preservice teachers reported the development of higher-level thinking skills, improved social and emotional skills, permanent learning, interactive learning led to more open dialogue and trust, development of metacognitive skills, application to social settings, and demonstrated a deep understanding of student-centered learning. Koludrovic and Reic Ercegovac (2017) examined the motivations, self-efficacy, and attitudes of preservice teachers who were using constructivist methods using experience-based learning through classroom observations. The level and course of study showed significant differences in social and cognitive self-efficacy. Students taught using constructivist methods showed positive attitudes towards a constructivist paradigm and greater satisfaction with their courses. This study found that greater intrinsic motivation combined with level of education and type of program influenced teacher attitudes towards constructivist teaching methods such as those used in SDCT. Preservice teachers who are taught using constructivist methods are more apt to have positive attitudes towards using the methods themselves (Koludrovic & Reic Ercegovac, 2017; Perkan Zeki & Güneyli, 2014).

Flipped Classroom Design

When reviewing the constructivist models most employed at the university level, the flipped classroom model was the most prevalent. Flipped classroom refers to the process of moving away from instructor-driven lecture-style classwork into student-led discussions for in-person class time after student self-study of materials. Francl (2014) describes the process of converting a two-week MBA course from a traditional lecture format to a flipped model using video presentations and online quizzes. Francl reported increased student satisfaction and success, but noted challenges such as instructor and student adjustment as well as material preparation time. A flipped classroom design model was developed and validated in a 2016 study by Lee et al., where principles of blended learning were combined with a flipped class design using the ADDIE design tool. After internal and external evaluations were conducted student scores and responses were used to judge the effectiveness of the design. They found the model to be effective for increasing student motivation, reflections on learning, and satisfaction with course content. Limitations included university personnel's comfort in using flipped design. Zou et al. (2020) also investigated the use of flipped classroom design combined with project-based and blended learning using an online platform for wiki creation. The experimental group showed increased participation and collaboration, generated more entries in the project, and obtained higher average scores on final assessments than the control group. The quality of the discussions also showed more depth of understanding than in the traditional instructional model. Buhl-Wiggers et al. (2023) investigated the potential effects teachers have in a flipped class design. The data suggests that there was only one teacher whose pass rates indicated a significant difference between the control and the treatment group. Overall, the effectiveness across teachers in the flipped model was similar, however, the effectiveness of the teachers by format was notable. Research shows the effectiveness of flipped classroom design as a constructivist method in university programs within online and blended class designs for student success and understanding (Zou et al., 2020). Current research also demonstrates the need for more training for instructors who attempt to utilize this method of instruction (Buhl-Wiggers et al., 2023; Francl, 2014; Lee et al., 2016).

Problem and Project-Based Learning

The use of problem or project-based learning was another theme in constructivist methods used in a university setting for preservice teachers that emerged when reading current research. A study on maker spaces investigated the use of student-centered learning, flipped learning, and project-based learning in university classrooms (Trust et al., 2017). The methods used to assess the impact of maker activities on students included informal observations, student feedback, course assignments, and post-course evaluations. A positive student response to activities was noted as increased engagement and development of critical skills. Overall, students responded positively to the active and applied learning provided by maker-centered activities, fostering creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration skills. Guo et al. (2020) conducted a comprehensive review of project-based learning, where 76 articles were analyzed for student outcomes and measurement instruments used. Results consistently showed a positive impact on student learning outcomes, engagement, and real-world application of knowledge. The authors noted that project-based and problem-based learning were often used interchangeably in the studies but encouraged the use of project-based learning in higher education, as it would enhance student motivation, critical thinking skills, and academic performance. Ayton and Capraro (2021) applied problem or project-based learning (PBL) strategies with preservice teachers in the redesign of a curriculum resource center which resulted in increased student engagement, tangible outcomes, and enhanced collaboration between the School of Education and the academic library. The authors noted the importance of community partnerships, student engagement, and assessment practices in successful PBL implementation in higher education. In a 2022 study by Hall, the flipped classroom design was applied to a blended learning experience using problem-based learning with preservice teachers. Hall used First Principles of Instruction by Merrill for the design. The preservice teachers learned to integrate technology into school settings using a problem-centered approach. The flipped design allowed for in-class practice and realistic application. This study found that reflection was an essential strategy used to bridge theoretical knowledge and application. Research in the use of PBL with preservice teachers provides experiential learning with instructor scaffolding and reflection practices increasing preservice teacher motivation and may result in increased application in their practice (Ayton and Capraro, 2021; Guo et al., 2020; Hall, 2022; Trust et al., 2017).

​Orientation and Mobility University Training

The bridge between experiential learning and reflection was also investigated in the context of university training and orientation and mobility preservice instructors. Zebehazy et al. (2020) utilized a mixed-methods design with a qualitative priority to study the effects of video reflection on developing pre-service orientation and mobility (O&M) specialists' practices to enhance problem-solving opportunities during instruction. The researchers employed retroactive think-aloud methods, video analysis, and question categorization based on Bloom's Taxonomy levels. The results of the interventions showed changes in the types of questions asked, with some increasing open-ended questions and decreasing direct commands. Additionally, there was an increase in the use of application and analysis questions such as those used by SDCT professionals (Altman & Cutter, 2004). Qualitative analysis identified common themes in participants' reflections, such as technique performance, language, explanations, practice time, the complexity of the environment, intervention, and closure (Zebehazy et al., 2020). The study highlighted the importance of self-reflection in improving teaching practices and suggested implications for practice, including promoting deeper reflection, tailoring instruction to individual student levels, and enhancing teaching efficacy through self-awareness.
​
In a series of studies by Griffin-Shirley et al. (2019, 2021, 2023) the instructional methods used by blind orientation and mobility instructors and the strategies used to instruct these preservice instructors were assessed through a series of surveys and interviews. This series of research aimed to identify best practices for universities to employ when instructing blind preservice instructors in blindfold courses and internship experiences. The research found that the principles used in SDCT were among the most employed by practicing blind instructors (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2021). The survey of university personnel showed that instructional methods used for sighted preservice instructors could not be applied to blind preservice instructors without the use of a sighted assistant for monitoring (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2019). However, non-visual strategies for monitoring used by blind instructors were found to be effective by sighted instructors training under blindfolds (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2023). Further, sighted pre-service instructors were reported to have increased concept development and self-efficacy when partnered with blind peers (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2019).

Discussion

The principles of SDCT fall within multiple learning theories but are predominantly related to those of constructivism with its focus on student-centered pedagogical methods (Altman & Cutter, 2004; Cook et al., 2002). The current university graduate program for SDCT was developed from an apprenticeship model that used experiential learning through real-world application (Brown & Benbow, 2004). Since SDCT methods can be used by blind and sighted instructors and more universities are seeking ways to increase the use of SDCT practices, there is a need to develop programming that can be used for off-site learning (Griffin-Shirley et al., 2019, 2021).

Traditionally, teacher preparation programs have utilized lecture-style instructor-centric methods which may be the reason for the lack of implementation of constructivist methods within professional practice (Cook et al., 2002; Lefoe, 1998). However, preservice teachers who were taught using constructivist methods, such as PBL, collaboration, and reflection, demonstrate positive attitudes towards using the methods, which may lead to increased professional application (Koludrovic & Reic Ercegovac, 2017; Perkan Zeki & Güneyli, 2014; Zebehazy et al., 2020). When investigating the most successful strategies employed at the university level in the framework of constructivism, the flipped classroom model was reported to have a wide range of applications that increased student motivation, self-efficacy, and opportunities for collaborative and project/problem-based learning (Francl, 2014; Lee et al., 2016; Trust et al., 2017; Zou et al, 2020).  PBL was also cited as having a profound impact on preservice teachers' attitudes, understanding, and application of constructivist teaching concepts (Ayton & Capraro, 2021; Guo et al., 2020; Hall, 2022; Trust et al., 2017).

Conclusion

Employing constructivist instructional methods may lead to greater practical application by preservice instructors in the SDCT programs at Louisiana Tech. Among the most cited was the use of the flipped classroom model. Proponents of this model noted increased student satisfaction, motivation, and participation in class discussions and collaboration with peers. This resulted in an increased understanding of material as evidenced by assessment measures used in the courses. The use of problem/project-based learning in university courses also resulted in higher proficiency in scores for the application of concepts in preservice teacher training. The combination of flipped classroom with the authentic learning experiences of project-based learning opportunities has been shown to be an effective way to increase student-centered learning in a university setting including those employing online learning platforms.

Implications for Practitioners

Implications of this information may impact how personnel preparation in the area of structured discovery training is conducted. Practitioners may need to determine the feasibility of employing the flipped classroom model to orientation and mobility instructor training. In that process, however, the strategies used in the above research strongly support the current methods used for in-person learning in the SDCT training program. These methods highlight the need for university personnel programs to consider this approach. The efficacy of implementation, the reliance on student-initiated learning of materials and participation in collaborative activities in an online platform, and macro and micro course design elements all support a more enriched learning experience. As noted in the introduction, the shortage of professionals across the country to teach structured discovery is hindered by the limited availability of university-based programs. Articulating the methods of developing future university programs in structured discovery is a necessary step in making this goal a reality.

References

Altman, J., & Cutter, J. (2004). Structured Discovery Cane Travel. In D. Dew & G. Allen (Eds.), 29th Institute on Rehabilitation Issues: Contemporary Issues in Orientation and Mobility (pp. 67–96). Rehabilitation Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education; Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation; National Organization of Rehabilitation Partners, George Washington University Regional Rehabilitation Continuing Education. https://archive.org/details/29thinstituteonr00unse/page/122/mode/2up

Ambrose-Zaken, G. (2017). A study of personnel preparation of teachers of learners with vision impairment and O&M services. International Journal of Orientation & Mobility, 8(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.21307/ijom-2017-067

American Foundation for the Blind. (2023, September). Statistics about children and youth with vision loss. The American Foundation for the Blind. https://afb.org/research-and-initiatives/statistics/children-youth-vision-loss

Ayton, K., & Capraro, K. (2021). Students lead the charge! Using project-based learning with pre-service teachers to redesign a curriculum resource center. Education Libraries, 44(1). https://doi.org/10.26443/el.v44i1.367

Bell, E. C., & Mino, N. M. (2015). Employment outcomes for blind and visually impaired adults. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5241/5-85

Brown, C., & Benbow, S. (2004). Qualifications of Orientation and Mobility Instructors. In D. Dew & G. Allen (Eds.), 29th Institute on Rehabilitation Issues: Contemporary Issues in Orientation and Mobility (pp. 109–122). Rehabilitation Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education; Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation; National Organization of Rehabilitation Partners, George Washington University Regional Rehabilitation Continuing Education. https://archive.org/details/29thinstituteonr00unse/page/122/mode/2up

Buhl-Wiggers, J., la Cour, L., Suder Franck, M., & Kjærgaard, A. (2023). Investigating effects of teachers in flipped classroom: A randomized controlled trial study of classroom level heterogeneity. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00396-4

Cook, L. S., Smagorinsky, P., Fry, P. G., Konopak, B., & Moore, C. (2002). Problems in developing a constructivist approach to teaching: One teacher’s transition from teacher preparation to teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 102(5), 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1086/499710

Dirkx, J. M. (1998). Transformative learning theory in the practice of adult education: An overview. Journal of Lifelong Learning, 7, 1–14.

Francl, T. J. (2014). Is flipped learning appropriate? Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 7(1), 119–128. https://assets.nu.edu/assets/resources/pageResources/journal-of-research-in-innovative-teaching-volume-7.pdf#page=128

Griffin-Shirley, N., Bozeman, L., Nguyen, T., Othuon, V., Page, A., Hahm, J., Hahm, J., & Lee, J. (2021). A Survey of blind orientation and mobility specialists about the accommodations and teaching strategies they use when providing orientation and mobility services. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 115(3), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482x211018000

Griffin-Shirley, N., Bozeman, L., Obiero, N. A., Steinle, K. J., & Page, A. (2019). Preparation of orientation and mobility specialist students who are blind and have low vision: Survey of faculty who teach blindfold and simulation cane courses. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 113(4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482x19865382

Griffin-Shirley, N., Bozeman, L., Okungu, P., Ihenagwam, C., & Nguyen, T. (2023). Teaching strategies and nonvisual skills used by orientation and mobility specialists who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 117(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X221150013

Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. International Journal of Educational Research, 102(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101586

Hall, J. A. (2022). A problem-centered approach to designing blended courses: Unifying online and face-to-face modalities. Education Sciences, 12(10), 689. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100689

Jacobson, W. H. (2005). Practice report: Transforming a traditional personnel preparation program in orientation and mobility into an online program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99(11), 707–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482x0509901109

Kamali, N., & Ashori, M. (2021). The effectiveness of orientation and mobility Training on the quality of life for students who are blind in Iran. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 41(1), 026461962110190. https://doi.org/10.1177/02646196211019066

Koludrovic, M., & Reic Ercegovac, I. (2017). Does higher education curriculum contribute to prospective teachers’ attitudes, self-efficacy and motivation? World Journal of Education, 7(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v7n1p93

Lefoe, G. (1998). Creating constructivist learning environments on the web: The challenge in higher education. ASCILITE, 98(1998), 453–464.
Lee, J., Lim, C., & Kim, H. (2016). Development of an instructional design model for flipped learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9502-1

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

Mettler, R. (1994). A cognitive basis for teaching cane travel. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88(4), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482x9408800410

National Blindness Professional Certification Board. (2024). National orientation and mobility certification. https://www.nbpcb.org/nomc/

Orientation and Mobility Specialists Association. (2021). Higher education O&M preparation programs. https://www.usomsa.org/om-programs/

Perkan Zeki, C., & Güneyli, A. (2014). Student teachers’ perceptions about their experiences in a student centered course. South African Journal of Education, 34(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15700/201409161111

Professional Development and Research Institute on Blindness. (2024). Orientation and mobility. https://www.pdrib.com/pages/orientation-and-mobility

Trust, T., Maloy, R. W., & Edwards, S. (2017). Learning through making: Emerging and expanding designs for college classes. TechTrends, 62(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0214-0

Zebehazy, K. T., Correa-Torres, S. M., & Botsford, K. D. (2020). Developing pre-service O&M specialists’ reflective practices to improve problem-solving opportunities during instruction. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 40(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264619620946071

Zou, D., Xie, H., Wang, F. L., & Kwan, R. (2020). Flipped learning with Wikipedia in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1750195

The Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research is copyright (c) 2025 to the National Federation of the Blind.