1. By: Kathryn Sheriff Segers, PhD, NBCT, CTVI Program Specialist -Accessible Instructional Materials (AIMs) Georgia Department of Education

2. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM It is not fully known the extent to which the level of in-service teacher training in assistive technology for the blind and visually impaired and academic subject area affects the level of student access to and usage of assistive technology. Students who are blind and visually impaired often lack equal access to the same general curriculum as their sighted peers. Access is achieved through the use of assistive technology.

3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the level of in- service teacher training in assistive technology for the blind and visually impaired and academic subject area, with student access to and the level of usage of assistive technology in order to access the general education curriculum.

4. STUDY SUMMARY Correlational Study  To determine if there was a significant correlation between o teacher in-service training and academic subject area  Student levels of access to assistive technology for the visually impaired  Student levels of usage of assistive technology for the visually impaired

5. DATA ANALYSIS  Frequency Data  Spearman’s correlation coefficient

6. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION  Research subjects were all students and teachers at a state school for the Blind in the academic program for students with visual impairments only and students with additional mild to moderate disabilities.  Two surveys were utilized  Teacher Survey  Student Survey

7. Teacher Data Table 2 Frequency Counts Teacher Demographics (n=13) Variable n% Gender Male 215.4 Female 1184.6 Ethnicity White1292.3 Black 1 7.7 Education Bachelor’s 5 38.5 Graduate 861.5

8. TEACHER DATA CONTINUED Variable n% Age Group 21-29 1 7.7 30-39 323.1 40-49 4 30.7 50-59 323.1 60+ 215.4 Program VI only 753.8 VI + additional 646.2

9. STUDENT DATA Table 3 Frequency Counts Student Demographics n = 45 Age Range = 13-21 Variablen% Gender Male 1840 Female2760 Ethnicity White2146.7 Black2146.7 Native American 1 2.2 Asian 1 2.2 Mixed Race 1 2.2

10. Student Data Continued Graden % Grade 6 4 8.9 Grade 7 3 6.7 Grade 8 8 17.8 Grade 9 4 8.9 Grade 10 1022.2 Grade 11 511.1 Grade 121124.4

11. Student Date Continued Age n % Age 13 6 13.3 Age 14 3 6.7 Age 15 715.6 Age 16 4 8.9 Age 17 511.1 Age 18 613.3 Age 19 7 15.6 Age 20 4 8.9 Age 21 3 6.7

12. Student Data Continued n % Primary Learning Medium Regular Print4 8.9 Large Print1533.3 Braille 2555.6 Auditory 1 2.2

13. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 1  H 1 : There is a significant relationship between the level of in-service teacher training in assistive technology for the visually impaired and the level of student access to assistive technology for the visually impaired.

14. NULL HYPOTHESIS 1 H 0 : There is not a significant relationship between the level of in- service teacher training in assistive technology for the visually impaired and the level of student access to assistive technology for the visually impaired.

15. Statistical Analysis  Table 5  Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient and p-Values for Teacher In-service Training and Student levels of Access for Assistive Technology for Students with Visual Impairments (n=45) Students (n=13) Teachers Assistive Technology Categoryr s p Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision  1. Desktop Video Magnifiers-.324.280  2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers-.328.275  3. Electronic Telescopes-.158.606  4. Screen Enlargement Software-.530.063  5. Large Display Calculators.101.743  6. Large Display Graphing Calculators-.189.537 

16. Statistical Analysis  Assistive Technology Category r s p  Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind  Auditory.  7. Screen Reading Software -.587.035*  8. Scan and Read Software -.371.211  9. Portable Note takers (PDAs) -.078.801  10. Digital Book Reading Hardware -.291.334  11. Digital Book Reading Software.077.802  12. Desktop Audio Players -.581.037*  13. Portable Audio Players.060.845  14. Talking Dictionary -.266.380 

17. Statistical Analysis Assistive Technology Category r s pB raille.Braille.  15. Manual Braille Writer-.237..436  16. Electronic Braille Writer-.123.689  17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools .453.120  18. Braille Embossers-.294.330  19. Braille Translation Software.060.845 

18. Statistical Analysis  Tactile Graphics.  Assistive Technology Category r s p  20. Tactile Graphics Hardware.594.032*  21. Tactile Graphics Software -.222.466  22. Tactile Graphics Kits.092.765   Math Tools.  23. Talking Calculators.055.860  24. Cranmer Abacus -.204.504  25. Math Concepts Software.279.357  26. Miscellaneous Math Tools -.488.091   *p <.05

19. HYPOTHESIS 1 RESULTS

20.  Null hypothesis is retained.  While there were a few areas that were statistically significant, there was not enough evidence to support the hypothesis.  There were trends which indicate that further research with a larger sample size might give better results to support the research hypothesis.

21. HYPOTHESIS 2  H 2 : There is a significant relationship between the academic subject that the teacher of the visually impaired is teaching, and the level of student access by students with visual impairments to assistive technology for the visually impaired.

22. Null Hypothesis 2  H 0 : There is not a significant relationship between the academic subject that the teacher of the visually impaired is teaching, and the level of student access by students with visual impairments to assistive technology for the visually impaired.

23. Statistical Analysis Table 6 Spearman’s Correlation Coefficient for Level of Access and Academic Subject Area (n = 45) Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision ELA Math SC SS r s r s r s r s 1. Desktop Video Magnifiers.770**.695**.626**.652** 2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers.774**.224.650**.669** 3. Electronic Telescopes.517**.517**.517* 0 4. Screen Enlargement Software.722**.697**.509**.722** 5. Large Display Calculators.397**.881**.720**.397** 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators.500**.770**.476**.366*

24. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind ELA Math SC SS r s r s r s r s Auditory. 7. Screen Reading Software.672**.499**.622**.722* 8. Scan and Read Software.829**.857**.664**.780** 9. Portable Note takers (PDAs).808**.786**.664**.767** 10. Digital Book Reading Hardware 786**.664**.767**.767** 11. Digital Book Reading Software.825**.489**.550**.667** 12. Desktop Audio Players.937**.426**.320*.548** 13. Portable Audio Players.997**.863**.707**.730** 14. Talking Dictionary.945**.261.521**.642**

25. Statistical Analysis ELA Math Sc SS r s r s r s r s Braille. 15. Manual Braille Writer.807**.895**.781**.709** 16. Electronic Braille Writer.788**.617**.685**.727** 17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools.808**.598**.596**.598** 18. Braille Embossers.699**.535**.535**.775** 19. Braille Translation Software.744**.624** 0.625

26. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ELA Math Sc SS r s r s r s r s Tactile Graphics. 20. Tactile Graphics Hardware.744**.624** 0.625 21. Tactile Graphics Software.518*.707** 0.518 22. Tactile Graphics Kits.314*.869** 0.314 Math Tools. 23. Talking Calculators.224.793**.411**.030 24. Cranmer Abacus.414**.957**.398**.374** 25. Math Concepts Software.723**.723**.517**.500** 26. Miscellaneous Math Tools.271.875**.576**.327* *p <.05 ** p <.01

27. HYPOTHESIS 2 RESULTS

28. HYPOTHESIS 2  The research hypothesis was retained. 82% of the possible 104 correlations combinations were significant at the p<.01 level and 5.8% were significant at the p<.05 level with a total of 86% of the data being statistically significant to support the research hypothesis.  All areas had some level of significances.

29. HYPOTHESIS 3  H 3 : There is a significant relationship between the level of in-service teacher training in assistive technology for the visually impaired and the level of usage of assistive technology for the visually impaired.

30. NULL HYPOTHESIS 3  H 0 : There is not a significant relationship between the level of in- service teacher training in assistive technology for the visually impaired and the level of usage of assistive technology for the visually impaired by students with visual impairments.

31. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Table 7 Spearman’s correlation coefficient for Teacher In-service Training and Student Usage in Academic Subject Areas (n=45). Assistive Technology Category ELA Math SC SS r s r s r s r s Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision 1. Desktop Video Magnifiers-.324-.324 0-.324 2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers-.328-.328 0-.328 3. Electronic Telescopes -.158-.158 0-.158 4. Screen Enlargement Software-.360-.360 0-.360 5. Large Display Calculators-.287.083.082-.287 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators-.189-.189 0-.189

32. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind ELA MathSC SS r s r s r s r s Auditory. 7. Screen Reading Software.283.462.613*.012 8. Scan and Read Software -.371 -.371 0-.371 9. Portable Note takers (PDAs)-.193.097 -.039.17 10. Digital Book Reading Hardware -.198 0 0 0 11. Digital Book Reading Software.145.297.495.235

33. Assistive Technology for Students who are Blind ELA MathSC SS r s r s r s r s Auditory. 12. Desktop Audio Players-.168 -.425 -.425.425 13. Portable Audio Players-.431 -.431 -.293-.431 14. Talking Dictionary-.287-.325-.028-.287 STATISICAL ANALYSIS

34. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ELAMath SC SS r s r s Braille. 15. Manual Braille Writer -.258-.041-.118.04 16. Electronic Braille Writer.233.411.152.15 17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools.453.604*.604*.604* 18. Braille Embossers -.2940-.294 -.294 19. Braille Translation Software.041.041 0 0

35. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ELA Math SC SS r s r s r s r s Tactile Graphics. 20. Tactile Graphics Hardware 0.592*.402.402 21. Tactile Graphics Software -.222 -.222 0 -.222 22. Tactile Graphics Kits -.290.052 0 -.290 Math Tools. 23. Talking Calculators -.423.125.355 -.126 24. Cranmer Abacus -.265 -.076.124 -.122 25. Math Concepts Software -.279 -.280 -.189 -.355 26. Miscellaneous Math Tools -.538 -.538 -.287 -.422 *p <.05

36. HYPOTHESIS 3 RESULTS

38. Figure 5. Teacher in-service training compared to student usage of at (n = 45 students) (n = 13 teachers).

39. HYPOTHESIS 3 RESULTS  Spearman’s correlation coefficient indicates little to no correlation between the level of teacher in- service training in AT for the visually impaired and student usage of AT for the visually impaired in each academic subject area.  Although there are a few areas that are statistically significant, there were not enough to warrant accepting the research hypothesis so the null hypothesis must be retained.

40. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 4  H 4 : There is a significant relationship between the academic subject area that the teacher of the visually impaired is teaching and the level of student usage of assistive technology for the visually impaired.

41. H 0 : There is not a significant relationship between the academic subject area that the teacher of the visually impaired is teaching and the level of usage of assistive technology for the visually impaired by students with visual impairments. NULL HYPOTHESIS 4

42. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Table 8 Frequency of Student access to Assistive Technology in Academic Subject Areas (n = 45) Assistive Technology Category% English Math Sc SS Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision 1. Desktop Video Magnifiers 2.2 17.4 15.5 15.5 2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers 13.2 11.0 4.4 11.1 3. Electronic Telescopes 2.2 2.2 0 2.2 4. Screen Enlargement Software 24.4 13.3 15.5 24.4 5. Large Display Calculators 4.4 31.1 13.3 4.4 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators 4.4 11.1 4.4 2.2

43. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology Category% English Math Sc SS Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision 5. Large Display Calculators 4.4 31.1 13.3 4.4 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators 4.4 11.1 4.4 2.2

44. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology Category % English Math Sc SS Assistive Technology for Students Who Are Blind Auditory. 7. Screen Reading Software 60.0 33.4 26.738.9 8. Scan and Read Software 15.5 11.0 11.013.2 9. Portable Note takers (PDAs) 39.9 31.1 6.6 15.5

45. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology Category% English Math Sc SS 10. Digital Book Reading HW46.6 15.5 13.3 26.7 11. Digital Book Reading SW26.6 8.8 6.6 15.5 12. Desktop Audio Players51.1 17.7 19.9 33.3 13. Portable Audio Players8.8 6.6 4.4 8.8 14. Talking Dictionary 42.2 4.4 13.3 20.0

46. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology Category % English Math Sc SS Braille. 15. Manual Braille Writer 42.2 64.4 37.835.6 16. Electronic Braille Writer 24.5 8.8 11.113.3 17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools 17.7 13.2 8.813.2 18. Braille Embossers 6.6 4.4 4.4 8.9 19. Braille Translation SW 6.6 4.40 4.4

47. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS % English Math Sc SS Tactile Graphics. 20. Tactile Graphics Hardware 0.0 6.6 2.2 2.2 21. Tactile Graphics Software 2.2 4.4 0 2.2 22. Tactile Graphics Kits 2.2 13.3 0 2.2 Math Tools. 23. Talking Calculators 13.4 11.1 28.8 7.0 24. Cranmer Abacus.6 35.6 4.4 4.4 25. Math Concepts Software 4.4 4.4 2.2 8.8 26. Miscellaneous Math Tools11.0 64.419.9 6.6

48. % English Math Sc SS Math Tools. 23. Talking Calculators 13.4 11.1 28.8 7.0 24. Cranmer Abacus.6 35.6 4.4 4.4 25. Math Concepts Software 4.4 4.4 2.2 8.8 26. Miscellaneous Math Tools 11.0 64.4 19.9 6.6 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

49. Table 9 Spearman’s Coefficient of AT for the Visually Impaired Across Subject Areas (n = 45) Assistive Technology for Students with Low Vision E/M E/SC E/SS M/SC M/S SC/SS r s r s r s r s r s r s 1. Desktop Video Magnifiers.632**.654**.708**.595**.783**.803** 2. Portable Digital Handheld Magnifiers.688**.527**.880**.266. 788**.609** 3. Electronic Telescopes 1.000* 0 1.000** 0 1.000** 0 4. Screen Enlargement Software.782**.610**.790**.752**.886**.748** 5. Large Display Calculators.321*.218 1.000**.591**.321*.218 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators.602**.454**.715**.602**.447**-.033

50. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Assistive Technology for Students Who are Blind E/M E/SC E/SS M/SC M/S SC/SS r s r s r s 6. Large Display Graphing Calculators.602**.454**.715**.602**.447** -.033 Auditory 7. Screen Reading Software.334*.508*.588**.336*.516**.515** 8. Scan and Read Software.816**.818**.923**.795**.917**.882** 9. Portable Note takers (PDAs).772**.640**.690**.651**.894**.585**

51. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS E/M E/SC E/SS M/SC M/S SC/SS r s r s r s 10. Digital Book Reading Hardware.273.354*.397**.549**.443**.550** 11. Digital Book Reading Software.474**.352.557**.867**.760**.638** 12. Desktop Audio Players.290.223.292.669**.589*.651** 13. Portable Audio Players.840**.656**.714**.817**.854**.665** 14. Talking Dictionary.326*.505**.559** -.084.471**.618**

52. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Braille E/M E/SC E /SS M/S M/S SC/SS r s r s r s r s r s r s 15. Manual Braille Writer.673**.671**.717**.521**.545**.671** 16. Electronic Braille Writer.609**.675**.717**.894**.826**.923** 17. Miscellaneous Braille Writing Tools.540**.513**.540**.816* 1.000**.816** 18. Braille Embossers.365*.787**.528**.477**.690**.690** 19. Braille Translation Software.374* 0.384** 0.465** 0

53. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS E/ME/SCE/SSM/SCM/S SC/SS r s r s r s Tactile Graphics. 20. Tactile Graphics Hardware000.537**.537**1.000** 21. Tactile Graphics Software.715**01.000**0 0.715** 22. Tactile Graphics Kits.432**01.000**0.432**0

54. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Math Tools. E/M E/SC E /SS M/S M/S SC/SS r s r s r s r s r s r s 23. Talking Calculators -.071.106.304.261 -.027.192 24. Cranmer Abacus.243.374*.826**.390**.360*.465** 25. Math Concepts Software1.000**.715**.723**.699**.723**.517** 26. Miscellaneous Math Tools.128.245.775**.537**.123.375* E/M=English Language Arts/Math, E/SC=English Language Arts/Science E/SS=English Language Arts/Social Studies, M/SC =Math/Science, M/SS== Math/ Social Studies, SC/SS= Science/Social Studies. *p <.05 **p<01

55. HYPOTHESIS 4 RESULTS Figure 6. Comparison of student assistive technology access by subject area n = 45.

56. HYPOTHESIS 4 RESULTS  Based on the Spearman’s correlation coefficient, there is a significant correlation between usage of assistive technology for students with visual impairments and subject areas. In fact, there are numerous significant correlations between AT usage as compared to usage in other academic areas. Of the possible 156 correlational possibilities, 12 (7.7 %) were significant at the p <.05 level and 110 (71 %) were significant at the p <.01 level. Only 34 (21.3%) were not statistically significant.

57. HYPOTHESIS 4 RESULTS  There were sufficient significant correlations at the p <.05 and p <.01 level (78.7% ) to determine that the research hypothesis was retained. The null hypothesis was rejected.

58. STUDY CONCLUSIONS  Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3- The null hypotheses were accepted. However, there were trends, though not statistically significant, for hypothesis 1 that indicated that further study might yield different results with a larger sample size.  Hypotheses 2 and 4- The research hypotheses was retained.

59. RECOMMENDATIONS- FURTHER RESEARCH  Replication of the study with a larger sample size.  Include itinerant TVI’s.  Expand study to examine TVI’s skill level in each assistive technology level and not just their number of hours of training

60. RECOMMENDATIONS- PRACTICE  Include peer coaching as a follow-up to in- service training to improve TVI levels of proficiency  TVI’s should provide access to a variety of assistive technology both high and low tech in all subject areas  Access to the curriculum is the key to positive student achievement for students with visual impairments. AT is the catalyst that makes this possible.

61. CONCLUSION  Access to and use of assistive technology is not a luxury for students with visual impairments. It is a necessity. The use of assistive technology is the key that unlocks the world of print and digital information to students with low vision and blindness. Further investigation is needed to strengthen the body of research in this critical area.