Assistive technology competencies for teachers of students with visual impairments.
Article Type: Report
Subject: Self-help devices for the disabled (Usage)
Blind (Printing and writing systems)
Blind (Study and teaching)
Blind (Technology application)
Teachers (Equipment and supplies)
Authors: Smith, Derrick W.
Kelley, Pat
Maushak, Nancy J.
Griffin-Shirley, Nora
Lan, William Y.
Pub Date: 08/01/2009
Publication: Name: Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness Publisher: American Foundation for the Blind Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Health Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 American Foundation for the Blind ISSN: 0145-482X
Issue: Date: August, 2009 Source Volume: 103 Source Issue: 8
Topic: Event Code: 440 Facilities & equipment Computer Subject: Technology application; Handicapped access device
Geographic: Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States
Accession Number: 207944188
Full Text: Abstract: Using the expert opinion of more than 30 professionals, this Delphi study set out to develop a set of assistive technology competencies for teachers of students with visual impairments. The result of the study was the development of a highly reliable and valid set of 111 assistive technology competencies.

**********

Historically, individuals with visual impairments have faced three primary issues: access to information, independent travel, and the lack of meaningful experiences (Lowenfeld, 1973). To compensate for their vision loss and the subsequent challenges, individuals with visual impairments have relied on assistive technologies for centuries. To be successful in today's technologically advanced society, they must have the tools for and necessary training in assistive technology. Therefore, it is imperative that teachers of students with visual impairments are prepared to provide effective and efficient instruction in assistive technology.

Several studies have assessed educators' needs for assistive technology training (Derer, Polsgrove, & Rieth, 1996; Jennings, Long, & Jackie, 2002; Lee & Vega, 2005), and all have found that the vast majority of teachers of students with disabilities consider themselves to have inadequate knowledge of assistive technology. A 1990 study by Parker et al. was the first in a series of studies on barriers to the use of assistive technology with students with visual impairments. It found that almost two-thirds of the participants rated themselves as having "poor" or "nonexistent" knowledge of specific assistive technology devices for individuals with visual impairments. A similar study by Edwards and Lewis (1998) reported that the participants did not use many of the listed assistive technology devices because of their lack of knowledge of them. Abner and Lahm (2002) found that 51% of the teachers of students with visual impairments who participated in their study did not feel competent to teach their students to use assistive technologies; 62% of the teachers considered themselves to be at the novice or apprentice level in using assistive technologies. Kapperman, Sticken, and Heinze (2002) reported that 72% of the teachers they interviewed were unable to respond to the survey because of their lack of knowledge about the assistive technologies that were discussed.

Thus, the pertinent question is which barriers are creating these deficiencies in teachers' knowledge, since teachers' attitudes reflect a desire to understand, teach, and use assistive technology? The problem begins during the preservice years in teacher preparation programs. Few preservice training programs for special education include courses or even class sections on assistive applications and issues related to these devices (Lahm, 2003; Lee & Vega, 2005; Wahl, 2004). Smith and Kelley (2007) found that most training programs for teachers of students with visual impairments offer instruction in assistive technology with a course, a unit, or embedded throughout the program. However, they also found little continuity in the levels of knowledge and abilities to use assistive technology among the universities. The lack of preservice training in assistive technology has a detrimental affect on teachers when they enter the classroom.

Researchers have determined that there are multiple reasons for the lack of instruction in assistive technology for preservice educators. The reasons include a lack of resources for the programs to purchase equipment, the inability of instructors to stay current with the ever-changing technologies, and limitations related to time or programming. However, one of the major reasons that assistive technology is not taught at the preservice level is that a separate set of assistive technology competencies or standards does not exist. University programs that prepare teachers of students with visual impairments have little or no guidance on what assistive technology content should be taught to their preservice teachers. Therefore, teachers of students with visual impairments are receiving assistive technology training at different levels and on different types of technologies. Thus, this study was directed by two research questions:

1. What assistive technology competencies should teachers of students with visual impairments have on completion of a training program?

2. For each competence that is identified, what level of expertise (novice, beginner, proficient, or advanced) should be demonstrated by a teacher of students with visual impairments on completion of a training program?

Method and research design

For the purposes of this study, we determined that the Delphi method would be the best method to answer the two research questions. This method is used to develop standards and competencies on the basis of the professional consensus model and relies on professional knowledge and expertise (Imig & Imig, 2007).

The purpose of a Delphi study is to produce a reliable consensus of opinion through the use of a panel of knowledgeable experts (Linstone & Turoff, 2002). In their seminal work on the Delphi technique, Linstone and Turoff characterized the Delphi as "a method for structuring a group communication process so that it is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem" (p. 3).

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS

The selection of the expert panelists of a Delphi study is the most critical aspect of the technique (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Krahn, 2007). The participants need to have knowledge and expertise in the subject, be willing to participate, have sufficient time, and have effective communication skills. Following the suggestions of Clayton (1997) and Powell (2003), we determined that the expert panelists should represent a broad cross section of experts from the fields of assistive technology, educational technology, higher education, and special education. Although there is no consensus on the number of participants in a Delphi expert panel, Clayton suggested that 15-30 participants are needed to develop a strong level of validity and reliability. Linstone and Turoff (2002) explained that the level of reliability is the strongest with more than 13 participants; however, the reliability is not significantly affected with more than 30 participants. This study, therefore, set out to recruit a total of 25-30 participants from 6 professional groups (see Table 1 for information on the groups).

To be selected as a panelist in a Delphi study, the individual must have first been nominated by a professional leader in the field (Clayton, 1997). We contacted 49 professional leaders from various fields to find potential panelists. The potential panelists had to have demonstrated expertise within their profession through education, professional activity, and practical experience. Although the panelists did not need to exhibit all these qualifications to a high degree, the totality of their knowledge and experience had to have been such that they were deemed an expert among their peers. The professional leaders nominated 73 potential panelists.

From the nominated panelists, 40 of the 73 (55%) experts agreed to participate in the study. On agreeing to participate, the participants were asked to complete a short demographic survey on their place of employment, professional title, the professional groups they represent, a username, and a password. The panelists were allowed to select more than one professional group because many of them had multiple roles (for example, as a university faculty member and an individual with visual impairments) (see Table 1). The panel represented all major geographic regions in the United States. All questionnaires and procedures were approved by the Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board, and all the participants provided informed consent before participating in the study.

Findings

In Round 1, the panelists were asked to provide potential assistive technology competencies on the basis of 10 domain clusters that we developed from the Council for Exceptional Children's knowledge and skills domains and American Foundation for the Blind's assistive technology clusters. For the first round, 35 of the original 40 panelists participated (88%). In all, the 35 panelists provided a total of 1,192 potential competencies. The raw data were coded and analyzed using NVivo 7.0, statistical analysis software. We condensed the data into 152 competencies by eliminating redundancies and statements not related to assistive technology.

In Round 2, the remaining 35 panelists were given the initial 152 potential competencies and were asked to rank each of the competencies, using a 4-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree), with their level of agreement that the competencies should be included in the list. Thirty-five panelists responded for 100% carryover participation from Round 1. All the quantitative data from Rounds 2-5 were analyzed using SPSS 16.0. Overall, there was a high level of agreement regarding the competencies among the expert panelists. On the basis of the level of agreement, 73% of the competencies were rated with a level of agreement higher than 90%; 24 competencies fell between 80.0% and 89.9% and 4 fell between 75.5% and 79.9%. From the original 152 competencies, 13 competencies had a level of agreement below the established level of 75%.

Before we eliminated these 13 competencies solely on the basis of the data, we analyzed the panelists' comments to see if specific changes would make the competencies stronger. We determined from the comments that 2 of the 13 might have a higher level of agreement with slight changes to the wording. The remaining 11 were eliminated from the list of competencies.

After the panelists' comments were reviewed, we determined that the initial list of competencies needed considerable refinement. On the basis of the statistical data and the panelists' comments, the initial 152 competencies were condensed to 114 statements. For Round 3, the panelists were given the remaining 114 potential competencies and were again asked to rank their level of agreement with each competence. For this round, 34 of the 35 (97%) panelists continued to participate in the study. The questionnaire for Round 3 included the statistical data from Round 2 to help the panelists make a more informed decision.

On analysis of the Round 3 data, the level of agreement of the panelists converged at a higher level. Of the 114 competencies, 88 had a level of agreement between 100% and 90%, 22 had a level of agreement between 80% and 89.9%, and 1 had a level of agreement of 79.4%. Three competencies had a level of agreement lower than 75%, all at 73.5%, and were eliminated from the final list of competencies.

Again, the panelists' comments were analyzed to refine the competencies better. Upon analysis, the only change that was made to the final list was the elimination of references to specific technologies. Multiple panelists suggested that the list of name brands might "date" the list, since technology changes so rapidly. On completion of Round 3, the opinion of the expert panel converged at a high level of agreement. Therefore, the resulting list of competencies after refinement from Round 3 is considered the final list of assistive technology competencies that teachers of students with visual impairments should possess after they complete a training program.

Beginning in Round 4, the panelists were given the list of competencies and asked to select the level of expertise (novice, basic, proficient, or advanced). The 34 panelists from Round 3 (100%) continued to participate through Round 4. An analysis of the Round 4 data determined that there was a wide dispersion of opinion. For this round, the panelists were not given the opportunity to provide comments.

To reach a higher level of consensus regarding the level of expertise, the panelists were again given the list of competencies and asked to select the level of expertise. Consistent with the Delphi method, the panelists were provided with the frequency percentages from Round 4 to make an informed decision. The quantitative data from 34 panelists (100%) were analyzed, and frequency percentages for each level of expertise were determined.

An analysis of the Round 5 data revealed that the panel of experts' opinions converged to a much higher degree than in Round 4. Seventy-five of the 111 competencies had one level of expertise with more than 70% agreement. Of that number, 12 were at the basic level and 63 were at the proficient level. The remaining 36 competencies had two levels of expertise with combined high levels of agreement. Twelve competencies were ranked highest at the proficient and advanced levels, and 24 competencies were ranked highest at the basic and proficient levels. Other than the first competence (C1), the panelists rarely selected novice for any of the competencies. See Table 2 for the set of assistive technology competencies for teachers of students with visual impairments paired with the determined level of expertise.

Conclusions and implications

It was clearly indicated that assistive technology needs to be a critical component of higher education teacher-training programs. Although the panelists believed that the developed set of competencies was important, they were fearful that incorporating them into the programs would be difficult. The barriers they identified included the lack of time, the number of other competencies required at a high level of competence (such as braille), and the instructors' lack of knowledge of assistive technology.

The panelists commented that the final list of competencies may be too exhaustive and actually attempt to transform the teacher of students with visual impairments into an assistive technology specialist. It is apparent from these statements that the role and responsibilities of the teacher of students with visual impairments may be evolving.

Last, the panelists noted that technology and its impact on education is constantly changing. With this point in mind, we note that this study and its resulting list of competencies is the beginning of a professional dialogue regarding assistive technology and the education of students with visual impairments.

LIMITATIONS

As with any study, limitations were apparent and need to be addressed. The Delphi method has innate limitations, including the following:

1. This study was limited to the opinions expressed by the panelists.

2. The focus of the study was only on assistive competencies for teachers of students with visual impairments.

3. The use of the Delphi method had inherent limitations, such as these:

a. the lack of generalizability,

b. a reliance on the administrative and analytical skills of the researchers,

c. a dependence on the quality of the participants, and

d. inadequacy in coping with paradigm shifts (Clayton, 1997).

In addition, the entire study was conducted using an Internet survey system. The panelists had some difficulty accessing the questionnaires online and had problems saving their responses. As a result of the Round 1 difficulties, the panel was given two options for completing the questionnaire (online and paper based). Although the rate of attrition was low for this study, these issues may have had a negative effect on the overall rate or quality of responses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the conclusions and implications of this study, the following recommendations are made for future research. First, as with any study, replication would further enhance the results. Although it was determined that the Delphi method was the best consensus-building model for this study, future studies could also use other methods, such as focus groups or large-scale surveys. Now that a set of competencies has been developed, it would be prudent to have a focus group of experts refine the competencies to be more comprehensive. To validate the findings of this study further, a large-scale survey of teachers of students with visual impairments, university faculty, and assistive technology specialists should be conducted.

Second, the set of assistive technology competencies could be used to develop a curriculum for programs that train teachers of students with visual impairments. This study answered the basic question of what should be taught with regard to assistive technology and to what level it should be taught. The next step is to use these competencies to affect teachers of students with visual impairments at every level of service. While the competencies may have their greatest impact on university programs, the list of competencies should also be used by professional organizations, which can look to this list of assistive technology competencies as a compass for the direction they need to take in future professional development activities. State education agencies and school districts that provide in-service training could also use these competencies for the same purposes. The competencies could be used as a means of developing curriculum units that could be used in the preservice and in-service training. Other disability professional fields could also replicate the process used in this study to develop a highly reliable and highly valid set of disability-specific competencies.

This research was funded, in part, by the National Center of Leadership in Visual Impairment, the U.S. Office of Special Education (Cooperative Agreement H325U040001), and the Helen DeVitt Jones Foundation.

References

Abner, G. H., & Lahm, E. A. (2002). Implementation of assistive technology with students who are visually impaired: Teacher readiness. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 98-105.

Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17, 373-386.

Derer, K., Polsgrove, L., & Rieth, H. (1996). A survey of assistive technology applications in schools and recommendations for practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 3, 62-80.

Edwards, B. J., & Lewis, S. (1998). The use of technology in programs for students with visual impairments in Florida. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 92, 302-312.

Imig, D. G., & Imig, S. R. (2007). Quality in teacher education: Seeking a common definition. In T. Townsend & R. Bates (Eds.), Handbook of teacher education: Globalization, standards and professionalism in times of change (pp. 95-112). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Jennings, H., Long, G., & Jackie, N. (2002). State of the state survey: Assistive technology. Calverton, MD: ORC Marco. Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www. thinkport.org/ab1cd983-d36b-44d1-9b08-32311bb83393.asset

Kapperman, G., Sticken, J., & Heinze, T. (2002). Survey of the use of assistive technology by Illinois students who are visually impaired. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 106-108.

Lahm, E. A. (2003). Assistive technology specialists: Bringing knowledge of assistive technology to school districts. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 141-153.

Lee, Y., & Vega, L. A. (2005). Perceived knowledge, attitudes, and challenges of AT use in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 60-62.

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from http://www.is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ index.html

Lowenfeld, B. (1973). The visually handicapped child in school. New York: John Day.

Parker, S., Buckley, W., Truesdell, A., Riggio, M., Collins, M., & Boardman, B. (1990). Barriers to the use of assistive technology with children: A survey. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 84, 532533.

Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41, 376-382.

Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1-21.

Smith, D. W., & Kelley, P. A. (2007). A survey of the integration of assistive technology knowledge into teacher preparation programs for individuals with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101, 429-433.

Wahl, L. (2004). Surveying education staff on AT awareness, use, and technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(2). Retrieved November 3, 2005, from http:// j set.unlv.edu/19.2T/tasseds/ashton.html

Derrick W. Smith, Ed.D., COMS, assistant professor, Department of Education, University of Alabama in Huntsville, 301 Sparkman Drive, 247B Morton Hall, Huntsville, AL 35899; e-mail: . Pat Kelley, Ed.D., COMS, retired associate professor, Virginia Sowell Center for Visual Impairments, Texas Tech University, P.O. Box 41071, Lubbock, TX 79409-1071; e-mail: . Nancy J. Maushak, Ph.D., associate professor, Department of Education, Texas Tech University; e-mail: . Nora Griffin-Shirley, Ph.D., COMS, assistant professor and director, Virginia Murray Sowell Center for Research and Education in Visual Impairment, and coordinator, Orientation and Mobility Program, Division of Educational Psychology and Leadership, Program in Special Education, College of Education, Education Building MS1071, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409; e-mail: . William Y. Lan, Ph.D., chair, Department of Education, Texas Tech University; e-mail: .
Table 1
Participants by professional group.

                                        Number of
Domain                                 participants

University faculty                          14
Itinerant teachers of students with
  visual impairments                        14
Residential teachers of students
  with visual impairments                    8
Assistive technology specialists            16
Consumers (individuals with visual
  impairments)                              14
Educational technology specialists           7

Note: The participants were allowed to check
multiple domains; thus, the number of participants
equals more than 40.

Table 2
Assistive technology competencies for teachers of students with visual
impairments, with level of expertise.

                                                     Level of expertise
Competency   Description

Foundations of assistive technology

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess knowledge of

C1.          The history of the development of
               assistive technology (AT) devices
               and software for individuals with
               visual impairments.                  Basic
C2.          Individuals with Disabilities
               Education Act (IDEA) rules and
               regulations related to AT devices
               and services, assessment, and
               inclusion in the Individualized
               Education Program (IEP).             Proficient
C3.          Assistive technology components of
               state and federal legislation
               (such as Section 504 and Section
               508 of the Rehabilitation Act,
               Americans with Disabilities Act,
               the Assistive Technology Act).       Basic
C4.          The federal definition of AT devices
               and services.                        Proficient
C5.          The requirements for documentation
               of AT.                               Proficient
C6.          The difference between AT devices
               categorized as "no tech," "low
               tech," and "high tech."              Proficient
C7.          Laws regarding copyright and
               licensing of software, including
               shareware and freeware.              Basic
C8.          Local, state, and federal laws that
               govern the purchasing of AT.         Basic/proficient
C9.          Both federal and state transition
               requirements and the vocational
               rehabilitation process as it
               relates to AT.                       Basic/proficient

C10.         The concept of universal design as
               it relates to AT for individuals
               with visual impairments.             Basic

Disability-related assistive technology

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess knowledge of

C11.         The visual, auditory, tactile,
               motor, and cognitive skills
               necessary to access various types
               of AT.                               Basic
C12.         The effects of low vision on the
              use of AT (such as lighting,          Proficient
               contrast, size, and glare).
C13.         Braille literacy and its application
               in providing effective AT
               services.                            Advanced/proficient
C14.         The effects of deaf-blindness on
               the use of AT.                       Proficient/advanced
C15.         General AT for individuals with
               disabilities other than visual
               impairments (such as switches,
               software that provides scaffolding
               supports, augmented communication
               devices, and picture-based
               symbols).                            Basic
C16.         The use of AT as part of the
               expanded core curriculum,
               including independent living
               devices.                             Proficient

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess the ability to

C17.         Use effective evaluative practices
               in collaboration with a
               multidisciplinary team to
               determine what technology would
               best assist the student in
               accessing the educational
               curriculum.                          Proficient
C18.         State the advantages and
               disadvantages of AT for potential
               users with various degrees of
               vision.                              Proficient
C19.         Identify a variety of AT devices
              (such as software, hardware, and
               peripheral devices) for students
               with various visual abilities,
               ages, and cognitive abilities.       Proficient

Use of assistive technology

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments possess should knowledge of and ability to

C20.         Use screen-reading software and make
              adjustments to its basic features.    Proficient/basic
C21.         Use screen-magnification software
              and make adjustments to its basic
               features.                            Proficient/basic
C22.         Use braille-translation software
               and make adjustments to its basic
               features.                            Proficient/basic
C23.         Use braille-translation software
               for Nemeth code translation.         Basic/proficient
C24.         Use various closed-circuit
               television systems.                  Proficient/basic
C25.         Use various personal digital
               assistants or braille notetakers.    Proficient/basic
C26.         Use digital recorders and make
               adjustments to their basic
               features.                            Proficient/basic
C27.         Use digital Talking Book players
               and digital e-book recorders
               (including downloading e-books)
               and make adjustments to their
               basic features.                      Proficient
C28.         Use braille embossers and make
              adjustments to their basic
               features.                            Proficient
C29.         Use scanners and optical character
               recognition software systems and
               make adjustments to their basic
               features.                            Proficient/basic
C30.         Use a refreshable braille display
               and its accompanying software
               (screen-reader software).            Proficient/basic
C31.         Use common technology skills (those
               practiced by the general
               population) as they support
               learning of students with visual
               impairments.                         Proficient
C32.         Use a standard braillewriter, a
               unimanual braillewriter, and
               extension keys.                      Proficient
C33.         Use electronic braille devices.        Proficient
C34.         Use tactile graphic devices.           Proficient/basic
C35.         Use a talking four-function
               calculator, a talking scientific
               calculator, and a software-based
               talking calculator.                  Basic/proficient
C36.         Operate a talking dictionary and a
               software-based talking dictionary.   Proficient/basic
C37.         Make modifications to general
               education technology (such as a
               microscope or telescope) for
               students with visual impairments.    Proficient/basic
C38.         Use handheld and stand magnifiers,
               monoculars, and telescopes.          Proficient
C39.         Identify various nonoptical devices
               that are available for students
               with low vision.                     Proficient
C40.         Describe the advantages and
               disadvantages of various types of
               lighting devices.                    Proficient
C41.         Produce simple tactile graphics
               using the following methods of
               production: collage, tooled,
               Thermoform, microcapsule paper
               and heat fuser, and
               computer-generated graphic.          Proficient

Assistive technology instructional strategies

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess appropriate educational
  strategies to

C42.         Teach concepts related to the basic
               installation of AT devices,
               including managing cords and
               plugs.                               Basic/proficient
C43.         Teach concepts related to the basic
               maintenance of AT devices.           Basic/proficient
C44.         Provide instruction in AT devices
               in purposeful ways and in
               authentic environments.              Proficient
C45.         Teach the student to use
               troubleshooting techniques.          Proficient
C46.         Provide sequenced instruction
               regarding technology as it
               relates to transition and
               employment.                          Proficient
C47.         Teach students with visual
               impairments about resources for      Proficient/basic
               obtaining AT devices and services.
C48.         Use appropriate educational
               strategies for the development of
               age-appropriate concepts and
               motor development appropriate for
               use of AT.                           Proficient
C49.         Develop lesson plans that
               incorporate the use of AT.           Proficient
C50.         Know differences in AT instruction
               for students with visual
               impairments along with other
               disabilities.                        Proficient
C51.         Teach students with visual
               impairments in one-on-one
               situations, small groups, and
               large groups.                        Proficient
C52.         Collect formative data and adjust
               lessons accordingly on the basis
               of the student's needs.              Proficient

Learning environments

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the timpairments should
  with visual possess the ability to

C53.         Articulate the visual features of
              learning environments as they
               affect instruction and the use
               of AT.                               Proficient
C54.         Assess and recommend AT devices for
               specific learning environments
               (such as in the classroom and
               gymnasium).                          Proficient
C55.         Analyze the visual (such as
               lighting and glare), auditory
               (such as sound distractions and
               noise pollution), and physical
               environment to determine
               appropriate modifications of AT.     Proficient
C56.         Teach the student to adapt the
               learning environment to his or
               her needs.                           Proficient
C57.         Teach the appropriate social skills
               when using technology in various
               environments.                        Proficient

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess knowledge of

C58.         The least restrictive environment
               and the use of AT in different
               placements.                          Proficient
C59.         Strategies to involve the student
               with visual impairments in the
               class while still using AT.          Proficient
C60.         The dynamics of the physical
               arrangement of the classroom
               (including ergonomic issues) and
               their impact on the use of AT.       Proficient
C61.         How to use AT across environments.     Proficient
C62.         The need for portability and
               limitations of portability of
               specific AT devices for students
               in various environments.             Proficient
Access to information

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess the ability to

C63.         Teach students with visual
               impairments the use of AT for
               access to information in the
               classroom.                           Proficient
C64.         Teach students with visual
               impairments to produce files in a
               readable format, including
               Braille, large print, or an
               electronic form.                     Proficient/advanced
C65.         Teach students problem-solving
               techniques for the use of AT in
               the classroom when materials are
               not in an accessible format.         Proficient/advanced
C66.         Teach students with visual
               impairments to use the Internet.     Advanced/proficient
C67.         Teach students with visual
               impairments to transfer files to
               appropriate AT devices.              Proficient/advanced
C68.         Teach the student to stay current
               with new technology, access
               online manuals, and obtain
               technical assistance from vendors.   Proficient
C69.         Identify and use a variety of
               sources for Braille and
               large-print materials.               Proficient
C70.         Identify and use a variety of
               sources for electronic and
               recorded materials.                  Proficient
C71.         Identify and use a variety of
               options for accessing information
               presented on chalkboards,
               whiteboards, DVDs and other video
               sources, overhead projectors, and
               computer projector systems.          Proficient

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess knowledge of

C72.         Assistive technology services that
               allow a student to participate at
               the same level of involvement in
               learning activities as their
               nondisabled peers.                   Proficient
C73.         PC computer and Macintosh computer
               accessibility options (universal
               options menu, accessibility
               wizard, and display settings) for
               individuals with visual
               impairments.                         Proficient/basic

Instructional planning

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess the ability to

C74.         Plan for AT instruction that is
               comprehensive, relevant, and
               focused on the needs of the
               individual student.                  Proficient/advanced
C75.         Plan for assessment-based AT
               instruction.                         Proficient
C76.         Plan instruction that will increase
               students' keyboarding skills.        Proficient/advanced
C77.         Develop organizational and time-
               management skills to make planning
               instruction effective and
               efficient.                           Proficient
C78.         Infuse AT instruction into the
               general academic curriculum.         Proficient
C79.         Infuse AT instruction into the
               expanded core curriculum.            Proficient/advanced
C80.         Write AT goals and objectives in
               lesson plans.                        Proficient
C81.         Modify tutorials on AT when needed.    Proficient/basic

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess the knowledge of

C82.         How to record and analyze data to
               measure students' progress in the
               use of AT.                           Proficient
C83.         Research on AT and its application
               when planning instruction.           Basic/proficient
C84.         How to incorporate the use of AT in
               the instructional planning
               process.                             Proficient

Assessment

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess the ability to

C85.         Complete a comprehensive AT
               assessment (along with an AT
               specialist), when appropriate,
               for students with visual
               impairments at different ages or
               grade levels.                        Proficient
C86.         Interpret and write AT plans and
               reports.                             Proficient
C87.         Write measurable goals in a
               student's IEP, including those
               for the use of AT equipment.         Proficient
C88.         Assess the student's level of
               independence after exposure to AT
               and techniques of access.            Proficient
C89.         Conduct formative and summative
               assessments (along with an AT
               specialist) to assess a student's
               understanding of the AT
               instruction.                         Proficient
C90.         Assess the effectiveness of AT
               devices.                             Proficient
Professional development

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess the knowledge of

C91.         Funding mechanisms for AT
               professional development.            Basic
C92.         Resources of local, state, and
               national professional development
               training programs.                   Basic
C93.         Federal, state, and local agencies
               that provide technology
               assistance to individuals with
               visual impairments.                  Basic
C94.         Assistive technology conferences
               (such as those held by Closing
               the Gap, California State
               University-Northridge Center on
               Disabilities, California
               Transcribers and Educators for
               the Blind and Visually Impaired,
               and the Association for Education
               and Rehabilitation of the Blind
               and Visually Impaired).              Basic
C95.         Major AT manufacturers and vendors.    Proficient/basic
C96.         Local, state, and national consumer
               organizations (such as the
               National Federation of the Blind
               and the American Council of the
               Blind).                              Proficient/basic
Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess the ability to

C97.         Obtain AT to assist families
               through service organizations
               (such as the Lions Club and
               associations of the blind).          Basic
C98.         Engage in professional development
               activities to demonstrate
               continual growth in current and
               emerging AT services.                Proficient
C99.         Access resources, such as journals
               and web sites.                       Proficient/basic
C100.        Advocate for AT professional
               development.                         Basic
C101.        Engage in reflective practice and
               evaluate his or her attitudes
               toward the application of AT
               services.                            Proficient

Collaboration

Upon completion of a teacher training program, the teacher of students
  with visual impairments should possess the ability to

C102.        Participate as a member of a
               multidisciplinary team in
               assessing the needs of students
               with visual impairments.             Proficient
C103.        Participate as a member of a
               multidisciplinary team in
               planning and developing an AT
               program.                             Proficient
C104.        Collaborate with local, district,
               and state AT specialists and
               education instructional
               technologists.                       Proficient/advanced
C105.        Collaborate with the district
               personnel in the evaluation and
               purchase of AT equipment.            Proficient/advanced
C106.        Collaborate with related service
               personnel (such as orientation
               and mobility specialists,
               occupational therapists, and
               physical therapists) in the
               determination of and instruction
               to use appropriate AT.               Proficient/advanced
C107.        Collaborate with vocational
               rehabilitation personnel in
               addressing AT needs during
               transitions.                         Proficient
C108.        Collaborate with general education
               educators and paraeducators in
               using general technology with
               students with visual impairments.    Proficient
C109.        Communicate effectively with AT
               specialists from other disability
               areas, such as speech therapy and
               deafness.                            Proficient
C110.        Explain the use and care of AT
               equipment to parents, other
               educators, teachers, specialists,
               and aides.                           Proficient
C111.        Advocate to administrators for the     Proficient
               need for AT for students.
Gale Copyright: Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.