98,878 -Grand Theft Auto V93,239 -NARUTO SHIPPUDEN: Ultimate Ninja STORM 477,494 -Need for Speed™ Rivals47,492 -FIFA 1947,013 -Need for Speed™ Payback40,472 -NARUTO STORM 3 FB35,390 -DARK SOULS PREPARE TO DIE EDITION33,227 -Rocket League30,142 -NARUTO STORM REVOLUTION29,327 -The Witcher 328,925 -FIFA 1823,912 -EA Sports™ FIFA 1519,765 -StreetFighterV.exe19,328 -DARK SOULS™ III18,008 -FIFA 1417,257 -Sekiro™: Shadows Die Twice14,706 -FIFA 1714,433 -Blur.exe14,056 -DARK SOULS Ⅱ13,190 -DARK SOULS (TM) II: Scholar of the First Sin.
Page/Link:Page URL:HTML link:The Free Library. Retrieved Jan 21 2020 fromAbstract: Introduction: This study gathered data on methods andmaterials that are used to teach the Nemeth braille code, computerbraille, foreign-language braille, and music braille in 26 universityprograms in the United States and Canada that prepare teachers ofstudents with visual impairments. Information about instruction in theabacus and the preparation of tactile graphics was also gathered.Methods: A faculty representative from each university completed a39-question online demographic survey during fall 2011.
Perky Duck is a computer based Perkins brailler emulator. It is designed to be used for distance education programs, particularly Internet-based situations. It allows users to create electronic braille files on their computer through six key input. Every purchase of QWS3270 comes with one year of maintenance at no additional charge. This plan allows you to receive all product upgrades (new releases) and updates, unlimited telephone support from our knowledgeable support engineers, free email support and unlimited access to our online support pages for 12 months.
Frequency countsfor each item were tabulated, and comments were reviewed andcategorized. Results: All 26 university programs provided instruction inthe Nemeth braille code. Most also provided introductory information onforeign-language braille, computer braille, and music braille. There wasa high rate of consistency across the programs in what constituted abraille error. The university programs required students to preparetactile graphics and learn computation on the abacus.
The delivery ofcourses through a hybrid model was most common. Discussion: Universityprograms are providing instruction in the Nemeth braille code, thoughthere is variability in the topics that are covered, the books that areused, and the assignments that are required. Most university programsare also exposing their preservice students to specialized braille codesand are teaching them to produce tactile graphics and to performcomputations on the abacus. Future studies are needed to look at thequality of instruction and, if the amount of instruction in thedifferent topics is sufficient, to prepare future teachers of studentswith visual impairments adequately. Implications for practitioners: Datagathered from this study will assist university programs to evaluate thecontent of their courses on the topics that were studied.
Adjustment inthe content of courses may result, which may subsequently affect theskill set of practitioners as they complete university preparation.The impact of visual impairment is widely recognized to beparticularly significant for learning mathematics (Cavenaugh, 2006;National Science Foundation, 2009). Vision provides access toinformation that supports the development of a conceptual understandingin mathematics.
Dick and Kubiak (1997) described the impact of visionloss on learning mathematics this way:Describing and categorizing direction,quantity, shape, and logicalattributes are at the heart of mathematics.Much of the language ofmathematics relies heavily on visualreference. Descriptions of mathematicalconcepts that appeal to visualizationmay enjoy immediacy for thesighted student, but they require significantlymore cognitive processingfor the visually impaired. Morethan for any other sense, the impairmentof sight poses the most difficultchallenges to learning mathematics(p. 344).Although students with visual impairments can experience success inmathematics education, they often face larger challenges than theirpeers without disabilities (Beal & Shaw, 2008; Blackorby, Chorost,Garza, & Guzman, 2003; Fisher & Hartmann, 2005). One issue ofnote is that students who are blind must learn to use the Nemeth Codefor Braille Mathematics and Science Notation to gain access to andproduce mathematical work.
Therefore, not only do students with visualimpairments need mathematics textbooks that are produced in a uniquebraille code, they need specific compensatory instruction by teachers ofstudents with visual impairments to learn to read and write the Nemethcode. However, teachers of students with visual impairments havereported that they often do not have the skills and knowledge to preparematerials in (DeMario & Lian, 2000) or to teach the Nemeth code(Kapperman & Sticken, 2003).
In 2002, Amato surveyed universityprograms that prepare teachers of students with visual impairments andfound that one-fourth of the university braille instructors believedthat their graduates were not competent in the Nemeth code because of alimited amount of instructional time. Because of the amount ofinstructional time that is necessary to teach literary braille and thefact that many university faculty who teach braille do not focus onteaching the Nemeth code (Amato, 2002), one may surmise that instructionin other braille 'codes' (such as foreign-language, computer,and music braille) may be even less. Through this study, we sought to gather information on howuniversity programs prepare future teachers of students with visualimpairments in the areas of the Nemeth braille, foreign-languagebraille, computer braille, and music braille codes; the abacus; andtactile graphics. The study was approved by the Institutional ReviewBoard of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. It is the first partof a larger study that will examine the minimum level of competence inthe Nemeth braille code that individuals who are completing programs inteaching students with visual impairments should demonstrate.MethodsINSTRUMENTA 39-item instrument was developed for the study. Many of thequestions came from a work group of the Personnel Preparation Divisionof the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind andVisually Impaired (AER) that was charged with conducting a study todetermine the minimum number of competencies in Nemeth braille code thatbeginning teachers should demonstrate after completing their preparationas teachers of students with visual impairments.Questions were asked in six topical areas: Nemeth braille,foreign-language braille, music braille, computer braille, the abacus,and tactile graphics. For each topic, the participants were asked toprovide information about the level of instruction that students attheir universities received, the books that were used, the resourcesthat were shared, and the assignments or testing procedures that wereused.
Additional questions were asked about such topics as the types ofcourse-delivery models that were used and what constitutes a brailleerror.RECRUITMENTIn August 2011, the study was announced on the electronicdiscussion group for the Personnel Preparation Division (Division 17) ofAER. Invitational e-mail messages were also sent to university contactswho were listed on the AER website. Reminder e-mail messages were sentover a six-week period between August and September 2011. Individualswere directed to a website where they read a letter of invitation fromthe researchers, completed a consent form, and answered surveyquestions.ResultsTwenty-two individuals representing 26 universities completed theonline survey. Twenty-five of the universities were located in theUnited States, and one was located in Canada.DELIVERY OF COURSESThe participants were asked to report how their universitiesdelivered instruction: face to face, online, through video conferencing,or by a hybrid method (a combination of two or more methods); see Table1 for their responses. Those who provided comments in this sectionexplained the reasons why their courses were set up in a certain way andthe positive aspects and challenges of the delivery methods. Theparticipants were asked to indicate if course content was the primaryfocus of a course, embedded into a course, provided through acorrespondence course, or not applicable to their programs (see Table1).
Their comments indicated that it was difficult to find time toaddress all the topics. A typical response was 'Of the embeddedtopics, tactile graphics and abacus receive more of a focus than music,computer, and foreign-language braille codes.' Table 1 alsoincludes data on the tools that the students in the programs used toproduce braille, including the Perkins Brailler, slate and stylus,braille emulation software (such as Perky Duck), braille-translationsoftware (like Duxbury Braille Translation for Windows, Braille 2000),and electronic tools (including a notetaker and the MountbattenBrailler).The participants were given a list of nine types of errors andasked which ones their universities considered to be errors on brailleassignments using any code.
They reported the following errors (thenumber of universities that reported an item as an error is inparentheses): omissions (26); misbrailling a symbol (26); the incorrectuse of a symbol (26); an incorrect format (26); spelling errors (26);the incorrect use of contractions (26); poor erasures (24); the additionof words, numbers, notes, and so forth (25); and brailling the wrongexample (24). Five programs reported other errors, all of which focusedon formatting (such as spacing incorrectly and not centering a heading).Four programs reported that if a student makes the exact same errorthroughout an assignment, the error is counted only one time.NEMETH BRAILLE CODEThe participants were given a list of eight books and asked whichones were required, recommended, discussed in class or online, or notused in their programs. Table 2 reports the responses.The 26 participants were given a list of 28 Nemeth topics and askedto indicate the level of mastery that their students must demonstratefor each. Three levels of mastery were presented: none, which meant thatthe topic was not introduced; basic, which meant that the students weregiven introductory information on the topic; and mastery, which meantthat the students were given assignments in which they had to read andbraille on the topic (see Table 3 for the details). All the participantsreported that the students in their programs must master 10 of the 28topics. Levels of mastery for the other topics ranged from 2 to 25universities. The participants at two universities shared comments thatshed light on the challenges that are faced in determining in whichtopics to require future teachers of students with visual impairments todemonstrate mastery.
One participant stated, 'There is so much thatI wish I had an entire course just for math, but then they would not getmusic and computer code and foreign language. We've got so much toteach and so little time!' Another participant commented, 'Dothey demonstrate mastery? Are they EXPECTED todemonstrate mastery? The participants were asked to list the resources they shared withstudents.
In the order of the most frequently mentioned, the top fiveresources were the mathematics website of the Texas School for the Blindand Visually Impaired (TSBVI) (10), the website or reference sheet (orboth) of the American Printing House for the Blind (APH) (9), thewebsite or reference book (or both) of the National Braille Press (5),the website and various resources of the Braille Authority of NorthAmerica (BANA) (5), and the website or videos (or both) of Project MathAccess (4). Other resources included an online brailler developed by theNortheast Regional Center for Vision Education (NRCVE); the HadleySchool for the Blind; and websites for specific products, such as MathWindow and graphing calculators. Several universities listed specificbooks or indicated that they prepared their own materials.The participants were asked about the assignments and tests thatstudents must complete as they learn the Nemeth code. Twenty-threeparticipants described regular homework assignments or weekly tests (orboth), 18 indicated there was a final examination, and 5 also reportedhaving midterm examinations. Other assignments mentioned includedpostings on discussion boards, adapting materials, and writing lessonplans.The participants were asked the procedure if a student does notpass an assignment or test. Thirteen reported that students were allowedto resubmit some or all assignments, most often for a reduced grade. Oneprogram required students to prepare a written document explaining thecorrections needed in the Nemeth document.
Seven programs indicated thatstudents were not allowed to resubmit assignments. In most cases, gradeson midterm and final examinations could not be remediated, although fourprograms described processes for the remediation of final examinations.Several programs indicated that if a student did not demonstrate masteryto a specified percentage (such as 80%), he or she was required torepeat the course. In one case, a university program infused braillemodules into multiple courses.
At this university, the students were notallowed to move to the next module until they reached a mastery level of85%. They also were required to reach a mastery level of 85% on a finalcomprehensive examination that included a Nemeth component.FOREIGN-LANGUAGE BRAILLEThe participants were asked if their programs used the InterimManual for Foreign Language Braille Transcribing (BANA, 2002) (see Table2 for the details). Four programs reported using the foreign-languagechapter in New Programmed Instruction in Braille (Ashcroft, Sanford,& Koenig, 2001).
Approximately half the programs reported thatstudents were referred to the BANA website for information onforeign-language braille. When a university program did require studentsto complete a foreign-language assignment, it was typically short (oneto two pages). University programs that did require a foreign-languagebraille assignment required only one assignment.COMPUTER BRAILLEThe participants were asked if two computer braille books were usedin their program (see Table 2). Few programs required students toproduce computer braille. Typically, this was a code that was introducedto students, and the resources for its production were shared. Twoprograms reported that during a technology course, students did gainadditional familiarity with the computer braille code.MUSIC BRAILLEThe participants were asked about three texts that teach braillemusic (see Table 2).
Several programs reported using materials from thewebsites of Dancing Dots and the Library of Congress. A few programsreported having students braille from a few measures up to one to twopages of braille music. One program reported that students completedmultiple music braille assignments.ABACUSThe participants were given a list of three books that are commonlyused for instruction in the abacus (see Table 2).
Six programs hadstudents using Hadley School for the Blind's abacus course, oneused the paper-compatible method, and three had their own materials orvideos that students used as part of their abacus instruction.Additional abacus resources included the website of TSBVI, finger math,resource handouts compiled by Stuart Wittenstein, videos from APH, andvideo lessons developed by Sandy Smith and housed on the website ofNRCVE.There was variability in how competence in the abacus wasevaluated. Of the 26 programs, 5 required students successfully tocomplete a course from the Hadley School for the Blind. Thirteenprograms had quizzes, midterm examinations, or final examinations inwhich students computed math problems using the abacus, and 3 programsrequired homework assignments with the abacus. Finally, 3 programsrequired students to complete a lesson plan for abacus instruction andthen teach the lesson to a child who is an abacus user.
Eight programsallowed students to retake tests or redo abacus assignments, while 10programs did not.TACTILE GRAPHICSThe participants were asked if they used the book Tactile Graphics(Edman, 1992) (see Table 2). Five programs reported sharing the BANAguidelines, 10 reported sharing the APH guidelines or materials (such asthe Draftsmans Tactile Drawing Board or the Tactile Graphics Kit), 4reported sharing models of tactile graphics (both commercially producedand teacher made), one program reported using materials from theNational Braille Association, and 4 used materials fromTactilegraphics.org. A few programs referenced hardware or software thatis used in the production of tactile graphics, including a Tigerembosser and QuikTac from Duxbury Systems. Nineteen programs sharedspecific courses and activities that involved students preparing tactilegraphics for math, science, social studies, or orientation and mobility.Three programs reported that their examinations included questions abouttactile graphics.When asked how their programs assessed a student's ability toproduce tactile graphics, the participants gave responses that fell intothree categories. Twenty-three participants described tactile graphicprojects or assignments that students had to complete, two noted thatwritten examinations included questions on the production of tactilegraphics as part of written examinations, and three stated that theiruniversities required students to create tactile graphics and then usethem with children.The participants were asked how they assessed their students'ability to teach children to use tactile graphics.
As one participantnoted, 'good question.' Five participants reported that duringstudent teaching or in the 'Methods' course, the ability toteach children to interpret a tactile graphic was assessed. Severalreported that activities occurred in class to assess the ability toteach.
Finally, nine participants reported that this was not somethingspecifically assessed in their programs.DiscussionThis article has reported data gathered from 26 university programsabout their experiences preparing teachers of students with visualimpairments in the Nemeth braille, foreign-language braille, computerbraille, and music braille codes; the abacus; and tactile graphics. Thestudy had several limitations. Not all university programs in the UnitedStates and Canada completed the online survey. No data were gatheredabout the quality of the materials that the students in the 26 programsprepared. A comparison of the assignments and tests that are used indifferent programs is not possible; thus, data on the rigor of theprograms are not obtainable. No data were gathered on the qualificationsof the individuals who were teaching these topics at the 26 universityprograms. Finally, as with any survey, all information was self-reportedand thus could be skewed in favor of the universities.The most common method of delivering courses was a hybrid methodthat combined two or more methods (such as face-to-face and onlineinstruction).
This finding is consistent with past research on thedelivery methods used by personnel preparation programs in teachingstudents with visual impairments (DeMario & Heinze, 2001; Silberman,Ambrose-Zaken, Corn, & Trief, 2004). Universities that prepareteachers of students with visual impairments and other special educationprofessionals need to be flexible in how they deliver their courses, asevidenced by the data reported by the participants.The Perkins Brailler is still the 'workhorse' of teachertraining programs when it comes to braille production. Almost all theprograms used braille emulation software, such as Perky Duck, for theirstudents to complete some or all assignments.
With many programs usingonline or hybrid course delivery, the use of electronic tools, such asbraille emulation software, provides an easy way for students to submitassignments to instructors. An essential way to prepare braillematerials is braille-translation software such as Duxbury or Braille2000.
More than half the programs required their students to preparesome assignments using braille-translation software.As was found in Rosenblum, Lewis, and D'Andrea's (2010)survey of university programs, as a general rule, the programs set highstandards when it came to what constituted a braille error. Although afew programs counted the same error only once if it was repeated, mostprograms counted each error as an individual error. Recognizing thatuniversity students are in the beginning stages of learning the variouscodes, most programs had a policy that allowed students to resubmittheir work, often for a reduced grade.University programs put a greater emphasis on providing instructionin the literary and Nemeth braille codes for their students than they doin the other three braille codes (foreign language, computer, andmusic). The programs varied in the number of assignments their studentswere required to complete and the testing methods used for the variouscodes. They also differed in the books used in their courses and theresources shared with the students. For the Nemeth code, the two booksthat were most frequently required were Learning the Nemeth Braille Code(Craig, 1987), which was required by 12 programs, and An Introduction toBraille Mathematics (Roberts, Krebs, & Taffet, 1978), which wasrequired by 9 programs. APH and TSBVI are two resources for braille thatuniversity programs often share with their students.All the university programs expected their students to master theuse of the Nemeth code to write numerals, operations, fractions,comparisons, and decimals.
Mastery was expected in the use of thenumeric indicator, English letter indicator, fraction indicator, andlevel indicator. All the programs also expected their students to masterpreparing problems in a linear format, and 25 expected them to masterpreparing problems in a spatial format and to demonstrate the mastery ofwriting problems involving grouping. Less than half the programsexpected their students to master more advanced mathematical symbols,such as lines (line segments and rays, for example), arcs, functions,logarithms, advanced math, and matrices.Instruction in the foreign-language, computer, and music braillecodes occurred considerably less frequently at the 26 universities.Books on these codes were infrequently required by the programs; rather,they were most often discussed in class or online. Most frequently, thestudents were given introductory information and resources on thesecodes, and if an assignment was required, there typically was only onethat was short in duration. As one participant said, 'I wish I hadmore time to really deal with music, foreign language, and chemistry.I barely get through what I have to get through in the Nemeth code andabacus during the semester, including methods and strategies and adaptedequipment for math and science.' For instruction in the abacus, all the programs required theirstudents to read a book on or complete the Hadley School for theBlind's abacus course.
The most common book, used by l0 programs,was Use of the Cranmer Abacus (Livingston, 1997). No data were gatheredon the types of operations or other skills (such as decimals andfractions) that the programs required their students to demonstratemastery in.
Almost all the programs indicated that their students had topass tests or complete assignments to demonstrate their competence withthe abacus.Learning to prepare tactile graphics for use by individuals withvisual impairments was another requirement of the university programs.As would be expected, students in the programs had to produce tactilegraphics, which were evaluated. The most commonly used resource wasinformation from BANA on producing tactile graphics. We surmise thatmost university programs shared the previous version of the BANAguidelines with their students, not the document Guidelines andStandards for Tactile Graphics (BANA, 2010).
The updated guidelines aremore detailed and should help university programs and their studentsbetter understand how to produce tactile graphics. Many participantsreported that evaluating students' tactile graphics andstudents' ability to teach users who are visually impaired tointerpret them effectively is a challenge.
A typical comment was,'This is a hard topic because there is a lot of subjectivity whenit comes to preparing TG tactile graphics and grading them.' IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHThis study gathered a wealth of data from 26 university programs inthe United States and Canada. Future research that examines in moredepth the materialbeing taught in courses and its relationship to what teachers ofstudents with visual impairments use in their work with students withvisual impairments would be valuable. Rosenblum, Amato, and Hong (inpreparation) are conducting a study to examine teachers' attitudestoward the abacus and the abacus skills they are teaching children withvisual impairments. Studies similar to this one to examine how childrenwith visual impairments are learning the various braille codes and howto interpret tactile graphics would be valuable to the field. Inaddition, a study that examines the content taught at each grade levelin mathematics, foreign languages, and music, and that would comparethis content to what braille knowledge is necessary, would yieldvaluable data for the field. A comprehensive study of this nature wouldbe difficult because each state has different requirements for studentsfor foreign languages and music.
The National Council of Teachers ofMathematics' Principles and Standards (2000) or the Common CoreState Standards for Mathematics (2010) could be analyzed for whatbeginning teachers of students with visual impairments need to teach theNemeth code.ReferencesAmato, S. Standards for competence in braille literacyskills in teacher preparation programs. Journal of Visual Impairment& Blindness, 96, 143-153.Ashcroft, S., Sanford, L., & Koenig A.
New programmedinstruction in braille (3rd ed.). Nashville, TN: SCALARS Publishing.Beal, C. R., & Shaw, E. (2008, March). Working memory and mathproblem solving by blind middle and high school students: Implicationsfor universal access. Paper presented at the 19th InternationalConference of the Society for Information Technology and TeacherEducation, Las Vegas, NV.Blackorby, J., Chorost, M., Garza, N., & Guzman, A.
Theacademic performance of secondary school youth with disabilities. In M.Wagner, C. Blackorby, R. Levine et al.(Eds.), The achievements of youth with disabilities during secondaryschool. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2(NLTS2) (pp. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Braille Authority of North America. Braille code ofchemical notation.
Louisville, KY: American Printing House for theBlind.Braille Authority of North America. Music braille code.Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.Braille Authority of North America. Computer braille code.Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.Braille Authority of North America.
Interim manual forforeign language braille transcribing. Rochester, NY: National BrailleAssociation.Braille Authority of North America. Guidelines andstandards for tactile graphics. Retrieved from htmlCavenaugh, B. Analysis of Rehabilitation ServicesAdministration 911 national data, fiscal year 2004. Unpublished rawdata.Common Core State Standards Initiative. Common Core StateStandards for mathematics.
Retrieved from SIMath%20 Standards.pdfCraig, R. Learning the Nemeth braille code: A manual forteachers and students. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for theBlind.Davidow, M. The abacus made easy.
Louisville, KY:American Printing House for the Blind.DeMario, N. C., & Heinze, T. The status of distanceeducation in personnel preparation programs in visual impairments.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 525-532.DeMario, N. C., & Lian, M. Teachers'perceptions of need for and competency in transcribing braille materialsin the Nemeth code. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 94,7-14.Dick, T., & Kubiak, E. Issues and aids for teachingmathematics to the blind.
Mathematics Teacher, 90, 344-349.Dixon, J., & Gray, C. The computer braille code madeeasy.
Boston: National Braille Press.Edman, P. Tactile graphics. New York: AFB Press.Fisher, S. P., & Hartmann, C. Math through themind's eye. Mathematics Teacher, 99, 246-250.Kapperman, G., Heinze, A., & Sticken, J. Strategies fordeveloping mathematics skills in students who use braille.
Sycamore, IL:Research and Development Institute.Kapperman, G., & Sticken, J. A case for increasedtraining in the Nemeth code of braille mathematics for teachers ofstudents who are visually impaired.
Journal of Visual Impairment &Blindness, 97, 110-112.Krolick, B. How to read braille music. Bloomsburg, PA: OpusTechnologies.Laudenslager, E.
Braille handbook for the Nemeth Code ofBraille Mathematics and Scientific Notation. Louisville, KY: AmericanPrinting House for the Blind.Livingston, R. Use of the Cranmer abacus. Austin: TexasSchool for the Blind and Visually Impaired.Mani, M. G., Plernchaivanich, A., Ramesh, G.
R., & Campbell,L. Mathematics made easy for children with visual impairment.Philadelphia: Towers Press, Overbrook School for the Blind.Millaway, S. Abacus basic competency: A counting method.Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Principles andstandards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.National Science Foundation, Division of Science ResourcesStatistics. (2009, January). Women, minorities, and persons withdisabilities in science and engineering: 2009 (NSF 09-305). Arlington,VA: Author.Pesavento, M. Braille codes and calculations. CastroValley, CA: Exceptional Teaching.Roberts, H., Krebs, B.
M., & Taffet, B. An introductionto braille mathematics. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for theBlind.Rosenblum, L. P., Amato, S., & Hong, S.
(In preparation).Abacus instruction by teachers of students with visual impairments.Rosenblum, L. P., Lewis, S., & D'Andrea, F. (2010).Current practices in literary braille code instruction in universitypersonnel preparation programs. Journal of Visual Impairment &Blindness, 104, 523-532.Silberman, R. K., Ambrose-Zaken, G., Corn, A. L., & Trief, E.(2004). Profile of personnel preparation programs in visual impairmentsand their faculty: A status report.
Journal of Visual Impairment &Blindness, 98, 741-756.Taesch, R., & McCann, W. Who's afraid of braillemusic? Valley Forge, PA: Dancing Dots.L. Penny Rosenblum, Ph.D., associate professor of practice,Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, University ofArizona, P.O.
Box 210069, Tucson, AZ; e-mail. Derrick Smith, Ed.D, COMS, assistantprofessor, Department of Education, University of Alabama in Huntsville,12878 Quartz Circle, Madison, AL 35756; e-mail.The authors thank the members of the Nemeth Delphi Committee of thePersonnel Preparation Division of the Association for Education andRehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired: Paul Ajuwon, SheilaAmato, Donna Brostek Lee, Tina Herzberg, Sunggye Hong, Cheryl KameiHannan, Beth Harris, Patricia Myers, Sandy Smith, Adam Wilton, and KimZebehazy. These individuals put considerable time into theconceptualization of this study.