BETWEEN now and 2010, the number of teachers in elementary and secondary schools is projected to rise, primarily due to the increase in school enrollment during this period (Gerald and Hussar, 2000), with the fastest increase at the secondary level. This projection, coupled with such issues as the difficulty in enticing significant numbers of individuals to enter the teaching profession, the graying of the profession (150,000 to 200,000 teachers a year are projected to leave teaching each year until 2008 (Hardy, 1998)), teaching's relatively unattractive wages compared to other fields, and a fairly strong economy that offers teachers other employment possibilities, have pointed to a looming teacher shortage.

In trade and industrial education, other variables exacerbate this problem. The supply and demand in the labor market for skilled trades-people, for instance, can result in potential teachers taking a substantial pay decrease to teach. The continual decrease in teacher education and preparation programs in postsecondary educational institutions to prepare these individuals to teach also exacerbates the problem.

The teacher education/preparation issue is particularly thorny. Many states have specific entry requirements for trade and industrial education certification or licensure, ranging from a high school diploma to a bachelor's degree, plus a specific number of years of work experience. Once met, most of these individuals face continual requirements for additional training or professional development in order to renew or update their teaching credentials.

The past decade or so has seen significant reductions in the number of institutions offering courses, certification/licensure tracks, and degrees in career and technical education. A recent study by Bruening, Scanion, Hodes, Dhital, Shao, and Liu (2001), notes an 11 percent decline in the number of institutions offering career and technical education teacher education programs.

Other studies and articles—such as those by Camp (1998), Pucel and Flister (1997), Lynch (1996), Hartley, Mantle-Bromley, and Cobb (1996), and Lynch (1991)—document the consistent decline in the number of programs within institutions of higher education. With respect to trade and industrial education, such publications as the Industrial Teacher Education Directory (2001) (sponsored by the Council on Technology Teacher Education (CTTE), the National Association of Industrial and Technical Teacher Educators (NAITTE), and Goodheart-Willcox Publishing Company), specifically note the decline of teacher preparation programs in postsecondary institutions.

Another issue for trade and industrial educators is that of continuing education and professional development. Most states have requirements for renewing teaching certificates and licenses.

This is usually accomplished through additional coursework, usually in the form of credit hours or continuing education units (CEUs). Trade and industrial education teachers have experienced difficulty in this area as well, as a result of the declining numbers of programs in postsecondary educational institutions.

A high percentage of trade and industrial education teachers enter teacher certification through alternative programs that give weight to work experience and technical competence but require continual coursework and professional development. When courses and other opportunities are not readily available, difficulties emerge for these individuals.

While the number of institutions offering trade and industrial education teacher education programs has steadily declined, the same cannot be said of the willingness of these institutions to offer courses and degrees through distance education. Using distance education as an instructional delivery method has skyrocketed since the internet's advent. Could distance education save trade and industrial education teacher preparation?

While the internet and other technologies have spurred interest in distance education, it has existed for at least a hundred years (Moore and Kearsley, 1996) in the form of correspondence schools, which have been operating in the U.S. since 1910. Radio was also an early medium for instruction in this country, with both the Universities of Minnesota and Wisconsin establishing educational radio stations in the early 1920s. The opening of Great Britain's Open University in 1969 ushered in a new era, using television and related media to deliver instruction.

In the U.S., recent estimates calculate the number of distance education courses in the academic year 1997–98 at 54,470, with about 1.66 million enrollments (Lewis, Snow, Farris, and Levin, 1999). Countless colleges and universities are engaged in distance education efforts. Some of the more notable ones include Nova Southeastern University, Penn State University's World Campus, Waiden University, and the University of Texas TeleCampus.

Distance education is instructional delivery that does not require students to be physically present in the same location as the instructor (Steiner, 1995). According to Clark and Verduin (1989), distance education

• separates teacher and learner during at least a majority of each instructional process;
• uses educational media to unite teacher and learner and carry course content; and
• provides two-way communication between teacher, tutor, or educational agency and learner.

Distance education can be delivered synchronously (in real time) or asynchronously (without simultaneous student/instructor participation). Methods for synchronous instruction can include videoconferencing, interactive TV, and/or internet relay chats (IRC).

Examples of asynchronous distance education methods include email and listservs; and videotaped, correspondence, and internet-based courses, usually using a course software template.

Distance education has myriad advantages and disadvantages for students, instructors, and institutions. Institutions must carefully weigh each pro and con before deciding to offer courses and programs at a distance.

From the student perspective, perhaps the biggest advantage to distance education programs is relief from the constraints imposed by having to attend a class on campus at a scheduled time. While satellite delivery may still have a time issue, web-based delivery offers the additional advantage of “any time or any place” instruction, much of which can be self-paced.

Disadvantages include isolation from other learners, frustration caused by poorly flowing communication, and confusion as a result of unclear feedback (Ryan, Carlton, and Ali, 1999). Also, certain skills—such as those involving psychomotor skill development-can be difficult to learn via web-based applications (Zirkle, 2000).

Instructors in distance education programs find that constructing courses and programs require a significant investment of time on their part. Time is spent keeping a course site updated; responding to emails, phone calls, and other information; and the usual instructor tasks (Zirkle, 2000).

Furthermore, web-based courses may offer less interaction than instructor-led courses. Thus, an instructor's absence may encourage some students to slacken their efforts, and they may push themselves less hard than they would with an instructor in front of them (Heckler, 1999).

For instructors, distance learning offers such advantages as ability to quickly update and post course material for student access. Distance education methodologies are also adaptable to diverse learning needs, with effort, allowing instructors to incorporate audio, video, and various printed material into the web-based classroom.

From an institutional perspective, distance education is cost-intensive (Hall, 1996). Entry into and the ongoing costs of distance education are substantial.

Institutions must make capital investments in computers, satellite equipment, central servers and networks, technical assistance services, and continual software upgrades. These costs alone can bar institutions from engaging in distance learning (Zirkle, 2001).

However, colleges and universities can realize increased enrollments through distance education. The ability to recruit previously unreachable students significantly induces institutions to begin distance education offerings. Additionally, most distance education is scalable and can be delivered to 10 learners or 10,000 (Rosenberg, 2001).

Any distance education program that proposes to prepare teachers must ask itself whether its program can duplicate the traditional methods presently used to prepare teachers. The current perception appears to be that there are significant differences.

Prospective teachers turn to online education because of the programs' flexibility and efficiency (Rhone, 2001). But with these conveniences, are sacrifices being made?

CalStateTEACH, a program begun in 1999 at California State University to address that state's need for more than 300,000 teachers over the next decade, currently enrolls more than 800 students (CalStateTEACH, 2002), its program geared toward individuals who are already teaching and need to earn a teaching credential.

The curriculum's self-study format is delivered via CD-ROM, online, and print materials. In addition, the program uses bulletin boards, real-time chats, and live webcasts to deliver instruction, facilitate communication, and assess teacher performance.

There is little face-to-face contact, except for sessions on technology and a monthly visit from a Cal State faculty member. The program relies heavily on school-site mentors to provide additional assistance to new teachers. The program does not offer single-subject teacher preparation (such as math or science).

While the CalStateTEACH program may be a stopgap measure for the challenge of training more teachers, some professionals see problems. Duplicating traditional teaching methods on the internet is not simple: “It's impossible to do all this online. We have to have people working with these teachers in their classrooms” (Levine, quoted in Rhone, 2002).

The advantages of face-to-face instruction over forms of distance education include interpersonal and social contact and nonverbal communication (Smith, Smith and Boone, 2000). Teaching is a dynamic profession, with interpersonal relationships a key to success.

Many programs that presently prepare teachers through distance methods use satellite communication and such asynchronous means as videotape and audio/video streaming to assess many of these skills (Levin, Waddoups, Levin, and Buell, 2001; Rogers and Coles, 2000; Sack, 1999).

While these means can somewhat effectively assess these skills, inperson, real-time assessment still appears to be the preferred method. Such skills as modeling appropriate teacher behavior and managing classrooms are difficult to assess with current technologies.

Teacher preparation programs that use distance delivery methods have yet to completely simulate traditional on-campus programs. Certain programs offer some-but not all-of the pedagogical courses needed; trips to campus are still required.

Others require students to already have a bachelor's degree in a subject area, and certification and licensure courses are offered through various distance education methodologies. In addition, some teacher groups, such as the American Federation of Teachers (2000), have voiced concerns about students being offered distance education as the only way to obtain a degree. They recommend close, personal interaction, even in distance courses.

While distance education does have limitations with respect to teacher preparation, it also has definite benefits. Students in teacher preparation programs need opportunities to incorporate the use of information technology in their studies (Wessel, 2000).

Such societies as the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) are promoting appropriate uses of information technology in teacher education programs. Taking courses through distance methods can help develop technical skills in these prospective teachers, so that they, in turn, will be better prepared to develop these skills in their students.

At present, there exists little data on specific uses of distance education in trade and industrial education teacher preparation programs. The recent study by Bruening, Scanlon, Hodes, Dhital, Shao, and Liu (2001) states that 47.7 percent of educational institutions involved in the preparation of career and technical education teachers use distance education to some degree in their programs.

However, since career and technical education can encompass several other disciplines (agricultural education, business/marketing education, family and consumer sciences education, health occupations, and technology education), there is no specific data for trade and industrial education. Studies specific to the use of distance education in trade and industrial teacher education programs or by trade and industrial teacher education faculty is quite sparse.

McMurry and Trott (1987) discuss the need for alternative methods of delivering professional continuing education to trade and industrial education teachers throughout the state of Louisiana. Hudson et al. (1997) describe the use of the world wide web for offering coursework for trade and industrial certification in Florida.

Ndahi (1999) analyzes the use of distance learning technology among industrial and technical teacher education faculty. Zirkle (2000b) describes a degree program for trade and industrial teachers delivered through multiple technology delivery modes. Clearly, this area needs more research.

As with the aforementioned teacher preparation programs, programs offering courses and degrees related to trade and industrial education are either not completely available at a distance or make some assumptions. For example, Indiana State University offers associate's, bachelor's, and master's degrees geared primarily toward trade and industrial educators, but none of the degrees lead to a teaching license with prior work experience or a previously earned technical degree.

Many other institutions, such as Wright State University and Ohio State University, offer portions of degree programs and some teacher licensure classes through various distance education methods.

A full distance teacher preparation program in trade and industrial education may never be a reality, simply because technical skills, such as the psychomotor skills found in many trade and industrial education programs, can be very difficult to teach at a distance (Zirkle, 2000a). With the multitude of occupationally specific skills and competencies needed by trade and industrial educators, developing the majority of these skills requires a lab setting, with instructor-to-student contact, or through the work-experience requirement that many trade and industrial educators use to develop these skills.

Distance education offers trade and industrial education another way to prepare new teachers and continue the professional development of T&I professionals. It offers convenience and easier access to these individuals and may alleviate shortages in selected areas.

At present, research is sparse and inconclusive about the use of distance education as the sole method of preparing teachers. Trade and industrial educators would do well to focus, not on the technology infused into these programs, but on the issue of quality teacher preparation.

American Federation of Teachers. (2000). Distance education: Guidelines for good practice. Washington, DC: Author.

Bell, T. P. (Ed.). (2001). Industrial Teacher Education Directory, CTTE and NAITTE. Millersville, PA: Millersville University of Pennsylvania, Department of Industry and Technology.

Bruening, T., Scanion, D., Hodes, C., Dhital, P., Shao, X., & Liu, S. (2001). A national database of career and technical teacher education programs. Minneapolis, MN: National Research Center for Career and Technical Education.

California State University (2002). CalStateTEACH. Retrieved February 20, 2002, from http://materials.calstateteach.net/public/home.html.

Camp, W. (1998). A national study of the supply and demand for teachers in agricultural education in 1995. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED424405).

Clark, T., & Verduin, J. (1989). Distance education: Its effectiveness and potential use in lifelong learning. Lifelong Learning, 12 (4), 2427.

Hall, J. (1996). The convergence of means. Educom Review, 30 (4), 42–45.

Hardy, L. (1998). A good teacher is hard to find. American School Board Journal, 185 (9), 20–23.

Hartley, N., Mantle-Bromley, C., & Cobb, R.B. (1996). A matter of respect. Vocational Education Journal, 71 (1), 25.

Hudson, L., Halfhill, S., Palmer, J., Greer, L., Racquet, C., & Paugh, R. (1997). Use of the Worldwide Web for completion of required courses in vocational teacher certification. Brisbane, Australia: International Conference on Post-Compulsory Education and Training. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. 441 157)

Levin, S., Waddoups, C., Levin, J., & Buell, J. (2001). Highly interactive and effective online learning environments for teacher professional development. International Journal of Educational Technology 2 (2). Retrieved February 20, 2002 from www.outreach.uiuc.edu/ijet/v2n2/slevin/index.html.

Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., & Levin, D. (1999). Distance education at postsecondary institutions: 1997–98. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Lynch, R. (1991). A national database on vocational teacher education. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 733)

Lynch, R. (1996). Vocational teacher education: At a crossroads. Vocational Education Journal, 71 (1), 22–24.

McMurry, J. & Trott, J. (1987). Welcoming offers new alternatives for T&I learning systems. Las Vegas, NV: American Vocational Association Convention. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 733)

Moore, M G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Ndahi, H. (1999). Usation of distance learning technology among industrial and technical teacher education faculty. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(4), 22–33.

Pucel, D., & Flister, F. (1997). The current status and future of industrial teacher education and nonteacher education programs in institutions of higher education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34 (4), 64–79.

Rhone, N. (2001, September 27). In teacher training, some prefer homework. Los Angeles Times online. Retrieved February 20, 2002, from www.latimes.com/technology/la000077247sep27.story?coll = la-headlinestechnology.

Rogers, P., & Coles, T. (2000). Online Teacher Training. Vancouver, BC, Canada: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Annual Meeting. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. 444 362)

Rosenberg, M. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ryan, M., Carlton, K., & Ali, N. (1999). Evaluation of traditional classroom teaching methods versus course delivery via the World Wide Web. Journal of Nursing Education, 38 (6), 27277.

Sack, J. (1999, March 24). Prospective teachers in rural areas tune in to satellite classes. Education Week on the Weh. Retrieved February 20, 2002, from www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug = 28odu.hl8&keywords = sack.

Smith, S., Smith S., & Boone R. (2000). Increasing access to teacher preparation: The effectiveness of traditional instructional methods in an online learning environment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15 (2), 37–46.

Steiner, V. (1995). What is distance education? Retrieved February 10, 2002 from www.dlrn.org/library/dl/whatis.html.

Wessel, W. (2000). Technology in the classroom: Implications for teacher education. San Diego: CA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 444 484)

Yap, K. (1996). Distance education in the Pacific Northwest: Program benefits and implementation harriers. New York: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. 395 563)

Zirkle, C. (2000a). Distance education/technical education: Too far apart? ATEA Journal, 28 (1), p. 30.

—. (2000b). Preparing technical instructors through multiple delivery systems: A working model. T.H.E. Journal, 28 (4), 62–68.

—. (2001). Instructional quality in web-based learning: Some suggestions for success. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Technology. Retrieved February 20, 2002, from www.telr.ohio-state.edu/conferences/2001/ppt/TELRpaperl.htm%26he llip;

PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE)

~~~~~~~~

By Chris Zirkle, Ph.D., Chris Zirkle is Assistant Professor in the School of Physical Activity and Educational Services at Ohio State University.

Abstract: The two systems used in this study of six students in a teacher preparation program for students with visual impairments were an interactive video, audio, and data network system and a web-based course-management software package. Overall, the students were positive about the interactive video system, and those who reported that they had moderate to high technology skills reported positive outcomes from the course-management component.

Almost all educational institutions and many businesses have established a role for technology within the framework of their organizational structures. In education, computer technologies are being used to provide flexible delivery of information and opportunities for collaboration in learning (Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000; Laferriere, Breuleux, & Bracewell, 2000). Students no longer must meet together for conferencing or study groups. Interactive e-mail, bulletin boards, and listserves can link students and allow for group interaction without meeting face to face as a group. In addition, desktop video conferencing, interactive window communication networks, online databases, and web browsers provide an array of features that students may use at school, home, or any other location where they can gain access to a computer that is connected to the web (Foster, 1997; Miltiadou & McIsaac, 2000; Porter, 1997).

With all these new methods of interacting and processing information, there is much to learn about the effectiveness of computer-enhanced distance education, in general, and the effectiveness of various pedagogies and delivery methods and their impact on students (Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000; Henrichsen, 2000). Computer-enhanced learning, a term used by Hannafin and Land (1997), is learning that uses computer technology to supplement the traditional delivery of education or distance education. Distance education is a method of providing education to students who are separated from the instructor or are physically distant from sources of information and instruction (Keegan, 1996; Mood, 1995; Peters, 1998; Porter, 1997). It has a long history of providing educational opportunities to students around the globe using a variety of delivery systems. Current delivery systems include the traditional postal system, the telephone system, and visual and audio technologies, as well as newer technological systems, such as a satellite broadcast, two-way compressed video, audio conferencing, and computer technology (Ritchie & Hoffman, 1997). Distance education serves students who may not otherwise be able to avail themselves of educational opportunities (Mood, 1995; Moore & Thompson, 1990; Sujo di Mones & Gonzales, 2000). It also provides rural schools with opportunities for personnel preparation in special education (Ludlow, 1998). In the field of visual impairments and other low-incidence disabilities, training opportunities for teachers must be expanded, and one option is distance education (DeMario & Heinze, 2001; Huebner & Wiener, 2001; Koenig & Robinson, 2001; Rosenblum, 2001). Several programs that prepare teachers of children with visual impairments include one or more distance education components in their programs. This study explored the implications of some of the components of distance education from the students' perspectives.

It is critical to learn about students' perspectives on computer-enhanced learning, so effective and appropriate strategies and practices can be developed (Grasha & Yangarber-Hicks, 2000) and it can be determined if computer-enhanced learning is a successful tool in distance education.

If a course requires the use of computer technology, providing access to the technology is the first step. For students in rural distant settings, the provision of technology may be a problem because of the lack of resources, including the lack of electricity and telephone lines. Next, to ensure success in using technology, students and instructors may need training to be proficient in using systems, software, materials, and online exercises (Crow, 1999; Feenberg & Bellman, 1990; Lee & Johnson, 1998). Miltiadou and McIsaac (2000) recommended the provision of round-the-clock technology support to students to ensure that they use the technology successfully. This may be a recommendation that few programs are following. However, students may need such support. Miltiadou and McIsaac also noted that assessment of the use of technology and the relationship of the goals and objective of the course are essential. The question of students' competence in technology must be addressed. Questions, such as, Is the student able to complete the assignments, or is the lack of technology skills prohibiting the student's successful completion of the course? should be addressed. Foster (1997) noted that students need to be more technology literate. Distance education students are generally reported to be older than traditional on-campus students (Peters, 1998), which may place them at an even greater risk of having difficulty with access to and proficiency in computer technology.

Creating a community of learning using multiple connections and multiple ways of communicating is thought to create the sense of a more personal education, as well as autonomy in learning (Mason & Kaye, 1990; Porter, 1997). Communication and students' interactions are part of the core concerns in distance education and part of the rationale behind the use of computer-enhanced learning. The four typical communication paradigms used in computer-enhanced courses are (1) information retrieval, (2) e-mail, (3) bulletin boards, and (4) computer conferencing (Paulsen, 1991). Peters (1998) noted that education is broader than the distribution of reading and study materials; for learning to occur, there must be more. Communication is part of the "more." Learning is supported by dialoguing with the teacher and with other students. Proponents of computer-enhanced learning have noted that enhanced communication is one of the basic purposes of using this medium. Educators who are engaged in distance education have listed three basic types of distance education interactions--the student to the topic of study, the student and the instructor, and the student with other students (Miltiadou & McIsaac, 2000). Some distance education instructors believe that computer technology facilitates these communication interactions and enhances learning.

The purpose of the study presented here was to discover the issues surrounding the educational method of computer-enhanced distance education used in preparing teachers of students with visual impairments, specifically the impact and concerns of students who use this system. The key issues that we considered were these:

1. The effectiveness of computer-enhanced learning on-campus and in distance education and the impact on communication practices and opportunities:

a. Do distance education students, using computer-enhanced learning, believe that they can acquire communicative competence using this medium with others (peers, students, and professionals) in their area of study'?

b. Do these students think that using electronic communication software adequately replaces the typical face-to-face encounters with an instructor or other students?

2. The effectiveness of computer-enhanced practices and the impact for pedagogies and instructional methodologies as perceived by students:

a. How do students' learning styles affect their willingness to participate in a computer-enhanced learning environment?

b. How do students feel about their own precourse level of technological skills? Do they think they are technology literate enough to benefit from this type of education? Do they think that they are adequately prepared to participate in the web-based learning experiences? Do they think that the use of technology gets in the way of their learning the course content?

c. How do they feel about the level of technological support and access they receive from the institution?

3. What questions are instructors, institutions, and researchers not asking students that are important when considering this new method of instruction?

A constructivist paradigm was used to interpret the world of computer-enhanced learning. We sought information on the students' experience and actively formed meanings of the world, based on their encounters and interactions within the computer-enhanced educational environment (Schwandt, 1994). A phenomenological strategy of inquiry (Holstein & Gubrium, 1994; Marshall & Rossman, 1999) was the basis of the analysis of the data we gathered.

A qualitative research design was used to evaluate the impact of distance education practices (communication, pedagogies, instructional methodologies, and technology) on the students' learning and course outcomes.

We both have taught distance education courses using a variety of technologies, including computer-enhanced learning technologies. Thus, although we each have personal biases about these technologies, we consciously focused on being flexible and open to each student's voice and used multiple measures to report what the students experienced. Table 1 presents a description of the technologies we used.

The participants were selected using criterion sampling (Patton, 1990). As researchers, we evaluated cases that met the predetermined criterion. The participants were graduate students who were enrolled in a computer-enhanced course in the field of visual impairments in the Multi-University Consortium at the University of Utah and Utah State University. They included six students, two of whom were traditional on-campus students and four of whom were distance students at three sites (one site had two students). All six students were teaching students with disabilities while they participated in the course (teaching on letters of authorization because of the shortage of teachers). All but one were already certified in either special education in a related field or in general education. These teachers returned as students to complete an endorsement in sensory impairment, vision, to serve their students better. The six participants are described in Table 2. Each student's participation in the study was voluntary and was not linked to a course grade in any way.

We used a phenomenological approach to maintain maximum flexibility to allow the interviews to follow whatever direction appeared to be pertinent to each student. The conversational interviews and observations of the participants permitted us to understand the participants' reactions and experiences (Patton, 1980).

Data from the participants included interviews; artifacts (e.g., e-mail messages, bulletin board postings and group interactions, data from the WebCT computer software, field notes, and course evaluations); and informal focus-group discussions using EDNET, an interactive visual, audio, and data network system (see Table 3). Two students were interviewed during the eighth week of the course, and the remaining three were interviewed during the last week. The author who was not associated with the course conducted all the interviews. The interviews were audiotaped, and notes were taken during and after the interviews. The interviewer sought clarification and elaboration from the participants and allowed them to determine the direction of the interviews, using the interview guide only as a guide. The participants had the option not to be audiotaped, but none chose that option. Some participants introduced artifacts of importance via e-mail messages and at the focus group by bringing resources to other students. Additional data from the course instructor and artifacts were gathered and evaluated. Finally, the WebCT tracking function was used to yield information about the number of hits per student throughout the semester.

"The primary data of in-depth, open-ended interviews are quotations. What people say, what they think, how they feel, what they've done, and what they know--these are the things one can learn from talking to people in interviews" (Patton, 1980, p. 246). As Patton recommended, the actual words of the participants were captured and evaluated.

In the data analysis, we used two primary sources of information: artifacts and interviews. We both read through the data, reviewed the notes multiple times, and discussed the data as themes emerged. We then coded the data for themes and categories. The emerging themes from the phenomenology interview were (1) the influence of the technology on the students' experience of the course, (2) opportunities to communicate and build relationships, and (3) other issues and concerns. The following section describes the three themes.

The participants were comfortable with the two main types of technology used, EDNET and WebCT, at different levels. Five of the six students reported that overall they liked EDNET as a delivery model. Four students noted that EDNET provided an opportunity to view each other at all sites and to interact together in real time, which they considered to be positive.

Of the five students who reported that they liked the EDNET system, Tanya (a distance student) and Candice (an on-campus student) were the most positive. They both thought the system was excellent for distance students and improved the quality of communication for all students. Beth, Helen, and Kate gave mixed reviews of EDNET. Beth said that the direct access to the teacher was an important benefit for her, and Helen and Kate thought that the immediacy of question-and-answer opportunities that EDNET provided was important. Of these five students, the only drawbacks noted were the time it took to drive to an EDNET site (Helen) and auditory problems with the microphone being too loud at the site where Beth and Kate received the course.

Anne, an on-campus student, was the only participant who had negative feelings about EDNET. She noted that the distance students did not always receive their materials or had trouble downloading materials, so they required the teacher to "go over and over and over everything again because they don't have it, and so it is harder for them to comprehend. I feel it takes a lot of time." Anne said that she had taken a previous EDNET class with a different instructor in which this was also the case.

WebCT posed different benefits and challenges to the participants. Again, five of the six participants thought that the WebCT component of the course was generally helpful. Helen and Candice were the most enthusiastic about this system. Helen said that she used all the WebCT features the class had available, including grades, calendars, readings, bulletin board postings, and e-mail. She noted that she used computer technology in her own teaching setting and that she immediately implemented information and links she received via the WebCT from this course into her own teaching situation. She also stated that she liked technology, used it frequently, and had access to good computer systems at work and at home.

Candice said that the WebCT software was easy to use, although she stated, "I'm not what you would say computer literate, and so with last semester and this semester, taking classes with Jan, I've really learned a lot." It is not clear if Candice accessed the course from home, but she mentioned that she was able to access it at work and that it provided her with flexibility and was convenient.

Tanya, Beth, and Kate had mixed thoughts about using the WebCT software. Tanya reported that she liked the WebCT feature of the course but had some difficulty with what she referred to as a server issue in a rural area: "Part of it is what we were told down here is dirty telephone lines. They are not real up, and we get a lot of static and a lot of interruptions of service. At this moment, they are bringing in fiber optics, but it is going to take a year or so before they get all of us on to fiber optic service." Tanya also noted that she had some problems with some of the features and was not certain how to use some of the WebCT functions.

Beth said that she liked the WebCT software support but found that she did not have the time to use it. She reported that she could not locate information without remembering which day she had learned it and that it was difficult to take her class notes and figure out how to work the system after class without assistance.

Kate noted that she lacked an adequate computer system at home and thus was unable to print the materials that were available on her home computer; although she lived only 10 minutes from her university campus, she did not have time to go to the campus to retrieve the materials. She reported that. Like Helen, Kate was teaching in a setting that provides computers for her students. However, she did not report using any of the information from the course to help her with her own students or their families, nor did she indicate that she attempted to access the course WebCT site from work. Kate also reported that she does not particularly like computers and that she gets easily frustrated. "Generally, technology is the most frustrating for me. Like with the computer, if there is something new that I am trying and it is just not working and it is frustrating, I will just quit. I feel like this is a waste of my time."

Anne's response to the use of technology for the course was the least favorable. Like Kate, Anne said that she did not have adequate access to the WebCT course component at home. She had to access the Internet on campus and at work, so that time was a factor in using the WebCT information. She mentioned the amount of time needed to review the information posted for class or the amount of time required to learn the necessary technology skills more than any other student. In fact, more than one third of her responses mentioned time as a factor in her activities for and frustrations with the course. She summed up her feelings about computers and technology as follows: "With something like technology, I tend to get just a little scared and frustrated because I have had such bad luck with computers, and I just feel like it is going to be a total failure and it is going to take more time. I'm not at all excited about stuff like that."

The opportunity to communicate and build relationships with students in various locations was another theme that emerged from the interviews. The participants were split in their opinions about the opportunity to build relationships, even though five of the six noted that their opportunities to communicate had increased as a result of EDNET and WebCT.

Tanya, Candice, and Beth said that they felt they had either built relationships with the other participants and the instructor or had strengthened these relationships through the use of EDNET and WebCT. Tanya and Candice were the most optimistic about EDNET and WebCT communication and relationship-building opportunities. Tanya noted that she was able to get her questions answered and that

assignments are going more easily, and I understand them better. Having access to the teacher even if it is over a system [EDNET] is really nice. Having access to the other students in the class during that time is really nice, too, because you can get feedback from them also. Maybe they have had problems with this one assessment and can give you some pointers. Having access to them on the spot during class is really great, too. I have a little bit of trouble talking on the telephone, but when I can sit and type something in and then hit the button and send it that is really great.

Candice reported that she felt part of a cohort and that when she finally got to meet one of the students face to face, she felt "like I already knew Beth, even though I had never actually met her in person before." Beth noted that she was most comfortable with face-to-face meetings, but that she did feel connected to some of the other students who were not at the same site.

Helen and Kate also viewed the use of EDNET for communication and relationship building as positive. However, they each had concerns about one or more aspects of using EDNET. Helen noted that she had used the EDNET and WebCT to communicate with the instructor and fellow classmates. However, she did not feel she had established relationships with students in the class and that when she did attend the mandatory on-campus night, she brought her aide with her so the aide could participate in the presentation that night. Thus, she interacted with her aide, rather than with her fellow students. Kate said that the only relationship she established in the class was with the student who was at her site. She described herself as "very reserved," but said, "It is a good thing to listen to their [fellow students'] comments and things, and I have learned a lot from some of their comments, but other than that, I don't feel like I could go up to them and say, 'Hey, how are you?'"

Anne did not think that the use of the EDNET or WebCT systems promoted communication between students or offered opportunities for students to build relationships. She said that she would not see any of the other students after classes were over, and "I don't think I will have any relationship with all the other off-campus students except my coworker."

Only three students mentioned using e-mail for communicating with others outside class. Also, Helen noted that she was embarrassed in new situations and viewed herself as less shy and more willing to post information than others on the WebCT. Kate and Anne both said they were afraid and frustrated by technology and do not necessarily find new experiences exciting. Kate and Anne were also the two participants with the least access to technology at home, and both mentioned that the lack of time was a factor in accessing WebCT and posting information to share with other students.

All the participants used WebCT to gain access to information and materials for the course. Helen was the most ardent supporter of using the WebCT software. She liked posting information, accessing her grades, using the links to resources, and using the calendar. As was noted earlier, she immediately used the information available on the WebCT site in her teaching, sharing information with her students and parents. The other five participants reported they liked the access that WebCT provided. They said that they used multiple features and that the links that were provided to medical information, core curricula (state and national core curricula for students with visual impairments), organizations, and the like were helpful. Tanya noted some problems accessing the system with her home computer, but she was able to obtain the information when her connection was functioning. Kate and Anne reported negative access issues that were related to their home computer systems and the amount of time necessary to access information. Tanya, Kate, and Anne all thought that they did not have enough time to access the information on the WebCT or post information there.

The goal of this study was to gain an understanding of students' perspectives on computer-enhanced distance education, including communication practices, socialization, and instructional methods. To strengthen the results, we collected data from multiple sources (triangulation), including interviews and artifacts. The findings suggest that the participants experienced a range of successes and frustrations using the EDNET and WebCT technologies as part of their course. Generally, the participants' views of the technology that was used were favorable. All the participants responded favorably to the use of the interactive course-delivery tool, EDNET. They noted that the opportunities to communicate and the immediate access to both the instructor and other students were positive outcomes for the class, and five of the six did not find it inconvenient to use EDNET. In addition, the participants who thought they had moderate to high technology skills reported more positive outcomes using the WebCT than did those who had fewer computer skills. The participants who thought they had at least moderate computer skills also tended to report that they engaged in communication activities with other students and with the instructor. These students also availed themselves of the resources that the instructor made available on the WebCT site.

Moreover, it would appear that the students' perceptions of their computer skills, computer systems, and ability to gain access to the technology (those who thought that their home systems were limited were also less likely to use the computers at their work sites and universities), and their reports of their openness to new activities may be indicators of their willingness to embrace and benefit from new technologies in their learning environment.

When evaluating this information, one must consider the interpretations in the context of the restricted sample of participants. In addition, only two types of technologies were appraised, which limits the amount of information and representation of information that would be available if more or different technologies were included in the study. However, the participants successfully completed the course, and all but one expressed feelings of relationship building with fellow students as a direct result of using the technology. This finding would appear to support the utility of using such technology for training teachers of students with visual impairments at a distance.

Possible future research could include a wider range of students who have adequate computer access at home (the participants had adequate computer access at their work or university sites). Additional information may also be obtained by interviewing a wider range of students and evaluating their anxiety about learning new information and linking this learning to their current computer skills.

Educators cannot completely know the effectiveness of these new delivery methods and technologies for their students. However, for five of the six participants in the study, the components of socialization, communication, and participation were positive. Some responses were surprising, such as the participant who reported that she did not have enough contact with the instructor (she received 41 personal e-mail responses from the instructor during the semester and an additional unrecorded number of phone calls) and the participant who noted that she needed some technology support, yet took no action when she was told how to phone or e-mail the technology support person. (The class provided a technology support person, free of charge to the students, who would travel to the students' homes or work sites, anywhere in the state, to assist with problems.) Nevertheless, five of the six students indicated that the use of the technologies was effective and useful for this course.

This research was supported, in part, by grants from the U.S. Department of Education, Preparation of Special Education, Related Services, and Early Intervention Personnel to Serve Infants, Toddlers, and Children with Low-Incidence Disabilities (CFDA 84.325A) and Federal Rural Special Education Teacher Recruitment (CFDA 84.027A), Sponsor: Utah State Office of Education. The contents of this article were developed under a grant from the Department of Education. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and endorsement by the federal government should not be assumed. We wish to thank Pat Cox for transcribing the audiotaped interviews and the participants who kindly offered their time and thoughtful insights on the use of technology in their learning experience.

Legend for Chart:

A - Technology
B - Description

  A                           B

EDNET    A distance education system that uses multiple
         technologies: interactive video, audio, and data
         networks. It includes some of the following transmission
         technologies: microwave, fiber optics, compressed video,
         and satellite transmission. Multiple distance sites may
         use the system simultaneously and thus link students in
         an interactive classroom across the state of Utah. This
         system is available from the Utah Education Network.

WebCT    A web-based course-management software package that can
         be used to augment a course of instruction or provide
         the platform for a fully online course. It includes
         features such as a bulletin board; e-mail; a calendar
         with URL links; students' grades; student-management
         features; online tests; and the ability to create
         additional links and resources, including readings,
         handouts, and PowerPoint presentations.

Legend for Chart:

A - Student
B - Distance to site(a)
C - Computer access
D - Self-report: Challenges
E - Self-report: Technology skills
F - Teaching certification(b)

 A                  B                         C
                    D                         E
                                              F

Helen     130 miles                  Home and work
          Thrives on challenges      Moderate to advanced
                                     Teaching VI on letter

Tanya     > 10 miles                 Home and work
          Cautious                   Used computer/multiple tasks
                                     Teaching VI on letter

Candice   On campus                  Work
          Likes challenges           Used computer/multiple tasks
                                     Teaching VI on letter

Beth(C)   > 10 miles                 Home and work
          Figures things out         Moderate
                                     Teaching EC on letter

Kate      >10 miles                  Home
          Easily frustrated          Beginner
                                     Teaching VI on letter

Anne      On campus                  University lab
          Easily scared/frustrated   Beginner
                                     Teaching VI on letter

(a) Miles for one-way travel.

(b) VI = visual impairment, EC = early childhood.

(c) The only student who was not already certified in either
special education in a related area or general education.

Legend for Chart:

A - Student
B - E-mail messages sent
C - Readings accessed
D - Independent assignment postings
E - Other access hits
F - Total hits

   A          B     C      D       E      F

Helen        31     32    5(a)    196    264
Tanya         6     13    0(b)    128    147
Candice       7     33    2        63    105
Beth          5     11    0(b)     41     57
Kate          7     15    0(b)     25     47
Anne          6     14    0(b)     18     38
Total        62    118    7       471    658

(a) This student posted additional information that she thought
the class may be interested in knowing.

(b) Designates students who requested that the instructor post
the two required assignments for them on the bulletin board,
which was permissible for students who thought that they did
not know how to post or attach an assignment to the bulletin
board feature on the WebCT.

Crow, S. (1999, October 29). Virtual universities can meet high standards. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B5-B6.

DeMario, N. C., & Heinze, T. (2001). The status of distance education in personnel preparation programs in visual impairment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 525-532.

Feenberg, A., & Bellman, B. (1990). Social factor research in computer-mediated communications. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education perspectives on a new environment (pp. 67-97). New York: Praeger.

Foster, L. (1997). A collaborative distance graduate degree program: A case study for building the professional community within schools. Phoenix, AZ: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406 358).

Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48, 2-10.

Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167-202.

Henrichsen, L. (2000). Distance education insights from eight case studies in TESOL teacher preparation. Paper presented at the 11th international conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.

Holstein, J.A., & Gubrium, J.F. (1994). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 262-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Huebner, K.M., & Wiener, W. R. (2001). Distance education in 2001. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 517-524.

Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of' distance education. (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Koenig, A. J., & Robinson, M.C. (2001). Online instruction in braille code skills for preservice teachers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 543-557.

Laferriere, T., Breuleux, A., & Bracewell, R. (2000). Collaborative inquiries into the networked classroom. Paper presented at the 11th international conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.

Lee, J. R., & Johnson, C. (1998). Helping higher education faculty clear instructional technology hurdles. Educational Technology Review, 10, 13-17.

Ludlow, B. L. (1998). Preparing special education personnel for rural schools: Current practices and future directions. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 14(2), 57-75.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mason, R., & Kaye, T. (1990). Toward a new paradigm for distance education. In L. M. Harasim (Ed.), Online education perspectives on a new environment (pp. 15-38). New York: Praeger.

Miltiadou, M., & McIsaac, M.S. (2000). Problems and practical solutions of web-based courses: Lessons learned from three educational institutions. Paper presented at the 11th international conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.

Mood, T. A. (1995). Distance education: An annotated bibliography. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. (1990). The effects of distance learning: A summary of the literature. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Paulsen, M. F. (1991). Some pedagogical techniques for computer-mediated communication. In M. F. Verdejo & S. A. Cerri (Eds.), Collaborative dialogue technologies in distance learning (Vol. 133, pp. 33-45). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Peters, O. (1998). Learning and teaching in distance education. London: Kogan Page.

Porter, L. R. (1997). Creating the virtual classroom distance learning with the Internet. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Ritchie, D. C., & Hoffman, B. (1997). Using instructional design principles to amplify learning on the World Wide Web. (ERIC Documentation Services, ED 415 835, 1-6)

Rosenblum, L. P. (2001). One professor's perspective: Preparing teachers of students with visual impairments at a distance. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 558-562.

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sujo di Mones, L. E., & Gonzales, C. L. (2000). More than having a connection: Qualitative factors that affect learning in a web-based university course. Paper presented at the 11th international conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.

~~~~~~~~

By Janice Neibaur Day and Joan P. Sebastian

Janice Neibaur Day, M. Ed., research instructor, Department of Special Education, University of Utah, 1705 East Campus Center Drive, Room 221, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9253; e-mail; <day_j@ed. utah.edu>.

Joan P. Sebastian, Ed.D., professor, School of Education, National University, 11255 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92032; e-mail: <jsebasti@nu.edu>.

Abstract: This article reports on a descriptive study of standards and criteria for competence in braille literacy within teacher preparation programs and the specific role played in the achievement of proficiency in braille literacy by university teacher preparation programs in blindness and visual impairment. It contains a summary of the need for such research, historical background, research methods, and a discussion of standards and implications for personnel preparation.

The attainment of accurate and functional braille reading and writing skills can help people who are blind achieve greater independence at home and in the workplace. For many, their use of braille can determine the degree of independent functioning on the job (Johnson, 1989). Nevertheless, many people who are blind do not know braille and therefore find themselves in a state of functional illiteracy.

Consumer groups have placed partial blame for the decline of braille literacy on teachers' poor attitudes toward and lack of proficiency in braille (Wittenstein, 1994) and on inadequate preparation of teachers by teacher preparation programs in universities (Spungin, 1989). This criticism of teachers' competence in using and teaching braille contributed to the start of the braille literacy movement (Allman & Lewis, 1996). However, no data had been gathered to substantiate these positions.

A landmark study on the perceptions of 1,663 teachers of students who were visually impaired (those who were blind or had low vision) found that the majority were confident in their braille abilities, clearly recognized the importance of braille, and strongly supported the use of braille with their students (Wittenstein, 1994). Ongoing concerns voiced by educators, parents, and consumers related to the issue of braille literacy and recent changes in braille-related legislation point to the need for the continued development of both qualitative and quantitative studies in this area.

The catalyst for this study and the resulting research questions was the discovery by the author that there was a 25% passing rate for teachers from various geographic locations in the United States on the entry-level braille proficiency test designed by the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) in 1994-96 (NLS, 1996). This passing rate was of concern for students in university teacher preparation programs, for their future students or adult clients, for the teacher trainers, and for braille consumers. It was also of concern because a national organization for the blind was using these statistics to perpetuate Spungin's (1989) premise that teacher training programs were graduating less-than-competent teachers.

The purpose of this study was to investigate teachers' competence in braille literacy and the specific role played in the achievement of such competence by university teacher training programs in visual impairment. Five research questions were developed:

1. What is the format of instruction offered in braille as a method of written communication in university-level teacher preparation programs in visual impairment?
2. What topics and instructional materials are included in the syllabi of university-level braille courses?
3. What are the expected student outcomes in terms of the acquisition and demonstration of braille-related skills and knowledge for these courses?
4. What are the standards and criteria for competence in the braille code used by university-level teacher preparation programs?
5. What do teachers of university-level braille courses think about key issues in braille literacy?

This article summarizes the major overall results of the study in relation to the five research questions generated by a review of the literature on braille literacy and concludes with a discussion of the implications for personnel preparation and future research.

A descriptive survey design was used to conduct this study. A draft version of the questionnaire, Standards and Criteria for Teacher Competence in Braille Literacy, was distributed to 13 individuals in the fields of visual impairment, regular and special education, literacy-reading, and statistics and measurement, as well as to a consumer who uses braille, to obtain their comments and suggestions for creating the final survey instrument.

A list of programs that prepare teachers of students who are visually impaired was compiled from the list of teacher preparation programs identified by the Information Center of the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) in August 1999. The survey was mailed to the university braille instructor, if known, or to the program coordinator during the fall 1999 semester, with a request to forward it to the appropriate individual in each program.

Responses were received from 45 instructors, who represented 34 of 39 identified undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate teacher preparation training programs (87%) in 21 states and three programs in visual impairment in Canada. Many university programs offer more than one braille course, and in 11 instances, more than one instructor from a university responded to the survey.

At the time of the survey, almost half (47%) the university-level braille courses were taught by faculty who were employed in either adjunct or contract positions, and the remaining courses were taught by assistant, associate, or full professors. The majority (93%) of the instructors had known braille for more than 10 years and had taught braille at the university level for 11-25 years. One third of the instructors held certification specific to braille transcription, from the NLS or the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB). Although none of the respondents had NLS certification in the Nemeth Code, three instructors were completing the requirements toward this certification. Five instructors from U.S. programs had passed the National Literary Braille Competency Test, an examination that is restricted to residents of the United States. Several other respondents are Braille Literacy Mentors through a braille literacy initiative established by AFB. Twenty-nine respondents (67%) had received braille training as part of a university graduate program. Of the six respondents who used braille as their primary medium for reading and writing, five taught courses on the advanced braille or Nemeth code at their universities.

Only one semester of braille instruction is offered by 14 programs (31%), whose main focus is the achievement of proficiency in the literary braille code. With regard to the development and creation of the syllabi for these braille courses, 42 instructors (93%) indicated that they have the freedom to create their course syllabi on the basis of their standards and perceptions of relevant course content within a general framework. Courses held during the semester ranged from six 7-hour classes, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, to a 50-minute undergraduate class that met three times per week for 50 sessions. Various combinations of sessions/ time spans ranging from 1-6 hours were offered both undergraduate and graduate programs. The classes for the braille courses ranged from 3 to 28 students per class, with the majority of respondents indicating that their average class size was 6-15 students. Respondents from 18 programs (40%) said that they expected their students to spend fewer than 5 out-of-class hours per week in braille study and lesson preparation, or fewer than 45 minutes per day, whereas 20 respondents (44%) expected their students to spend 6-15 hours per week, or approximately to 1-2 hours per day.

The use of distance learning for teaching vision-related courses is a timely issue. At the time of the survey, distance learning was incorporated into braille instruction in 21 programs (47%). Common methods of distance learning identified by the respondents were the use of videotaped lessons, correspondence with the NLS, audio or video conferencing, on-line web research, telephone office hours, and e-mail correspondence with the instructor.

Teachers of students who are visually impaired need to acquire a repertoire of unique skills and knowledge. In addition to performance criteria for the five braille codes--literary, Nemeth, music, foreign language, and computer--the respondents noted that these teachers need to be able to demonstrate proficiency in non-braille code-related literacy skills, such as raised-line drawings, formatting, braille access technology, methods of teaching braille reading and writing, adaptations of worksheets and tests, use of the slate and stylus, braille readiness, teaching second-language learners, learning media assessments, and writing Individualized Education Programs, as well as to keep up to date on recent research and issues related to braille literacy.

The content of courses and the amount of time allotted to each braille literacy topic varied widely among the programs as well. While 43 respondents from 37 programs (96%) reported teaching the literary braille code in the first semester, in almost half the programs, the literary braille code was taught only in the first semester, and the Nemeth Code for mathematics and science notation, foreign language code, computer code, and music code were excluded from the syllabi. All the programs that offered a second semester covered the Nemeth Code to some extent.

In the survey, 34 books were used in the programs to foster an understanding of the codes and literacy issues. Approximately half the instructors (49%) used the Instruction Manual for Braille Transcribing (Dorf, 1984), and the other half used the New Programmed Instruction in Braille (Ashcroft, Henderson, Sanford, & Koenig, 1994) as their text for the literary braille-based courses. The most popular book used for instruction in the Nemeth Code was Learning the Nemeth Braille Code (Craig, 1987), which was required by 42% of the instructors. Although not a braille code instruction manual, Instructional Strategies for Braille Literacy (Wormsley & D'Andrea, 1997) was used by 24 respondents (53%) because of the practical and immediately useful strategies it provides.

When presented with a list of activities and methods used in university braille courses, 22 respondents (49%) indicated that the majority of their class time was spent in direct instruction, and 17 (38%) used an approach that took into account a variety of learning and teaching styles and instructional approaches to meet the varied learning styles and needs of their adult students. A combination of direct instruction, drill and practice, instructional videos, web-based research, braille games, quizzes, examinations, and student presentations of lessons were used, especially for classes that were conducted for 4-7 hours per session.

Braille-related skills and knowledge required by teachers of students who are visually impaired are presented in Table 1. Two skills, the demonstration of braille transcription using a braillewriter and the conversion of braille into print, were required by all the respondents and form the core of the requirements for braille competence. In addition, the demonstration of competence in braille transcription using a slate and stylus was required by 37 (82%) respondents, and respondents from 36 programs (80%) indicated that their students receive at least a rudimentary introduction to braille mathematics in the form of Nemeth Code notation.

The majority of the respondents (58%) reported using the total number of errors per assignment as their criteria for assigning a grade, with the acknowledgment that assignments and evaluations instruments varied in both length and complexity. The total number of errors that a student could accumulate and still receive a passing grade for the course ranged from 2 to 10 per page. In the event that an assignment was deemed not to be passing, 25 respondents (56%) offered the student the option to redo the assignment or do another comparable assignment, and 17 (38%) required the student to redo the deficient assignment and resubmit it.

Instruments used by the majority of the programs to evaluate students' competence in braille included quizzes (64%), student transcriptions (56%), the development and creation of teacher-made braille materials (51%), and a final examination (84%; either teacher made, 33 programs, or a state examination, 2 programs). For degrees to be conferred, 23 programs (51%) require their students to pass a comprehensive exit examination that includes braille.

The ability to produce almost flawless braille transcription is a skill required of teachers of students who are visually impaired. According to Allman and Lewis (1996), transcribing braille without using reference materials is not a valid component for certification requirements, and competence in transcribing braille using reference materials is a job-relevant, content-valid skill expected of any teacher of students with visual impairments. Although 25 (56%) of the respondents permitted the use of such references, the 17 (38%) respondents who did not were a vocal minority, holding to their philosophical belief that braille knowledge and skill need to be immediately retrievable from a teacher's memory without undue reliance on outside factors.

With respect to the grading system used, each program followed a uniform grading policy set by its university, although the grading systems often varied among institutions. The minimum grade used to define competence was in the A range for 6 programs (11%), in the B range for 18 programs (40%), and in the C range for 19 programs (42%).

Five open-ended questions were posed in the opinion poll section of the questionnaire, which asked the respondents about their views on issues of importance to braille literacy. In a two-part question, when asked to rate the competence of their students after completing the braille course, 22 respondents (49%) said that students who completed their courses would definitely be capable of handling almost any literary braille code-related transcription independently, and 10 instructors (22%) said that their students would definitely be capable of handling almost any Nemeth Code mathematics-related transcription independently. Eleven respondents (24%) rated their students as not competent in the Nemeth Code because the time for instruction was too short.

The second part of this question asked the respondents to rate the competence of their students (who completed the university-level braille courses) to teach braille to students or adults. The majority of the respondents (58%) indicated that their students were definitely capable of handling almost any braille-related teaching situation independently.

Concerns raised by a majority of the respondents included the lack of availability and accessibility of refresher courses or in-service courses on braille-related topics for teachers. Forty-two respondents (98%) noted that refresher courses should be required, either at regular intervals or when a teacher thinks it is necessary to refresh his or her skills. The majority of the respondents stated that they preferred these courses to be offered through the sponsorship of the teacher preparation programs with the support of national organizations.

For the last three questions, the respondents gave their opinions about the decline or resurgence in braille literacy, university standards for teaching braille, and teachers' competence in braille. Five respondents (12%) thought that there has been a decline in braille literacy, citing the inappropriate use of paraprofessionals to teach braille reading and writing, other handicapping conditions and/or cognitive impairments of students, and the overwhelming caseloads and/or travel distances for itinerant teachers as factors that have had a negative impact on the achievement of braille literacy. In addition, several respondents reported that the inability to find good-quality higher-level braille textbooks, especially in mathematics, was an area of concern.

The majority of the respondents, however, thought that there has been a resurgence in braille literacy, partly because of the effects of legislation, the availability of braille access technology, and the quest for higher standards and accountability. Other factors contributing to a resurgence in braille literacy that they mentioned included the increasing accessibility of national conferences, such as Getting in Touch with Literacy, and the efforts of teacher preparation programs to recruit and train future teachers.

The majority of comments about training standards were categorized into two main themes. The first theme focused on the idea that students need to know not only the code, but how to teach braille. The second theme was that university standards are not high enough to produce competent teachers and that national standards for braille training need to be established. When asked their opinions on teachers' competence in braille, the majority of respondents (72.1%) shared the same philosophical standpoint regarding this issue: Competence at the time of graduation is a function of continuing braille practice, and teachers' competence depends on the ability to use braille.

The respondents evidenced a strong commitment to braille literacy and teacher preparation. According to the information they provided, there is widespread diversity and a lack of consistency in university-level braille courses with respect to the format of instruction, content and instructional materials, expected student outcomes, and standards and criteria for competence in braille literacy. There appears to be no consistent standard for training teachers of students who are visually impaired in braille, something that has been an ongoing concern for many years (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1997; National Federation of the Blind, 1995; Rex, 1989; Silberman, Corn, & Sowell, 1989; Spungin, 1989; Stephens, 1989; Wittenstein, 1993).

University programs that prepare teachers acknowledge their responsibility to produce graduates with positive attitudes toward braille and their role as teachers of students who will read braille, as well as the skills and knowledge to assume this role with competence and confidence. Teacher training programs that emphasize methods of teaching braille produce teachers who are more likely to feel competent in their braille skills (Wittenstein, 1993). Thus, it is not enough to produce qualified braillists. NLS or CNIB certification in braille transcription ensures the accomplishment of a prescribed set of knowledge and skills in braille transcription but does not address the complex issues of teaching practice or guarantee competence as a braille teacher.

Although Wittenstein's (1994) sample involved a different population, a trend in increased attention to instruction and use of a slate and stylus was observed. Wittenstein reported that 39.6% of the respondents to his study were required to demonstrate proficiency with a slate and stylus, compared to 82% in this study. This change reflects a large increase within seven years in the number of future teachers who received instruction in the use of the slate and stylus and are expected to demonstrate facility with its use.

Braille is a learned skill that is enhanced by years of experience in the field, as well as the opportunity to use these skills with students. To retain a high level of proficiency, a teacher should have the opportunity to use these skills in an educational environment. However, not every teacher has the opportunity to teach a student who uses braille. That is, a teacher may teach students who have low vision for several years without using his or her braille skills. To enable teachers to maintain their braille literacy skills, organizations that provide services for individuals who are blind, specialized schools for students who are blind, and university teacher preparation programs must make a joint commitment to provide ongoing in-service training, refresher courses, and mentorship for both new and experienced teachers in all areas defined as braille literacy (Council of Executives, 1990; Mullen, 1990; Rex, 1989). Still, it is not feasible to expect a program that is supervised by a single faculty member to assume the responsibility of implementing such training because of university-imposed limits on personnel, resources, and finances. Thus, the focus should shift from the individual program to the determination of how each program could participate in a collaborative sharing of responsibilities and resources to meet these objectives.

An issue of concern is for university students in the 20% of the teacher preparation programs that provide no instruction in the Nemeth Code. Rapp and Rapp's (1992) study revealed that teachers encounter continuing difficulties in providing materials and equipment and that few students participate in advanced mathematics classes that require the use of the Nemeth Code. The inclusion of basic Nemeth Code transcription, as well as resources for information, instruction, and the production of higher-level mathematics, should be an integral component of all university-level braille courses. In-service training and workshops on Nemeth Code transcription at local and national conferences could help both new and experienced teachers achieve the skill and knowledge to produce braille mathematics transcription at any level.

The respondents also remarked that university standards for braille instruction nationwide are generally not high enough and expressed concern about the level of competence of the students who complete their programs. Although all the respondents required their students to demonstrate proficiency in braille transcription by using a braillewriter and by converting braille into print, less than half rated their students as definitely capable of handling almost any literary braille code transcription independently on completion of the course. The students were deemed to be amazingly competent, given their short exposure to braille. To allow for the integration and assimilation of skills and knowledge, the respondents suggested that braille needs to be taught over two semesters.

Research that compared a distributed practice technique (learning spread out over time) to a massed practice technique (learning compacted into a short time span) found that students who used the distributed practice technique scored significantly higher than those who used the mass practice technique when tested two months after practice was completed (Bloom & Shuell, 1981). There is strong evidence that massed practice depresses performance and learning when learning is assessed by absolute retention measures. Massed repetitions appear to be better for short-term performance, but more learning occurs in the long run when repetitions of an item are well distributed (Fishman, 1968). The integration of new knowledge and skills requires transition time and focused efforts (Zemke & Zemke, 1981). If university students are expected to retain the braille skills and knowledge they have gained, they should not be subjected to learning these skills in 6-8 hour sessions or in intensive courses that are conducted for two weeks in a summer institute. Rather, a model should be used that gives them the time to assimilate and practice these skills. In some instances, the standards and expectations may be high, but the short, intense training period does not support the learning and retention process (Bloom & Shuell, 1981).

The geographic distribution of both students and universities may preclude students' participation in braille instruction taught in a more traditional educational environment. Therefore, the field needs to continue to explore various options. Distance learning is one viable option for providing instruction in university courses. However, it should not be interpreted to mean "learning on your own." The availability of an on-site mentor who can offer hands-on assistance with such issues as hand positioning or answer questions is a vital component of such a program. Other issues to be considered are students' ability to observe instructors' demonstration of skills, instructors' ability to observe and evaluate students' performance while learning to ensure that competencies are met, and the accessibility of the media presentation to participants who are visually impaired. Any form of distance learning must be fully accessible to students who are visually impaired.

In 19 programs (42.2%), minimum competence was defined by the university as "a grade in the C range." It is acknowledged that each teacher training program follows a uniform grading policy set by the university and that this policy may differ considerably from that of other programs. University students have achieved a minimum entry-level competence in braille when they leave their teacher preparation programs, but unless they have the opportunity to use braille, their skills may decline. However, even experience is not enough. The opportunity for further professional development and the provision of braille refresher courses are important factors in the retention of skills.

A topic of ongoing, philosophical discussion in the field is whether to allow students in teacher training programs to use reference materials or code sheets during the evaluation process. Teachers in a classroom environment have reference materials and resources available for their use, but often need to produce braille materials for their students on the spot, which precludes time spent researching dot configurations or appropriate rules.

Nevertheless, it is not enough to be merely a proficient braille transcriber. Teachers' competence in braille is inextricably linked to the ability to teach braille as a medium for reading and writing. Thinking of braille as a literacy tool has an additional implication: Teachers of braille need to be teachers of reading and writing, as well as of the braille code (Wormsley & D'Andrea, 1997). University teacher training programs strive to ensure that all university students who will become teachers of students who are visually impaired demonstrate a high minimum level of competence in braille transcription and the conversion of braille into print in the braille codes.

On the successful completion of the revised National Literary Braille Competency Test Project, projected for 2002, and assessment of the pilot versions for psychometric validity by the Human Resources Research Organization, this examination should be considered for use by teacher preparation programs in the United States as a valid assessment of their students' entry-level braille skills before degrees or teaching licenses are awarded. At present, only four states require their future teachers to pass state examinations in which braille is a component before teaching licenses are granted. The use of a psychometrically valid braille examination with national norms to ensure entry-level competence would lend credibility to the assertion that teachers are competent in the braille code.

The findings of this study open the door for future research on the preparation of teachers and teachers' competence in braille literacy and shed light on the need for documentation of the skills of those who will teach children with visual impairments. They also indicate the need for reevaluation, standardization, and field testing of the content and criteria of university curricula by teacher preparation programs to determine entry-level competence. At present, competence in braille literacy is defined by each program, with each program upholding expectations and outcomes based on its unique perspective in conjunction with its set objectives. Although autonomy is valued, steps need to be taken to ensure that braille knowledge and criteria for competence are standardized for teachers throughout the country.

A fundamental definition of teachers' competence in braille literacy needs to be developed and accepted throughout the field, with objective outcomes stated in terms of the skills and knowledge required for the teaching position. University-level teacher training programs share a responsibility and obligation to provide their students with the skills and knowledge necessary to take an active role in the education of their young students or adult clients. Finally, the field needs to determine the course content, criteria for excellence, and methods of presentation, based on qualitative and quantitative data, that will ensure a high standard of braille literacy for the future teachers of students who are visually impaired.

The author expresses her gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Virginia S. Stolarski, Teachers College, Columbia University, for her guidance and support during the author's doctoral process.

Legend for Chart:

A - Skill or knowledge
B - Required N
C - Required %
D - Not required N
E - Not required %
F - Required in another course N
G - Required in another course %

              A             B      C      D      E     F      G

Transcription with a
braillewriter               45   100.0   DNA    DNA   DNA    DNA

Conversion of braille
into print                  45   100.0   DNA    DNA   DNA    DNA

Transcription using a
slate and stylus            37    82.2     8   17.8   DNA    DNA


Proofreading-interlining    37    82.2     8   17.8   DNA    DNA

Nemeth Code transcription   35    77.8     9   20.0     1    2.2

Teacher-made materials      28    62.2    13   28.9     4    8.9

Observe braille user        26    57.8    18   40.0     1    2.2

Braille reading method      25    55.5    12   26.7     8   17.8

Identify resources          25    55.5    17   37.8     3    6.7

Braille access technology   19    42.2    18   40.0     8   17.8

Review journal articles
and recent research         16    35.6    25   55.5     4    8.9

Observe master braille
teacher                     12    26.7    33   73.3   DNA    DNA

Evaluate curricula          11    24.4    25   55.6     9   20.0

Other                        9    20.0    36   80.0   DNA    DNA

Present sample lessons       8    17.8    29   64.4     8   17.8

Write lesson plans           7    15.6    28   62.2    10   22.2

Note: DNA = does not apply.

Allman, C. B., & Lewis, S. (1996). Content validity of the National Literary Braille Competency Test. RE:view, 28, 103-112.

Ashcroft, S. C., Henderson, F., Sanford, L., & Koenig, A. (1994). New programmed instruction in braille (2nd ed.). Nashville, TN: SCALARS.

Bloom, K., & Shuell, T. J. (1981). Effects of massed and distributed practice on the learning and retention of second-language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 245-248.

Council of Executives of American Residential Schools for the Visually Handicapped. (1990). Literacy for blind and visually impaired school-age students. RE:view, 22, 159-163.

Craig, R. (1987). Learning the Nemeth braille code. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.

Dorf, M. (1984). Instruction manual for braille transcribing (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Library of Congress

Fishman, E. J. (1968). Massed versus distributed practice in computerized spelling drills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 290-296.

Johnson, L. (1989). The importance of braille for adults. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 285-286.

Mullen, E. A. (1990). Decreased braille literacy: A symptom of a system in need of reassessment. RE:view, 22, 164-169.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1997). Training educators to work with students who are blind or visually impaired. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

National Federation of the Blind. (1995, August-September). Braille literacy, braille texts, and braille bills. Braille Monitor, pp. 481-489.

National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped Braille Development Section. (1996, February). Status of the National Literary Braille Competency Test. Braille Monitor, pp. 87-88.

Rapp, D. W., & Rapp, A. J. (1992). A survey of the current status of visually impaired students in secondary mathematics. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 86, 115-117.

Rex, E. J. (1989). Issues related to literacy of legally blind learners. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 306-313.

Silberman, R. K., Corn, A. L., & Sowell, V. M. (1989). A profile of teacher educators and the future of their personnel preparation programs for serving visually handicapped children and youth. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 150-155.

Spungin, S. J. (1989). Braille literacy: Issues for blind persons, families, professionals and producers of braille. Paper presented at the National Convention of the National Federation of the Blind, Denver.

Stephens, O. (1989). Braille-Implications for living. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 288-289.