Childrens Perceptions of Learning

Braille: Qualitative and Quantitative

Findings of the ABC Braille Study
Sharon Z. Sacks, Cheryl K. Hannan, and Jane N. Erin
Abstract: Childrens perceptions of learning to read and write braille were
measured using an open-ended 10-item questionnaire. The data were evaluated
by amount of time, level of contractedness, and level of achievement. No
differences were found with respect to time or the introduction of contractions.
Differences were apparent between the high- and low-achievement groups.

Learning to read and write may be com-
plex tasks for students with visual impair-
ments, especially if the students are not
exposed to a myriad of early literacy ex-
periences. Providing opportunities for
students to explore their environments
and be exposed to real experiences sets
the stage for developing vocabulary,
learning new concepts, and experiencing
books and other forms of literature. Fam-
ilies and teachers play a critical role in
promoting early literacy and can influ-
ence students attitudes toward reading
(Argyropoulos, Sideridis, & Katsoulis,
2008; Brennan, Luze, & Peterson, 2009;
Craig, 1996, 1999). Retrospective studies
of adults with visual impairments who are
successfully employed have pointed to
early exposure to books, being read to by
family members, and learning to read and
write braille as factors that contributed to
their high levels of literacy (Brennan et
al., 2009; Hatton & Erickson, 2005;
Ryles, 1996).
Research has clearly demonstrated that
students who are at risk of failing to read
tend to be less engaged in reading (Mor-
gan, Fuchs, Compton, Cordray, & Fuchs,
2008). These students exhibit less moti-
vation and interest in reading. Their atti-
tudes toward reading are negative be-
cause learning to read is slow and tedious
(Hersh, Stone, & Ford, 1996). Sideridis,
Morgan, Botsas, Padeliadu, and Fuchs
(2006) proposed that poor motivation
may be a defining factor in the failure to
read. However, no studies have examined
the perceptions of children with visual
impairments who are learning to read and
write braille about the experience of
learning to read and write braille. One
may suggest that like their sighted peers,
motivation plays a role in blind childrens
success in developing strong literacy
skills.
The purpose of the study presented
here was to examine young childrens
perceptions of learning to read and write
braille. Initially, students who partici-
pated in the Alphabetic Braille and Con-
tracted Braille Study (ABC Braille Study)
were evaluated by how braille was intro-
duced: contracted or uncontracted. For
the researchers to evaluate students

266 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2011 2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
perceptions, each participant was given a
10-item questionnaire during each year of
the study.
Method
PARTICIPANTS
Recruitment for the ABC Braille Study
took place at conferences and by e-mail,
electronic bulletin boards, letters to
school districts, and electronic mailing
lists of professionals in the United States
and Canada. The participants in the study
provided oral assent, and their parents or
caregivers agreed to the childrens partic-
ipation through an informed consent pro-
cedure that was approved by Vanderbilt
Universitys Human Subject Institutional
Review Board (HSIRB). In addition, the
HSIRBs at the respective institutions of
the participating researchers approved the
research design and documents.
Students who read only in braille, had
no usable vision, and had no additional
disabilities participated in the ABC
Braille Study from prekindergarten
through Grade 4, usually for three, four,
or five years. Each participants teacher of
students with visual impairments deter-
mined if the participant would be taught
either contracted or uncontracted braille.
Originally, the research design antici-
pated that the students would remain
in two distinct groups, those who were
taught contracted and those who were
taught uncontracted braille. However, as
time progressed, most students began to
learn some of the braille contractions.
Thus, the data could not be analyzed by
distinguishing two distinct groups of stu-
dents learning contracted or uncontracted
braille. Detailed information on the par-
ticipants in the ABC Braille Study is pre-
2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Ten interview questions
1. Who teaches you to read and write
braille?
2. What do you like about learning to
read and write braille?
3. What dont you like about reading
and writing braille?
4. Who reads books to you?
5. Do you read with your family at
home?
6. Are the books in braille or in print?
7. What is your favorite book?
8. What do your friends want to know
about braille?
9. What do you and your friends do
with braille?
10. What do your teachers say about
learning to read and write braille?
Box 1
sented in Wall Emerson, Holbrook, and
DAndrea (2009).
The researchers of the ABC Braille
Study conducted interviews at each
school site during the spring of each year.
Of the 45 original participants, 39 stu-
dents had usable interview data. Six stu-
dents who were identified as having ad-
ditional disabilities or who withdrew
from the study were dropped from the
data analyses.
INSTRUMENT AND PROCEDURE
The student questionnaire included 10
open-ended questions related to who
taught the students braille, what the stu-
dents liked and disliked about braille, the
students favorite books, who read to the
students and in what medium, and
friends and teachers interests in and re-
actions to braille (see Box 1). The same
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2011 267
questionnaire was used for each year of
the study. The researchers read the inter-
view questions to the students. The stu-
dents responded orally, and their re-
sponses were recorded verbatim.
DATA ANALYSIS
The data from each of the 10 questions
were analyzed separately. The students
responses to many of the questions
(Questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9) were brief
and repetitive. These responses were tab-
ulated by the frequency of their occur-
rence. Some questions yielded lengthier
and more varied responses (Questions 3,
7, 8, and 10). These responses were ana-
lyzed by identifying commonalities
among the responses and categorizing
them by themes.
The data were analyzed in three ways.
First, to determine if their responses
changed as the students matured, the data
were analyzed with time as a factor. Each
students responses were tracked and an-
alyzed across the years of the study. Sec-
ond, since the overall purpose of the study
was to examine the impact of learning
contracted versus uncontracted braille,
the students responses were examined on
the basis of the original groups of students
learning contracted and uncontracted
braille. However, distinct groups were not
identified, as we previously mentioned.
Therefore, the students were looked at as
a continuum, and their responses were
ranked by how quickly they learned the
contractions.
Last, to ascertain if level of achieve-
ment had an impact on the students per-
ceptions of braille instruction, the data
were analyzed by the high- and low-
achievement groups established by Wall
Emerson, Sitar, Erin, Wormsley, and
268 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2011
Herlich (2009). Wall Emerson and col-
leagues identified two groups on the basis
of the students performance on all the
literacy assessments used throughout the
study. The high-achievement group
scored higher than 62.5% on all reading
assessments (n 8), whereas the low-
achievement group scored lower than
66% on all reading assessments, with no
scores at or above grade level (n 7). For
the high achievers, 27 interviews were
analyzed, and for the low achievers, 28
interviews were analyzed over the course
of the ABC Braille Study.
Results
Initially, all the students responses were
examined by year to determine if they
varied over time. No differences were
found. In fact, each students responses
were consistent over the five years of the
study. The students named the same peo-
ple who were responsible for teaching
them braille, the same titles of books, and
the same individuals who read to them.
Also, the students likes and dislikes
about braille remained the same over the
years. The responses were also examined
by the students rankings of the order in
which they learned contractions. Again,
conclusions could not be drawn on the
basis of the level of contractedness. Gen-
erally, students who made favorable re-
marks about braille remained positive
about braille, and those who disliked
braille continued to dislike braille.
The responses of the students from the
high- and low-achievement groups are
described in depth next. A comparative
analysis of the responses of students in
each group was conducted for all 10 in-
terview questions, and the results are pre-
sented by the interview questions.
2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Table 1 why the total for each category is more
Parties responsible for teaching braille
(number of responses). than 100%. No notable differences in re-
sponses occurred between the high- and
High- Low-
Who teaches you achievement achievement low-achievement groups.
braille? group group

Teacher of students QUESTION 2. WHAT DO YOU LIKE ABOUT

with visual LEARNING TO READ AND WRITE BRAILLE?
impairments 22 23
Paraeducator 9 11 Overall, the students in the high-
Classroom teacher 3 5 achievement group provided more posi-
Family 1 0 tive responses (n 37 responses) than
Self 1 0 did the students in the low-achievement
Other 1 0
group (n 21 responses). In fact, 4 stu-
dents in the low-achievement group
QUESTION 1. WHO TEACHES YOU stated that there was nothing about read-
TO READ AND WRITE BRAILLE? ing and writing braille that they liked, and
Students from both groups viewed the 4 students said they did not know what
teacher of students with visual impair- they liked about braille or provided no
ments as their primary instructor of answer. No questionnaires among the
braille literacy (n 45, 80%), with the high-achievement group included nega-
paraeductor named by 20 students (36%) tive responses. In addition, the students in
and the classroom teacher named by only the high-achievement group said that they
8 children (14%; see Table 1). Three chil- liked to read and write more often (n
dren in the high-achievement group 22, 81% of the 27 interviews) than did
named other people, including their fam- those in the low-achievement group (n
ily members, themselves, and their sum- 7, 25% of the 28 interviews). The re-
mer camp teacher. Ten questionnaire re- sponses were also categorized into 11 fac-
sponses in the high-achievement group tors and then tabulated by frequency (see
and 12 in the low-achievement group Table 2). Students in both groups identi-
named more than one person, which is fied the use of tools and activities as a

Table 2
Factors about braille that the students liked (number of students and example in parentheses).
Factor High-achievement group Low-achievement group

Reading 12 (Learning to read) 4 (Learning to read)

Writing 10 (Writing sentences) 3 (Writing sentences)
Tools 3 (Using my brailler) 3 (Using my toys, books, and puzzles)
Activities 2 (Braille Challenge) 5 (Math)
Enjoyment 2 (Its fun) 3 (Its fun, I like it)
Uniqueness 2 (Learning to be special) 0
Code 3 (New contractions) 0
Ease of use 1 (Its easy) 2 (I like it when its easy)
Speed 1 (Speed) 1 (Its fast)
No answer or dont know 1 4
Does not like anything 0 4 (Nothing much)

2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2011 269
Table 3
Factors about braille that the students disliked (number of responses; examples in parentheses).
Factor High-achievement group Low-achievement group

Reading 3 (Dont like to read braille) 3 (Dont like to read braille)

Writing 1 (Writing on the Perkins brailler) 2 (Brailling lots of words)
Tools 1 (The brailler is loud when I use it) 0
Activities 1 (Numbers) 1 (Writing rainbow)
General difficulty 3 (Doing too much work) 8 (Doing too much work makes
my fingers hurt)
Stopping or interruptions 3 (When I have to go home) 0
Not fun 0 2 (Reading is not fun)
Code and reading process 1 (One page of print takes two 7 (Reading Grade 2; I dont like
pages of braille) is and es)
Speed 0 1 (Reading braille is slower than
reading print)
No answer or dont know 1 3
Does not dislike anything 11 1

factor they enjoyed. Students in the low-
achievement group mentioned more ac-
tivities, such as toys, books, and puzzles,
than did those in the high-achievement
group. Two students in the former group
said they liked math (a total of 5 re-
sponses over time), which was not named
by any students in the high-achievement
group. Although 2 students in the low-
achievement group mentioned ease of use,
they specifically said that they liked braille
when it was easy, compared to the students
in the high-achievement group, who said
that braille was easy. The students in the
low-achievement group were more diverse
in their attitudes toward braille than were
those in the high-achievement group.
QUESTION 3. WHAT DONT YOU LIKE
ABOUT READING AND WRITING BRAILLE?
The groups showed clear differences in
their responses to this question. In the
high-achievement group, 11 of 27 ques-
tionnaires indicated that there was noth-
ing the students disliked about reading
and writing braille. Three others in this
group indicated that they disliked having
to stop reading for some reason: one did
not want to go home, another did not like
it when other students talked when she
was reading, and the third did not like
being told to slow down when reading.
The responses to this question were cat-
egorized into 11 factors, 5 of which were
also parallel to the previous question (see
Table 3). Additional responses included
not liking the loud noise of the braille
writer, using a Perkins brailler, doing too
much work, and using numbers. Only 3
students said that they did not like reading
braille. The responses from the high-
achievement group were about time con-
straints and extraneous factors, not about
disliking reading and writing braille.
In contrast, the students in the low-
achievement group had many more com-
ments about specific aspects of braille and
reading. Eight questionnaires included
comments on general difficulties or dis-
like of the braille code: physical discom-
fort, fingers hurting, doing too much
work, or just not enjoying reading. Seven
students specifically commented on as-
pects of the code that were difficult.

270 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2011 2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Specific features mentioned included con- Table 4
Parties responsible for teaching braille versus
tractions; one student mentioned confu- those who read to students.
sion with the letters i and e, mixing
Who teaches you Who reads books
up letters, spelling and sounding out braille? to you?
words, and difficulty remembering let-
HA LA HA LA
ters. Another student stated that reading
braille is slower than reading print. Two TVI 22 23 TVI 5 6
Paraeducator 9 11 Paraeducator 1 1
students said that reading was not fun. Classroom Classroom
In general, the students in the low- teacher 3 5 teacher 8 9
achievement group described more dif- Family 1 0 Family 17 18
Self 1 0 Self 6 2
ficulties with the reading process, re-
Other 1 0 Other 2 2
flecting a more negative view of braille
literacy, than did the students in the Note: HA high-achievement group; LA low-
achievement group; and TVI teacher of stu-
high-achievement group. dents with visual impairments.

QUESTION 4. WHO READS BOOKS QUESTION 6. ARE THE BOOKS IN BRAILLE

TO YOU?
The responses from the two groups
were similar in all categories except
reading to self. Six of the high achievers
stated they read to themselves, com-
pared to only two low achievers. The
family was listed most frequently as the
group that reads books to the student,
followed by the classroom teacher and
teacher of students with visual impair-
ments. An interesting finding was that
the students named their family mem-
bers as more likely to read to them (n
35) and the teacher of students with
visual impairments as more likely to
teach braille (n 45; see Table 4).
QUESTION 5. DO YOU READ WITH YOUR
FAMILY AT HOME?
The two groups were similar with regard
to reading at home. Twenty-two of 26
students in the high-achievement group,
and 23 of 27 students in the low-
achievement group reported that they
read at home, or approximately 85% for
both groups.
OR PRINT?
When asked whether the books read to
them were in braille or print or both, the
students in the high-achievement group
reported print (11 students, 41%), print
and braille (12 students, 44%), and braille
(3 students, 11%); 1 student (3%) did not
know. Students in the low-achievement
group reported print (16 students, 62%),
print and braille (7 students, 27%), and
braille (3 students, 12%). The students in
the low-achievement group more often
listened to books read from print rather
than braille books.
QUESTION 7. WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE
BOOK?
Most students in both groups mentioned a
favorite book or books. Those in the high-
achievement group named 21 books. Two
students (a second grader and a fourth
grader) responded I dont know, one
student said nonfiction mysteries, and a
kindergartener said that the book he wrote
himself was his favorite. Harry Potter
books were mentioned three times by this
group (twice by the same student in

2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2011 271
subsequent years), one student mentioned Table 5
Peers interests with regard to braille (number
Jack and Annie books in two subsequent of responses).
interviews, and all other books were men-
High- Low-
tioned just once. The students responses achievement achievement
to this question did not change over time. Peers interests group group
The choices of the students from the Reading braille 6 5
low-achievement group were similar. In Writing braille 12 7
total, 24 books were mentioned. One stu- Specific questions
about braille 3 2
dent said, I dont have one. I like all my Nothing or dont
books, and another said my reading know 5 10
Other 1 2
book. Of the 24 books that were named,
Barney was named twice by the same
student, and Junie B. Jones was men- compared with 5 children who were high
tioned twice by two different children achievers.
(and by one child in the high-achieving
QUESTION 9. WHAT DO YOU AND YOUR
group). There were no evident differences
FRIENDS DO WITH BRAILLE?
between the two groups preferences for
books. Responses to this question were also sim-
ilar for both groups. Slightly more stu-
QUESTION 8. WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS dents in the high-achievement group (n
19) than in the low-achievement group
WANT TO KNOW ABOUT BRAILLE?
(n 17) described some interaction with
The responses of the two groups were
peers around braille. More students in the
similar regarding the types of interest in low-achievement group (n 10) than in
braille that their friends exhibited. Friends the high-achievement group (n 7) de-
showed more interest in writing than scribed writing with friends, and more
reading, and this was more often reported students in the high-achievement group
by the students in the high-achievement (n 5) than in the low-achievement
group than those in the low-achievement group (n 2) said that they played or
group. Eighteen positive responses in the explored with friends. Eleven responses
high-achievement group were about gen- from the low-achievement group versus
eral reading and writing, compared with 6 from the high-achievement group in-
12 similar responses from the low- dicated that the students did not interact
achievement group (see Table 5). Only a with peers with regard to braille (see
few students reported that their friends Table 6).
asked about specific topics; one said a
friend wanted to know about the alphabet, QUESTION 10. WHAT DO YOUR
another said a friend wanted to know how TEACHERS SAY ABOUT LEARNING TO READ
he did braille and why he liked it, and a AND WRITE BRAILLE?
third said a friend wanted to know how Responses in this area were also similar
the dots worked. Ten children who were for the two groups. Teachers encouraged
low achievers said that their friends were students with positive comments (They
not interested or they did not know, say good job; its cool). Additional

272 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2011 2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Table 6 or reading process more often, while the
Activities shared by the students and their
peers (number of responses). high achievers more often said that there
was nothing they disliked (11 responses
High- Low-
achievement achievement from the high-achieving students com-
Activities group group pared to 1 response from a low-achieving
Reading 7 5 student). It is not surprising that the stu-
Writing 7 10 dents who were having less success in
Playing games or reading had less positive attitudes about
exploring 5 2
Nothing or not much 6 11
the experience of learning to read. One
No response 1 0 implication of this finding is that students
who have negative attitudes toward read-
ing are less likely to engage in reading
comments included 8 responses that fo- activities (Hersh et al., 1996). Thus, their
cused on work habits (Turn in your overall achievement in literacy may be
work; you need to learn), and 13 general influenced by a cyclical effect of limited
comments about reading and writing (see engagement in reading activities, which
Table 7). leads to less progress in achievement of
literacy. This idea is supported by the
Discussion
research findings, in that the students who
The students responses reflected few dif- were high achievers read to themselves
ferences between the high- and low- more often than did the students who were
achieving students, except on questions 2 low achievers, indicating differences in the
and 3, which related to what the students two groups internal motivation to read.
liked and disliked about braille. For these Another interesting finding related to
two questions, the low achievers were who reads to the students and who teaches
more likely to say that they did not like the students braille. For the most part,
anything about braille or to give no an- family members read to both the high-
swer, whereas the high achievers more and low-achieving students, and teachers
often said they liked reading. When asked of students with visual impairments had
what they disliked, the low achievers the primary responsibility to teach both
named specific features of the braille code groups of students to read and write
braille (see recent discussions regarding
Table 7
Teachers comments about learning to read who is responsible for literacy instruc-
and write braille (number of responses). tion: Blankenship, 2008; Farrenkopf,
High- Low- 2008; Holbrook, 2008; Swenson, 2008).
Teachers achievement achievement The findings of this study clearly show
comments group group
that the students did not perceive that the
Work habits 5 3 general education teacher is responsible
Reading 3 2 for teaching them to read and write
Writing 5 3
Positive or
braille. Rather, they unanimously named
encouraging their teachers of students with visual im-
comments 8 9
pairments as the primary persons who teach
Nothing 8 6
them to read and write. Current ideology in

2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2011 273
the field of visual impairments is that the
primary person who is responsible for
teaching literacy to children who are learn-
ing to read and write in braille should un-
derstand language and literacy development
and know the braille code (Holbrook,
2008). Advocates of braille literacy would
state that a teacher of students with visual
impairments cannot teach braille in isola-
tion of literacy (Farrenkopf, 2008). The re-
sults of this research support the argument
that braille literacy skills, teaching students
to read and write in braille, should be taught
by one who knows the braille code and
literacy processes in conjunction with the
general education teacher or reading spe-
cialist or both. As the field of visual impair-
ments embraces this fundamental shift, uni-
versity personnel preparation programs
must also be willing to adjust their princi-
ples to include preparing teachers to acquire
knowledge of language and literacy devel-
opment in addition to skills in braille.
LIMITATIONS
One of the greatest weaknesses of the
study was that students perceptions were
obtained through self-reports (Leedy &
Ormrod, 2010). When information is ob-
tained from young children, it is not al-
ways as accurate or as complete as one
may like. It may be that the students
responses to questions were quite literal
or concrete. The responses were recorded
verbatim. However, the fact that the stu-
dents responses remained consistent over
time validates the results.
Also, given that some participants en-
tered the study in the second and third
years may have influenced the outcomes.
Uneven interview data may account for dis-
crepancies in the findings. In subsequent
studies, it would be important to examine
274 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2011
only data obtained during the years in
which all the students participated.
Implications for research
and practice
Although the study did not demonstrate em-
pirically that there is a relationship between
students perceptions and success in learn-
ing to read and write braille, it provided
valuable information from the students
points of view. The students clearly ex-
pressed their likes and dislikes about learn-
ing to read and write braille. Many of the
low-achieving students, for example, said
why braille was difficult for them. It is
critical for teachers of students with visual
impairments and family members to design
strategies to motivate students who are
struggling to learn the braille code as well
as the literacy aspects of learning to read
and write braille. Creating games and activ-
ities to stimulate students interests in want-
ing to read braille may be the first step
toward helping students become successful
in learning to read and write braille. Also,
many students indicated that their families
read print books to them rather than braille
books. Given this information, it is
important to consider expanding the num-
ber of books and materials in dual media
(print and braille) so that families can be-
come active participants in encouraging
their young children to embrace braille,
which may enhance the childrens percep-
tions of braille. Finally, it is necessary to
expand research efforts that consistently ex-
amine the relationship between students
success with literacy and motivation to read
and write in braille. As a field, we have
minimal data to support how students atti-
tudes toward learning to read and write
braille influence successful literacy out-
comes. Perhaps research that evaluates spe-
2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
cific interventions to improve braille liter-
acy will provide further insights into the
motivational factors that influence success-
ful braille readers.
References
Argyropoulos, V. S., Sideridis, G. D., & Kat-
soulis, P. (2008). The impact of the per-
spectives of teachers and parents on the
literacy media selections for independent
study of students who are visually im-
paired. Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 102, 221231.
Blankenship, K. (2008). Reading is rocket
science. Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 102, 197200.
Brennan, S. A., Luze, G. J., & Peterson, C. (2009).
Parents perceptions of professional support for
the emergent literacy of young children with
visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impair-
ment & Blindness, 103, 694704.
Craig, C. J. (1996). Family support of the
emergent literacy of children with visual
impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment
& Blindness, 90, 194 200.
Craig, C. J. (1999). Home literacy experi-
ences of a child with a visual impairment.
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,
93, 794 797.
Farrenkopf, C. (2008). Reading instruction:
Best practices and realities in Canadas
largest school district. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 102, 200 203.
Hatton, D. D., & Erickson, K. (2005, Decem-
ber). Highly literate individuals with visual
impairments: Practical applications from
research. Paper presented at the Seventh
Biennial Getting in Touch with Literacy
Conference, Denver, CO.
Hersh, C. A., Stone, B. J., & Ford, L. (1996).
Learning disabilities and learned helpless-
ness: A heuristic approach. International
Journal of Neuroscience, 84, 103113.
Holbrook, M. C. (2008). Teaching reading and
writing to students with visual impairments:
Who is responsible? Journal of Visual Impair-
ment & Blindness, 102, 203206.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Re-
2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
search planning and design (9th ed.). Bos-
ton: Allyn & Bacon.
Morgan, P. L., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L.,
Cordray, D. S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). Does
early reading failure decrease childrens
reading motivation? Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 41, 387 404.
Ryles, R. (1996). The impact of braille read-
ing skills on employment, income, educa-
tion, and reading habits. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 90, 219 226.
Sacks, S. Z., Kamei-Hannan, C., Erin, J. N., Bar-
clay, L., & Sitar, D. (2009). Social experiences
of beginning braille readers in literacy activi-
ties: Qualitative and quantitative findings of the
ABC Braille Study. Journal of Visual Impair-
ment & Blindness, 103, 680693.
Sideridis, G. D., Morgan, P. L., Botsas, G.,
Padeliadu, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Identifi-
cation of students with learning disabilities
based on motivation, metacognition, and psy-
chopathology: A ROC analysis. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 39, 215229.
Swenson, A. M. (2008). Reflections on teach-
ing reading in braille. Journal of Visual
Impairment & Blindness, 102, 206 209.
Wall Emerson, R., Holbrook, M. C., & DAndrea,
F. M. (2009). Acquisition of literacy skills by
young children who are blind: Results from the
ABC Braille Study. Journal of Visual Impair-
ment & Blindness, 103, 610624.
Wall Emerson, R., Sitar, D., Erin, J. N., Worms-
ley, D. P., & Herlich, S. L. (2009). The effect of
consistent structured reading instruction on
high and low literacy achievement in young
children who are blind. Journal of Visual Im-
pairment & Blindness, 103, 595609.
Sharon Z. Sacks, Ph.D., director of curriculum,
assessment, and staff development, California
School for the Blind, 500 Walnut Avenue, Fre-
mont, CA 94536; e-mail ssacks@csb-cde.ca.
gov. Cheryl K. Hannan, Ph.D., assistant pro-
fessor, Division of Special Education and
Counseling, California State University, Los Ange-
les, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA
90032; e-mail: ckameih@calstatela.edu. Jane
N. Erin, Ph.D., professor, Department of Disability
and Psychoeducational Studies, University of Ari-
zona, P.O. Box 210069, Tucson, AZ 85721; e-mail:
jerin@u.arizona.edu.
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2011 275