0 14 14 n/a Algebra 2 LV Enlarged on Human reader screen -1 11 12 n/a Geometry LV Large print Large print -1 9 10 n/a Algebra 1 LV Enlarged on Enlarged on screen screen -1 10 n/a 11 Algebra 1 B Braille Braille -1 11 12 n/a Geometry LV CCTV CCTV -1 5 6 n/a Math Models LV CCTV Human reader -1 12 n/a 13 Statistics B Refreshable Braille braille -2 11 n/a 13 Algebra 1 B Braille Braille -2 12 14 n/a Algebra 1 LV CCTV CCTV B = blind; LV = low vision. Note. aMaximum score = 16. We also calculated the mean and standard deviation of scores per question by delivery mode and, within the spoken delivery mode, by students’ visual status or low vision). Results are shown in Table 6. 6 Mean and Standard Deviations of Students’ Average Scores per Question Overall, by Visual Status For Spoken Instrument and by Delivery Format for Nonspoken Instrument Spoken Nonspoken Statistic All Blind Low vision All Braille Print (N = 21) (n = 8) (n = 13) (N = 21) (n = 8) (n = 13) Mean 0.762 0.741 0.772 0.756 0.750 0.760 0.427 0.440 0.440 0.430 0.435 0.428 S.D. All students classified as used braille as their nonspoken format. All students classified as vision” Note. “blind” “low used print as their nonspoken format. The comparisons in Tables 4, 5, and 6 indicate that students performed very similarly on the spoken math version and on the version in their usual format. In this case, lack of clear difference is notable, because it suggests that the spoken math format affords students a comparable level of support for answering the math questions to that provided by braille and print formats. Research Question 2. Preference, Confidence, and Understandability Each student answered feedback questions pertaining to the spoken format and to the particular nonspoken format used by the student. One question, pertaining to ease of understanding math
0 14 14 n/a Algebra 2 LV Enlarged on screen Human reader -1 11 12 n/a Geometry LV Large print Large print -1 9 10 n/a Algebra 1 LV Enlarged on screen Enlarged on screen -1 10 n/a 11 Algebra 1 B Braille Braille -1 11 12 n/a Geometry LV CCTV CCTV -1 5 6 n/a Math Models LV CCTV Human reader -1 12 n/a 13 Statistics B Refreshable braille Braille -2 11 n/a 13 Algebra 1 B Braille Braille -2 12 14 n/a Algebra 1 LV CCTV CCTV Note. B = blind; LV = low vision. aMaximum score = 16. We also calculated the mean and standard deviation of scores per question by delivery mode and, within the spoken delivery mode, by students’ visual status or low vision). Results are shown in Table 6. 6 Mean and Standard Deviations of Students’ Average Scores per Question Overall, by Visual Status For Spoken Instrument and by Delivery Format for Nonspoken Instrument Statistic Spoken Nonspoken All (N = 21) Blind (n = 8) Low vision (n = 13) All (N = 21) Braille (n = 8) Print (n = 13) Mean 0.762 0.741 0.772 0.756 0.750 0.760 S.D. 0.427 0.440 0.440 0.430 0.435 0.428 Note. All students classified as “blind” used braille as their nonspoken format. All students classified as “low vision” used print as their nonspoken format. The comparisons in Tables 4, 5, and 6 indicate that students performed very similarly on the spoken math version and on the version in their usual format. In this case, lack of clear difference is notable, because it suggests that the spoken math format affords students a comparable level of support for answering the math questions to that provided by braille and print formats. Research Question 2. Preference, Confidence, and Understandability Each student answered feedback questions pertaining to the spoken format and to the particular nonspoken format used by the student. One question, pertaining to ease of understanding math