Assessing and Building Literacy for Students Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired in the General Education Setting

Abstract

Students who are blind or visually impaired (BVI) require specialized literacy instruction that aligns with both braille reading development and evidence-based literacy practices. With the increasing adoption of Science of Reading policies, teachers of students with visual impairments (TSVIs) must navigate new literacy mandates while ensuring their students receive appropriate instruction. This article presents a research-based approach to integrating braille literacy assessment with structured, evidence-based reading instruction. Using a case study of a second-grade braille reader, the article illustrates how a TSVI, a reading specialist, and a general education teacher collaborated to develop and implement an Informal Braille Reading Inventory (IBRI). The IBRI provided meaningful data to guide instruction, improve literacy outcomes, and align braille instruction with general education reading expectations. Practical strategies for assessment, intervention, and interdisciplinary collaboration are discussed, offering a model for ensuring BVI students receive equitable literacy support.

Mrs. Santos, a teacher of students with visual impairments (TSVI), just received notice of a brand new second-grade braille student, Demarcus, being added to her caseload. In the past, Mrs. Santos has always used a student-centered approach to her braille instruction. However, her state recently passed a new literacy law that requires evidence-based literacy instruction (EBLI) and frequent progress monitoring aligned with science-based reading research (SBRR) or the science of reading. At a district-wide literacy training, the reading specialist, Mr. Allen, reviewed the new mandated requirements for all students in kindergarten through third grade. She decided to reach out to Mr. Allen to learn more how these new requirnments might impact her teaching of braille.

Introduction

Within policy, there has been a push to embrace the science of reading as a way to combat low reading success for students across the nation (Lexia, 2023). Currently, 38 states have enacted legislation grounded in the science of reading movement (Schwartz, 2025). Laws, like the one mentioned in the vignette, use terms such as “science-based reading research” and “evidence-based literacy instruction” to ensure that reading instruction is guided by empirically validated practices. For example, the Virginia Literacy Act (2022), which targets the declining reading scores within the state, defines EBLI as

structured instructional practices, including sequential, systematic, explicit, and cumulative teaching, that (i) are based on reliable, trustworthy, and valid evidence consistent with science-based reading research; (ii) are used in core or general instruction, supplemental instruction, intervention services, and intensive intervention services; (iii) have a demonstrated record of success in adequately increasing students’ reading competency, vocabulary, oral language, and comprehension and in building mastery of the foundational reading skills of phonological and phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, phonics, spelling, and text reading fluency; and (iv) are able to be differentiated in order to meet the individual needs of students. (§ 22.1-1)

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2024), 60% of school-aged students who are blind or visually impaired (BVI) are educated within their home schools with their general education peers. Literacy instruction is the primary role of the classroom teacher; however, for students who are BVI and are braille readers, a close collaboration between the general education teacher, reading specialist, and TSVI should be encouraged to help the student succeed and reach their literacy goals. Braille instruction should not be an isolated “add-on”; rather, braille should be an integrated literacy activity for students who are braille readers (Swenson, 2008). Students who are BVI have unique literacy needs that draw on the skills of all participants.

When Mrs. Santos and Mr. Allen met, she went over the unique learning needs of students, like Demarcus, who have congenital blindness. Mr. Allen went into depth about Scarborough’s (2001) reading rope. Together, they were able to make the connection with how this new law impacted students who were BVI. In their district, reading specialists relied on informal reading inventories to assess students’ decoding, fluency, and comprehension, key components of Scarborough’s reading rope. Mrs. Santos used commercially available braille reading inventories when conducting learning media assessments. However, with the state requirement for monthly progress monitoring, something else needed to be considered. If Demetrius was to receive EBLI rooted in SBRR, Mrs. Santos needed a way to gather meaningful data on the new student’s skills in word recognition (including phonemic awareness and decoding), language comprehension, and braille knowledge.

The Science of Reading

The science of reading builds on the five skills identified by the National Reading Council (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) and expands the skill of comprehension based on the components Scarborough (2001) outlined in the reading rope (Lexia, 2024). Scarborough’s reading rope is a literacy model that illustrates how successful reading skills develop through the integration of word recognition and language comprehension (Lexia, 2024). There is a body of knowledge that supports that students with BVI progress through similar stages as their sighted peers as they gain literacy (Kamei-Hannan & Ricci, 2015; Steinman et al., 2006). Additionally, the components of reading outlined by the National Reading Council (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000, phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension) are essential to all readers, including those with a visual impairment (Kamei-Hannan & Ricci, 2015; Stewart et al., 2022). For students who are braille readers, additional skills are required (Kamei-Hannan & Ricci, 2015; Swenson, 2016). Kamei-Hannan and Ricci (2015) identified the skills of knowledge of braille code, braille syntax, and tactical discrimination as essential for braille readers. Table 1 illustrates how these braille skills can be integrated into Scarborough’s reading rope to create an integrated framework for braille literacy.

“Creating an informal braille reading inventory (IBRI) is a strategic method to determine a student’s abilities (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2010).

“One benefit of creating an aligned teachermade braille assessment is that all school personnel can compare the student’s progress to their grade-level peers.

Table 1

Modified Scarbough’s Reading Rope of Reading Skills for Braille

Skill	Definition
Language comprehension
Background knowledge	What a student knows about a subject; tying previous knowledge to a reading passage
Vocabulary	Knowing and understanding the meaning of words
Language structure	How text is organized and arranged; language syntax
Verbal reasoning	Figurative language, drawing inferences
Literacy knowledge	Basic concepts of print (orientation of books, parts of the books, format of print)
Knowledge of braille code	Identification of braille characters; understanding the rules that govern braille
Word recognition
Phonological awareness	Ability to manipulate phonemes (sounds)
Decoding	Using phonemes to interpret print or tactile into speech
Sight (tactile) recognition	Building a group of words that are automatically recognized
Tactile sensitivity and braille reading mechanics	Ability to distinguish braille and tactile images

Source. Adapted from Scarbough (2001) and Kamei-Hannan and Ricci (2015).

Unique Reading Needs of Students Who Are Visually Impaired

With collaboration between the TSVI and the school-based literacy personnel (i.e., general education teacher and the reading specialist), the TSVI brings their specialized knowledge of braille and of the literacy needs unique to students who are congenitally visually impaired. Unsurprisingly, with the low incidence of students who are BVI and the complexity of visual perception, empirical research is slim in the field of literacy development and interventions (Cooney et al., 2015; Ferrell et al., 2014; Sutter et al., 2020). However, the information found in the relatively small body of research regarding reading development can help both TSVIs and school-based literacy personnel support the literacy development of students who are braille readers. Table 2 incorporates the identified skills from Scarborough’s (2001) reading rope and the research on literacy development for students who are BVI. There are suggestions on how the TSVI and the school-based literacy personnel can strengthen areas of need found in students.

Table 2

Activities to Build Reading Skills

Skill	Roadblocks to success with the skill	The ways TSVIs and teachers can build the skill
Language comprehension
Background knowledge	-Lack of incidental learning can limit the amount of prior knowledge.-Delays in concept development	-Tune into the students’ nonverbal cues to help focus on things that interest them.-Allow students to explore and interact with their environments.-Use purposeful activities to help them to safely learn about the world around them. For example, create a sand tray with shells before reading a story about the beach.
Vocabulary	-Vocabulary is an area of weakness for students who are BVI.	-Explicit instruction of vocabulary-Use concrete, representational, abstract to introduce content-specific vocabulary.
Language structure	-Print language has its own syntax and arrangement. -Braille also has its own syntax, which requires remembering usage rules and braille structure because reading passages contain more contractions.	-Provide explicit instruction in morphology and language structure.-Reduce cognitive load by reviewing and previewing reading passages.
Verbal reasoning (i.e., figurative language)	-Concept development can be impacted by blindness or visual impairment. The lack of observing the world may make the abstractness of figurative language difficult to grasp.	-Use concrete examples to explain figurative language, such as similes and metaphors, to help build understanding.
Literacy knowledge (basic concepts of print, i.e., orientation of books, parts of the books, format of print)	-Lack of exposure to books may limit the familiarity.-Fewer opportunities to participate in emergent literacy activities (limited oral reading sessions, limited access to braille and braille writing equipment)	-Ensure that classrooms have a variety of reading material (i.e., braille and large-print books, audiobooks, magnification tools).-Provide early exposure to braille material and tactile graphics in the classroom setting.
Knowledge of braille code	-Lack of sufficient time required to learn and practice braille-Increased demand of cognitive load	-Use explicit, targeted instruction of braille from a trained professional.-Offer professional development on braille for the school-based team and families.-Encourage the general education teacher to have braille letters and words on the classroom walls.
Word recognition
Phonological awareness	-In lower elementary (kindergarten through first grade), this skill of sound manipulation has shown to be a strength. However, as students transition into upper elementary, this skill becomes increasingly difficult, and students who are BVI fall behind their peers.	-Provide continued explicit instruction in phonological awareness as new braille contractions are introduced.
Decoding	-These skills appear to falter when higher level decoding is introduced in upper elementary. Additionally, some students struggle with multisyllabic words.	-Introduce both contracted and uncontracted braille.-Provide explicit instruction in morphology and homographs (words that are spelled the same but are pronounced differently and have different meanings).
Sight (tactile) recognition	-Possible difficulty with recognizing braille characters with speed and efficiency-Additional disabilities-Inefficient hand placement and movements	-Pair braille with auditory stimuli when possible. For example, pair a text or a story with an audio or read-aloud version.
Tactile sensitivity and braille reading mechanics	-Motivation of the students to learn braille-Age of student at the time of vision loss-Possible additional disabilities	-When presenting braille reading passages, incorporate texts used in the classroom by peers along with texts that are geared to the student’s interests.

Note. TSVI = teacher of students with visual impairments; BVI = blind or visually impaired.

Using Assessment to Aid in Instruction

Assessment is a vital step in offering effective instruction (Barone et al., 2019; Provost et al., 2010; Swenson, 2016). Creating an informal braille reading inventory (IBRI) is a strategic method to determine a student’s abilities (Risko & Walker-Dalhouse, 2010). Assessment can help establish a baseline for learning, determine the skills of a student, allow for adjustments in teaching to be made, and monitor progress toward goals on a student’s individualized education program (IEP; Barone et al., 2019; Swenson, 2016). For example, in the Virginia Literacy Act (2022), progress monitoring is an integral component of the students’ literacy development. In addition, frequent assessment is one of the Council for Exceptional Children’s high-leverage practices (Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center, 2017).

There are many benefits to creating an IBRI that aligns with the classroom assessment. One benefit of creating an aligned teacher-made braille assessment is that all school personnel can compare the student’s progress to their grade-level peers. Additionally, by using an aligned tool, the entire literacy team (TSVI, general education teacher, and the reading specialist) can all better understand the students’ strengths and areas of need (Provost et al., 2010). Aligning assessments between the classroom teacher and the TSVI streamlines instruction and progress monitoring (Swenson, 2008). It also allows students to participate with peers. Fluency, comprehension, sight words, braille contractions, hand placement, and decoding can all be assessed using an IBRI. Finally, a common assessment enables the literacy team to provide detailed feedback to families on the student’s literacy growth.

Developing and Conducting an IBRI

Drawing on research, the following steps are recommended to develop and conduct an IBRI in collaboration with the school-based literacy personnel. After the IBRI is completed, the TSVI can better create targeted lessons to deliver explicit instruction (Barone et al., 2019).

Step 1: Select a Reading Passage

To determine the skills a student possesses in braille and literacy, select a reading passage on the student’s reading level. This is an excellent opportunity to work in collaboration with school personnel (i.e., the general education teacher or the reading specialist). School personnel will be able to provide a reading passage that is used in the general education classroom. Typically, these passages will have comprehension questions that are similar to what the student will be encountering during their time spent in the general education classroom. The entire passage does not have to be used; a short portion of 100 words would be appropriate. For demonstration, Figure 1 shows an excerpt from a leveled reading passage about a water park. Only the first two lines of the selected passage are shown as an example.

Figure 1

Review of reading passage for braille contractions

Step 2: Review and Prepare Passage

When preparing the reading passage, the text should be analyzed to find which of the 222 contractions in Unified English Braille (Willings, 2016) are presented in the passage. It is important to identify which braille contractions are present in the text to help determine which contractions can be assessed alongside the oral reading fluency of the student. Therefore, assessment data can be collected for documentation of IEP goals and provide information to help develop future lessons for the student (Swenson, 2016).

Figure 2 identifies several contractions that are in the sample passage. Once the list of braille skills that will be assessed has been compiled, two copies of the passage should be created. One copy in braille and one copy in print should be made. The purpose of the two copies is that as the student reads the braille copy, the school-based literacy personnel will follow along on the print version and mark any miscues (errors) that the student makes (see Figure 3 ). The benefit of having a print copy is that any school personnel, not just the TSVI, can administer the IBRI. Although the general education teacher might be limited in being able to access hand placement or which braille contractions the student is struggling with, the general education teacher can access fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. This collaboration will build a shared understanding of the students’ needs and performance.

Figure 2

Braille passage for informal braille reading inventory

Figure 3

Sample reading passage noting student miscues

Step 3: Test the Student

While the student reads the passage, a timer should be used to help determine reading speed. The timer then is stopped when the student has finished reading the text. Next, the school personnel can orally ask comprehension questions for the student to answer. The answers should be recorded as either correct or incorrect to determine the level of comprehension. Finally, observations about the student’s oral reading fluency (expression, intonation, and phrasing) can be noted by the school-based reading personnel, whereas the TSVI can note hand placement. For example, is the student scrubbing (repeatedly rubbing over a braille cell in an attempt to distinguish the tactile raised dots)? Or is the student using efficient, smooth hand movements as they read braille?

Step 4: Analyze the Results

The next step is to analyze the student’s miscues and determine oral reading fluency. Three major types of miscues are substitution, insertion, and omissions. Braille miscues can be categorized into these three types (see Table 3 ). To determine a student’s oral reading fluency, the following equation can be used:

(\frac{T o t a l w o r d s r e a d c o r r e c t l y}{T o t a l w o r d s i n t h e p a s s a g e}) \times 100 .

Table 3

Types of Miscues and Their Braille Equivalent

Miscue type	Braille miscues	Definition
Substitutions	Braille reversal	An error caused by misidentifying the dots in a letter or a contraction for its mirror image; right to left or top to bottom
Substitutions	Alignment	An error caused by misidentifying the placement of the dots in a letter or a contraction
Omissions	Missed cell in a pair	An error caused by missing a dot or a cell in a pair of braille cell
Omissions	Missed dot	An error caused by missing a dot in a single cell
Insertions	Added dot	An error caused by misidentifying that a dot is present when it is not

Source. Adapted from Kamei-Hannan and Ricci (2015).

Note. Teachers of students with visual impairments and reading specialists will be better able to communicate about the student’s needs with the use of common terms.

Step 5: Determine Skills to Focus on for Instruction

The final step in the process would be to use the information that was obtained to craft lessons that build on the student’s strengths and improve the areas of weakness. High-Leverage Practice 6 encourages teachers to use the information gathered from assessments to adjust instruction so that students can become more successful (Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center, 2017). Once the data have been analyzed, the TSVI and the school-based literacy team should meet to discuss next steps for remediation and instruction of weak areas. For example, if the student pronounced “care;l” (“careful”), which has the final group sign for “-ful,” as “carel” (“carel”), the student has missed (omitted) the first braille cell in the paired cell that makes up the final-letter group-sign for “-ful.” Likewise, if the student mispronunciation of the word contributed to them not being able to correctly answer a comprehension question, the general education teacher can help the student improve their self-correction skills while reading. Also, she might develop a mini-lesson on the suffix “-ful” that incorporates the braille contraction with the meaning of the suffix as practice.

“Each member of the literacy team (the general education teacher, the TSVI, and the reading specialist) plays an important role.

Ms. Cole, Demarcus’s general education teacher, and Mrs. Santos called Demarcus over to the small group table to complete the IBRI. Demarcus seemed happy to be included like his classmates in small group rotation. After they had finished, the pair were able to sit down with Mr. Cole after school to discuss the results.

The data revealed important insights. Demarcus demonstrated phonemic awareness of the contraction “er.” He also demonstrated good hand placement while he was reading braille. Mrs. Santos was happy to observe that as Demarcus read, he kept both hands on the page and that his fingers were slightly curved. However, his fluency rate of 25 words per minute was well below expectations. Additionally, his substitution errors were based on him making braille reversals. His comprehension scores showed solid factual recall but difficulty making inferences. Many of the errors Demarcus made while reading impacted his reading comprehension. He had missed two out of the four comprehension questions. They decided that Mr. Allen could support Demarcus with comprehension in the classroom as he worked with a small group of students from Demarcus’s class. Mr. Allen also supplied a few comprehension activities that Mrs. Santos could braille for them both to use with Demarcus. Mrs. Santos also decided that she would begin developing lessons on the reversals Demarcus made and dot five initial letter contractions.

The team used the data to develop goals for Demarcus’s reading plan that the state’s literacy law required. Mr. Allen listed all their names on Demarcus’s plan because they all played a critical role in his development. Based on SBRR-aligned interventions, Mrs. Santos developed an instructional plan focusing on fluency-building strategies (e.g., repeated readings with modeled prosody) and explicit comprehension instruction targeting inferencing skills.

Working in Collaboration

It is important for all school personnel to support a student who is BVI. Each member of the literacy team (the general education teacher, the TSVI, and the reading specialist) plays an important role. They each hold a piece of the puzzle to unlock the successful path to literacy. The TSVI understands the unique learning needs in addition to the braille code, the general education teacher understands the grade-level curriculum and the state assessment criteria, and the reading specialist understands the fundamental elements of teaching children how to read.

“Building literacy for a student who is BVI can be greatly improved when the TSVI and the schoolbased literacy team (general education teacher and the reading specialist) work collaboratively.

Often, reading specialists and general education teachers lack the knowledge and experience of teaching a student who is BVI (Wang & Al-Said, 2014). Equally, TSVIs may not have the specialized knowledge of how to teach literacy. Therefore, arranging time for collaborative meetings between the three will help support the growth of literacy in the student. The vignette demonstrated an example of co-assessing the student. This can be continued when the TSVI pushes into the classroom, and both professionals can co-teach a particular skill the student may be having difficulty with mastering.

Another possibility for collaboration comes in the form of professional development. General education teachers and reading specialists may feel more confident in incorporating braille throughout the student’s day if they attend a professional development session on braille. Likewise, TSVIs should be included in district-wide or schoolwide literacy professional development. This mutual exchange of knowledge fosters a more inclusive learning environment, ensuring that all educators are equipped to support the literacy development of students who are BVI.

Conclusion

Building literacy for a student who is BVI can be greatly improved when the TSVI and the school-based literacy team (general education teacher and the reading specialist) work collaboratively. Each member brings their specialized knowledge to contribute to instruction and progress monitoring of the student’s development. As shown in the vignette, assessment can be used to design lessons to provide explicit instruction to the student who is BVI to target areas of weakness in both braille and literacy. By working collaboratively with school-based literacy specialists, adapting evidence-based assessments, and applying the principles of the science of reading, TSVIs can ensure that every student with BVI receives the high-quality, data-driven literacy instruction they deserve—unlocking their full potential as readers and learners.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Michelle A. C. Hicks

Michelle A. C. Hicks, School of Education, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond,

References

Barone

Khairallah

Gabriel

(2019). Running records revisited: A tool for efficiency and focus. International Literacy Association, 73(4), 525–530. http://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1861

Cooney

J. B.

Young

Luckner

J. L.

Ferrell

K. A.

(2015). Learning what works in sensory disabilities: Establishing causal inference. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109(6), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1510900605

Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education: Foundations for student success. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CEC-HLP-Web.pdf

Ferrell

K. A

Bruce

Luckner

J. L.

(2014). Evidence-based practices for students with sensory impairments (Document No. IC-4). University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IC-4_FINAL_03-30-15.pdf

Kamei-Hannan

Ricci

L. A.

(2015). Reading connections: Strategies for teaching students with visual impairments. AFB Press.

Lexia. (2023). A full breakdown of the science of reading components. https://www.lexialearning.com/blog/a-full-breakdown-of-the-science-of-reading-components

National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Students with disabilities. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf

Provost

M. C.

Lambert

M. A.

Babkie

A. M.

(2010). Informal reading inventories: Creating teacher-designed literature-based assessments. Interventions in School and Clinics, 45(4), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451209353444

10.

Risko

V. J.

Walker-Dalhouse

(2010). Making the most of assessments to inform instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 420–422. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.5.7

11.

Scarborough

H. S.

(2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In Neuman

S. B.

Dickinson

D. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97–110). The Guilford Press.

12.

Schwartz

(2025, July 22). Which states have passed ‘science of reading’ laws? What’s in them? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/which-states-have-passed-science-of-reading-laws-whats-in-them/2022/07

13.

Steinman

B. A.

LeJeune

B. J.

Kimbrough

B. T.

(2006). Developmental stages of reading processes in children who are blind and sighted. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(1), 36–46. http://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0610000106

14.

Stewart

Zebehazy

K. T.

Holbrook

M. C.

(2022). Using appropriate assessment to plan braille literacy instruction. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 116(3), 417–424. http://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X221109561

15.

Sutter

Demchak

Grumstrup

Forsyth

Grattan

(2020). Research designs and literature in the field of visual impairment: What informs our practices? Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 114(5), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X20958886

16.

Swenson

A. M.

(2008). Reflections on teaching reading in braille. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102(4), 206–209. http://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0810200405

17.

Swenson

A. M.

(2016). Beginning with braille (2nd ed.). American Foundation for the Blind.

18.

Virginia Literacy Act, Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-253.13:1 (2022). https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title22.1/section22.1-253.13:1/

19.

Wang

Al-Said

S. K. Q.

(2014). Defining literacy for individuals who are blind or with visual impairments: A qualitative study of stakeholders. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 8(2), 99–112.

20.

Willings

(2016). Checklist of literary braille skills. Braille Authority of North America. https://www.brailleauthority.org/ueb/literary_braille_contraction_checklist.pdf