Abstract
As technology becomes increasingly embedded in education, ensuring its equitable access for students with visual impairment (VI) is critical. This qualitative case study examined the experiences of three middle school students with VI in general education classrooms, focusing on their access to and use of instructional technologies. Data were gathered through classroom observations and interviews with general education teachers and teachers of students with visual impairment (TVIs). Within-case and cross-case analyses revealed four overarching themes: (a) technology is integral to participation in general education; (b) persistent accessibility challenges contribute to frustration; (c) general education teachers experience a learning curve in supporting students with VI; and (d) TVIs frequently serve as the primary facilitators of technology access. Findings highlight the necessity of explicit instruction in digital accessibility skills for students with VI and underscore the importance of targeted professional development for general educators to foster inclusive technology practices.
Inclusion in education is the practice of providing equal access to opportunities and resources to all individuals with and without disabilities. As the educational environment moves toward a technology-rich system, students with diverse needs must be guaranteed equitable access to content curricula. In the 2022–23 academic year, 7.5 million U.S. public school students aged 5–21 (15%) received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2024). If classroom content is inaccessible, these students risk exclusion from essential learning experiences. There is limited research on how students with disabilities, including those with visual impairment (VI), access and use technologies in general education classrooms. Educational technologies ranging from instructional videos to complex software, are intended to facilitate engagement and comprehension. However, such tools are often not designed to be fully accessible to students with VI (Siu & Presley, 2019). The past decade has seen a dramatic rise in classroom technology use, particularly in secondary settings (Purdue Online, 2022). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the gap between available tools and accessible instructional practices has become more apparent. Teachers often struggle to adapt digital curricula for a small population of students (Rosenblum et al., 2020) and express a lack of sufficient resources for equitable instruction (Johnson, 2022).
“In a society that relies heavily on audiovisual content for both the creation and dissemination” of information, students with VI “are increasingly at risk of being excluded from participating in social discourse” (Youngblood et al., 2018, p. 339). Commonly used digital classroom materials include instructional videos (66%), communication tools like email (65%), free or purchased online resources (64%), digital versions of print (59%), educational apps and games (58%), and open-source content (57%) (Gracey, 2019). If these materials are inaccessible, students with VI are at risk of missing most of the classroom instruction.
According to the Office of Special Education Programs (2024), 0.4% of students receiving special education services in 2021–2022 were identified as having a VI. (American Printing House, 2024) reported that 79% of students with VI attend public schools and are served by itinerant Teachers of Students with VI (TVIs). Nearly 70% of these students spend 80% or more of their school day in general education classrooms (Office of Special Education Programs, 2024). These students rely on TVIs to facilitate access to content provided by general education teachers. Among students with VI, 7.7% were braille readers, 35.2% print readers, 12.2% auditory readers, 24.1% non-readers, and 28.8% pre-readers (American Printing House, 2024). As portrayed in the above statistics, even within one disability category of VI or blindness, students differ in how they access their curricula, including braille, tactile, print, or auditory modalities. These data highlight the need for classroom technologies to support multiple modalities.
Understanding the challenges and successes of students with VI in accessing classroom technology can inform efforts to create more inclusive educational environments. This study did not evaluate the accessibility of specific technologies; instead, the purpose of the study was to understand the experiences of middle school students with VI in general education classrooms and how they access and learn from classroom technologies.
The research questions explored in the study were:
RQ1. How do middle school students with VI describe their experiences in accessing the various technologies used in general education classrooms?
RQ2. How do general education teachers support the technology accessibility needs of middle school students with VI in their classrooms?
RQ3. How do TVIs support the technology accessibility needs of middle school students with VI educated in general education classrooms?
Method
Sampling procedures
This qualitative study, guided by a constructivist paradigm, employed a multiple case study design to explore how middle school students with VI accessed technology in inclusive classrooms. Participants were selected after receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the university. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants. The inclusion criteria for student participants required that they (a) have a chronological age ranging from 11 to 14 years, (b) have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) qualified under VI/Blindness, and (c) be placed in an inclusive setting 80% or more of their instructional time in general education classrooms in a public school. Apart from the above inclusion criteria, the following exclusion criteria were used: (a) students did not have any other disability other than VI; (b) was not completely blind; (c) reading level was not more than two years behind their grade level; and (d) was not enrolled in a residential school for the blind. To gain deeper insights into the support systems surrounding these students, their general education teachers and TVIs were also invited to participate. The researcher obtained consent from all participants and parents/guardians and also followed the procedures of conducting research in public school districts.
Participants
Three sixth-grade students, pseudonymously named Luke, Zoe, and Ella, participated in the study. The three participants had low vision, a specific subset of VI, encompassing a range of visual abilities. Each student had a unique visual impairment: Luke was diagnosed with Leber’s Congenital Amaurosis, Zoe with Stargardt’s Disease, and Ella with corneal ulcers. Luke and Ella were Caucasian, and Zoe was biracial. All parents rated their children’s independence in using technology highly. Only Luke had received orientation and mobility (O&M) services at the time of the study. Each student was paired with their respective TVI and one general education teacher, forming three distinct cases. Luke’s TVI was the youngest, while Ella’s had the most experience (21 years). Luke’s and Zoe’s TVIs had five to six years of experience. All rated their comfort in using technology to support VI students as 4 out of 5. Three general education teachers (two Language Arts teachers and one Math teacher) participated in the study. They were Caucasian females with varying years of experience, with all three of them rating their comfort level to be lower than 4 in using technologies to support students with VI accessing their general education learning environment. Together, these nine participants provided a multi-dimensional view of how students with VI access and engage with educational technologies in inclusive classroom environments. Table 1 presents the demographic information of the participants.
Demographics of study participants.
Data collection procedures
Data collection was conducted using multiple methods to align with Yin’s (2018) recommendation for a “convincing and accurate” case study. In this case study, data collection types were (a) observations, (b) interviews, (c) educational documents, and (d) reflexive journal entries.
Observations
Classroom observations were conducted following the “complete observer” model (Remler & Ryzin, 2015), minimizing researcher interaction to avoid influencing natural student behavior. Each student was observed across two separate days. Observational data were captured in detailed field notes and later supplemented with reflexive journaling to capture the researcher’s impressions. An observation protocol guided this process, including demographic information, key events, and contextual notes, following guidance from Creswell and Creswell (2018).
Interviews
Semi-structured, one-on-one interviews were conducted with each student, their TVI, and one of their general education teachers. Interviews took place virtually and were scheduled after the first observation to allow for tailored questions based on observed behavior. Conducting interviews virtually allowed the researcher to schedule sessions based on participant availability, including after-school times, while minimizing logistical barriers. Each interview lasted around 60 min and encouraged open-ended responses. Interviews were audio-recorded with consent, transcribed using auto-transcription, and manually reviewed for accuracy. The interview protocol, adapted from Creswell and Creswell (2018), followed a standard structure that included introductory remarks, content questions, probing for detail, and concluding instructions. All participants were encouraged to share both their direct experiences and broader reflections on technology use in inclusive settings.
Educational documents
With parental permission, two key educational documents were collected for each student: their most recent IEP and an academic progress report. IEPs were analyzed for data related to functional vision assessments, learning media, instructional accommodations, technology supports, and annual goals. Progress reports provided insight into academic performance and subject-specific challenges. These documents were reviewed only after all the interviews and observations to minimize bias and ensure that prior knowledge did not influence data interpretation.
Reflexive journals
Throughout the research process, the researcher maintained a reflexive journal to document personal reflections, logistical challenges, and methodological decisions. This practice promoted transparency and self-awareness, allowing the researcher to monitor and mitigate potential biases. Reflexive journaling was guided by principles from Wa-Mbaleka (2020) and Yin (2018), reinforcing ethical and responsive research practices.
Data analysis
Data analysis followed a systematic process adapted from Creswell and Creswell (2018), beginning with within-case analysis before proceeding to cross-case comparison. All data, interview transcripts, field notes, and educational documents were organized into digital folders by case. Audio interviews were transcribed, field notes were typed, and documents were formatted for analysis. Each transcript and document was read multiple times to gain a holistic understanding. The researcher noted initial impressions and emergent ideas in margins and reflexive journals. An inductive, iterative coding process was employed, following Tesch’s (1990) method. First, segments of data were labeled with preliminary codes based on meaning and relevance. Codes were grouped into categories, which were refined into themes. Coding was conducted manually and verified through peer debriefing to ensure accuracy and consistency. Peer debriefing involves an “interpretation beyond the researcher” and “it adds validity to an account” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 201).
Within-case narrative analysis
Each student’s data was first analyzed independently. Observational data, interviews, documents, and reflexive entries were triangulated to construct a rich narrative for each case. This approach ensured that each student’s experiences were viewed as distinct and contextually grounded. The results from the within-case analysis were reported in the form of a narrative story.
Cross-case thematic analysis
Cross-case analysis followed, comparing the three student cases to identify patterns and differences. Themes were classified as expected, surprising, or conceptually novel, guided by Creswell and Creswell (2018). The themes obtained from the cross-case analysis were then reported in the results.
Results
The results are organized by within-case and cross-case analysis findings. To address the first research question on how middle school students with visual impairment experience technology in general education classrooms, each student’s experience is presented using demographic data, educational documents, interviews, and field notes. Cross-case analysis revealed two central themes: (1) Technology is imperative in general education classrooms, and (2) Frustrations with accessibility issues in general education classrooms. In response to the second research question on how general education teachers support technology accessibility for students with VI, one broad theme emerged: It is a learning curve for general education teachers to support students with VI. For the final research question on how TVIs support their students’ accessibility needs, the overarching theme was: TVIs are frequently the primary problem-solvers when it comes to access technology.
Findings of within-case analysis
Luke, lover of all things technology
Luke, a gifted sixth grader, stood out for his independence and confidence. Diagnosed with Leber’s Congenital Amaurosis (LCA) and Nystagmus, Luke’s vision was progressively deteriorating with a current distance acuity of 20/300. According to his functional vision assessment report, Luke struggled most in the dark and with visually heavy tasks. According to Luke, “When I focus on something for too long, it might get blurry, or it might like move around for some reason.”
Based on the observation notes collected while following Luke in all his general education classes, he accessed all of his classroom content using his Braille Note Touch (BNT), a device to access digital materials in braille, screen readers, and tactile materials. Considering the magnification Luke needed (72-point font at 12 inches), he was a tactile and braille user. Since Schoology, the school’s learning platform, was not accessible to his BNT, folders were replicated in Google Drive, which was fully accessible on his BNT. Luke appreciated being able to “do the learning at the same speed as everybody else.” His TVI reported that Luke was “unable to efficiently access his computer monitor without the use of screen-reading software for academic purposes.” In general education classes, Luke accessed print materials in one of three ways: (a) physical printed text/graphics paired with braille/tactile equivalents; (b) digital text accessed via BNT; and (c) digital text accessed using screen readers.
Luke’s favorite general education class was Language Arts (LA) because it had been the most accessible to him from the start of his school year. His LA teacher described her experience of having Luke in her class as “eye-opening.” During the observation of Luke’s language arts class, the teacher consistently provided verbal access to all visual information, ensured his materials were available on his BNT, and offered individualized supports—such as copying key paragraphs into his document and coordinating with his TVI for upcoming visual content. Over the 2 days, Luke completed a reading summative assessment in braille, participated in a lesson contrasting text to video, and engaged in class discussions, though he missed some non-audio-described visual elements of the multimedia activity.
Despite Luke’s enthusiasm for technology and teacher collaboration, he faced challenges such as inaccessible digital platforms, poorly described visuals, and visual-heavy activities. In an ideal world, accessible websites, audio-described videos, and flexible activity options would have helped Luke access his learning environment more equitably.
Zoe, the social butterfly
Zoe, a cheerful and sociable sixth grader with Stargardt’s Disease, a genetic condition causing progressive central vision loss. Zoe was well-liked and described by her braillist as a “social butterfly” who loved talking, hugging, and playing with friends. Zoe’s vision was severely impaired, with 20/200 distance acuity and required a 90-point font size to access print at a reading distance of 6 inches. Zoe cannot sustain reading print in lengthy passages or a book without visual fatigue. Zoe felt that visual fatigue certainly affected her access to technology tools in class, “I could barely read anything online, I would get massive headaches . . . because my eyes would try to work together, but they couldn’t.”
Zoe used various assistive technologies including a portable video magnifier (Jupiter), iPad, and touchscreen Chromebook. Due to her progressive loss, she started learning braille 6 months before the study. In classrooms, Zoe accessed print through: (a) text-to-speech features built into her computer programs; (b) Jupiter, which magnified printed paper to 90-point font; (c) touchscreen Chromebook or iPad to magnify digital text; and (d) beginning level braille for simple homework sheets.
Zoe understood how to use her assistive devices, yet she often chose not to and instead accessed most content primarily through listening. Her interview reflects the social tension many students with VI experience. When asked how she felt about using vision-specific tools such as the video magnifier, Zoe said “At first, I was really embarrassed, especially when I moved here mid-year, ‘cause no one have seen that before . . .” Although she shared that her classmates eventually got used to seeing her devices, and she felt less embarrassed over time, Zoe still frequently avoided using her devices when she needed them. Her TVI reported concerns about how Zoe accessed her tools:
I wish that she would use the tools that are available to her on a consistent basis. I wish she would use them unprompted . . . . I would really love to see her take full ownership of learning and accessibility . . . . It is self-advocacy.
Zoe’s case highlights the ongoing tension between relying on assistive tools that provide optimal access and wanting to fit in by not appearing different from peers. Even while using mainstream devices, Zoe often got frustrated if the access was not seamless. While working on a project using her computer, Zoe got frustrated when the digital document froze. She said, “I want to throw this computer outside.”
During the observation of Zoe in her general education classes, she actively participated in group projects, presentations, partner activities, and independent tasks using her Chromebook, iPad, and braille support, often zooming in on screens or voice-typing to access digital materials. Despite facing challenges such as fatigue and technology glitches, Zoe demonstrated engagement, problem-solving, and social interaction while completing assignments, presenting her research, and navigating assessments with support from her braillist and teachers.
In an ideal world, classroom activities would not have been visually exhausting for Zoe. She would use her video magnifier to follow classroom instructions and advocate for her visual needs. But all the failures of access were not only due to Zoe’s lack of self-advocacy skills. Other factors beyond her control caused Zoe to be dependent on her peers and adults. The use of inaccessible online learning platforms, websites, and assessments was highly frustrating for a student like Zoe, who wanted to be no different from her peers.
Ella, fearless shy girl
Ella is a sweet and shy girl who strives to blend in and not stand out among her peers. Ella enjoys crafts with her sisters, reading, collecting fidgets, drawing, and dogs. Her favorite subjects are Art, Social Studies, and Science.
Ella was referred to special education in fifth grade due to a VI caused by Staphylococcal Blepharitis, a bacterial infection that led to corneal ulcers and significant vision loss. Ella’s distance visual acuity was 10/400 (equivalent to 20/800), meaning she needed to be within three feet to see faces clearly. She uses a portable video magnifier called the CloverBook for near and distant viewing. Ella requires a 36-point font or an 18-point font with reverse contrast. She dislikes enlarged worksheets or using her CloverBook, as she does not want to use tools that are different from her peers. In discussing Ella’s ability to access her classroom content, her Math teacher reported, “I wonder how much of her difficulties come from accessibility, versus like not understanding the material.”
Ella’s IEP included accommodations such as thick markers, enlarged materials, proper lighting, preferential seating, and audiobooks. Much of the classwork presented to Ella, or many class tests, was paper-based. It is interesting to note that in some of Ella’s classes, all the work was created digitally and then printed out on paper for students to complete. During the observation of Ella’s social studies class, she listened to the teacher’s explanation of sample presentation slides without using her distant camera device, missing much of the visual content presented by her teacher. When working individually on her presentation, Ella actively engaged with her computer, asked the teacher clarifying questions, and focused on completing the slides independently.
In an ideal world, Ella would have the same level of engagement in whole-group instructions and activities as she had for independent activities. Ella would not feel different when she was using tools that met her needs. Accessing distant targets was the most challenging for Ella. Given both her difficulty with distant viewing and her preference to avoid appearing different from her peers, Ella’s case illustrates a common tension that exists for students with VI: balancing the use of assistive devices that provide optimal access with a desire to fit in by using the same mainstream devices as their peers. For Ella, whose preference was not to appear different, mainstream tools such as an iPad or touchscreen computer offered a strong compromise, providing her with consistent access while minimizing the visibility of her accommodations.
Findings of the cross-case analysis
Theme 1: technology is imperative in general education classrooms
All participants agreed that technology is “imperative” for access in general education classrooms. According to Zoe’s LA teacher, technology “opens up more possibilities to reach all the kids where they are at and what they need.” The most common mainstream technologies used in all general education classrooms were computers. Students with VI preferred using mainstream tools over VI-specific devices because they felt less different and more included. In her interview, Ella’s TVI said, “I feel like the isolation comes in if the technology is different than what others are using. I feel like, if it’s the same, then it’s just there, just included a lot better.” The built-in accessibility features that were most commonly used by all students were magnification, text-to-speech, and speech-to-text. Zoe described her experience with mainstream accessibility tools as: “Speech-to-text is really helpful for me.” At any given time in general education classes, students had access to several devices that they could choose from to meet their needs. The biggest advantage of having choices was that it gave students more practice in using the preferred method of access. Luke had practiced using his BNT to access Google Docs in all his general education classes. “When things are accessible, I can do the learning at the same speed as everybody else.”
Theme 2: frustrations with accessibility issues
All three students, Luke, Zoe, and Ella, did not have complete access to whole-group instructions involving the smartboard or whiteboard. On Luke’s access to the smart board, his TVI said: “There is just not a way to braille all of that . . . every single day.” The majority of the videos used in classrooms were not audio-described. Not having access to instructional videos or presentations could make the student passive in their learning. Ella’s TVI described Ella as “a very passive learner. She has really learned that she can get by just sitting there and then keep moving through the system. Unfortunately, it is really hurting her.” Activities that involved inaccessible visuals were frustrating and time-consuming for students with VI. Luke said that it was very hard for him when teachers asked him to match pictures to words when the pictures were not described. All three of the students in this multiple case study shared that their eyes got very tired after prolonged use of vision. Ella’s TVI reported that some online assessments were visually taxing for Ella. “They are very visually fatiguing . . . so that’s just going to wear her out.” None of the participants had any knowledge about accessibility laws beyond IDEA and the IEP. Regarding her knowledge about accessibility laws in K–12 schools, Zoe’s TVI pointed out that
I think a lot of people just don’t know where to even go. . . . I’m thinking if someone told me you have to make your website accessible . . . would I know who to reach out to in my district?
Theme 3: it is a learning curve for general education teachers to support students with VI
All three general education teachers who were interviewed for this study had limited experience with students with VI. All three general education teachers depended on their TVIs to understand the accommodations that needed to be implemented in their classrooms. Zoe’s LA teacher shared, “It just, it’s an important relationship. . .” Lack of collaboration led to inaccessible materials. For example, Ella’s Science teacher printed out a magnified version of a test he created in Google Docs. If he had collaborated with Ella’s TVI, he would have known the digital format of the test would be more accessible to Ella as opposed to a magnified printed version. All general education teachers were willing to adapt and accommodate to support the inclusion of students with VI in their classes. Zoe’s LA teacher said that she learned from her students: “I am not a digital native. . . . So, I love what students bring to me . . .” Overall, general education teachers were willing to be trained on access methods that met the needs of their students. Luke’s LA teacher felt that she was still learning about the efficient use of technology to help support Luke in her class:
And so every time I have a student that has something that I’ve never taught before, it’s a learning curve . . . and like I get to push myself as a teacher to make sure that I’m meeting the needs of my students.
Theme 4: TVIs are frequently the primary problem-solvers with access technology
All three TVIs in the study are passionate about helping their students have full access to their learning. Luke’s TVI loved to see her students grow: “I love seeing my students grow, and especially love seeing when they do things that I didn’t initially think they could do on their own.” Despite intentions to enhance accessibility through technology, TVIs felt that they were often left to independently identify solutions. In her demographic form, Ella’s TVI wrote, “My challenge is simply knowing what is out there for students. Once I obtain the device, I am pretty good at figuring it out and getting it to student’s hands.” Both Luke’s and Ella’s TVIs completed their TVI certification program in another state. Both of them reported that they had basic training on various VI-specific devices such as braille displays and screen readers. However, as the technologies had changed so dramatically, they had to do a lot of on-the-job training. One of the biggest struggles that TVIs faced was to help connect VI-specific devices to mainstream applications and programs. Zoe’s TVI had to call the American Printing House (APH), an organization that manufactures several VI-specific devices, three times to set up Chameleon (a type of braille display manufactured by APH). When there was minimal training or support for accessible technologies, TVIs found alternatives to support their students’ access. Luke’s TVI said that she used her one-on-one time with her students to explore technologies that built independence for them: “Definitely find what’s motivating to build independence for them and then spend that one-on-one time to build the skills there.” All the TVIs in this study indicated that some of the online assessments were challenging for their students with VI. Zoe’s TVI reported that it took Zoe multiple days to complete an assessment in iReady, an online testing program used in many school districts. Considering the explosion of technology used in classrooms and the minimal training that educators had received in access technologies, the TVIs in this study suggested the need for on-demand support to help them do their job better. Ella’s TVI expressed that the training she needed was more on “access” rather than “device” support:
I think it should be presented less about the device and more about access. So this kid needs to have an OCR for near-vision reading. So you know, this is what you could look at for this situation . . .
Discussion
Based on the experiences of Luke, Zoe, and Ella, one can infer that a universal design for learning (UDL) framework would have helped them access learning content more efficiently. Considering that all three students in this study were comfortable using mainstream technologies, it is important that these tools are accessible through auditory, visual, or tactile means and incorporate Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, including multiple modes of engagement, expression, and representation. Educators must evaluate whether tools include effective features in creating inclusive classroom environments for all students (U.S. Department of Education, 2024). Inaccessibility or inequities of access to “any part of the digital landscape in schools directly limits” students with VI access to information (Siu & Presley, 2019, p. 5).
Technologies like slides, documents, and videos were commonly used in all classrooms. While general education teachers used interactive digital programs to reach more students, they were unaware of issues affecting access to these programs for students with VI in their classes. This finding was similar to the results of the survey of companies that produced pre-college instructional software, which found that only 2 of the 19 companies were even aware of accessibility issues (Access Computing, 2023). Park et al. (2019), in their study to identify the needs and barriers that students with VI face in Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) platforms, found that the lack of alternate texts in non-texts or images led to students with VI not fully participating in the platform. Although the participants in this study were much younger, Luke’s experience with online platforms such as Schoology or websites with non-described images was the same. Similar to the findings by Bohnsack and Puhl (2014), poor accessibility of classroom activities led to frustration and disengagement of students with VI. According to Siu and Presley (2019), the use of inaccessible mainstream technology by general education teachers made it difficult for TVIs to adapt such materials to meet the access needs of their students.
One of the findings of this study suggested that students’ choice in using accessibility tools and features played a role in how they experienced their learning content. In her study, Hamlin (2021) explored strategies that were successful in increasing the use of assistive technologies in classrooms. One of the successful strategies found by the study was the self-advocacy of students with VI. For all three general education teachers in this study, it was a learning curve in understanding the accessibility needs of their students with VI in their classes. One of the barriers to including students with disabilities in technology-rich classrooms, as identified by Okolo and Diedrich (2014), was the lack of teacher knowledge about technologies that were accessible and meaningful for these students. According to Crossland et al. (2016), legal mandates motivated improvements in accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Participants in this study were not aware of other laws and regulations concerning accessibility, including the Assistive Technology (AT) Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
All three TVIs in this study expressed that they were left alone to explore technology-related solutions for their students. Results of the two surveys completed in 2020 and 2021 suggested that 85% of TVIs reported having at least one student with an online accessibility issue (Rosenblum et al., 2020, 2021). The TVIs in this study reported that they had to seek out virtual learning communities to help them solve accessibility issues for their students with VI. Similarly, Siu (2015) found that a virtual community of practice helped in providing ongoing and on-demand teaching support for TVIs.
Recommendations for practice
Technology in general education classrooms can address the diverse needs of students with VI and improve accessibility. This study highlighted key strategies to enhance learning for students with VI in general education settings: (a) regular observations by educators, particularly TVIs, are essential to include strategies and content to meet the individual needs of students; (b) adopting universally accessible technologies aligned with Universal UDL principles at the outset to ensure more inclusive curricula for all students with and without disabilities; (c) ensuring all digital content is accessible, such as adding alternative text and using screen reader-friendly formats, can significantly enhance learning for students with VI; (d) training digital accessibility skills to not only pre-service and practicing special education teachers, but extending them to general education teachers will ensure inclusivity within schools; (e) teaching students digital skills for access to foster independence.
Limitations and future research
This study’s limitations include brief observations (two school days for each student), a single-state sample of three students with VI that cannot be generalized to all students with VI, and potential interview bias. Future research should examine students with VI across other grade levels, evaluate general education teacher preparation specifically related to training on accessibility, and explore ways to better support TVIs through mentorship, professional development, and digital literacy resources.
Conclusion
This multi-case qualitative study stressed the importance of accessible learning materials to create equity in schools. Researchers striving for equity should continue understanding the experiences of students with VI in general education classrooms in K–12 schools. Practitioners in the field of VI should hope to empower students with many digital skills and help create a more equitable, inclusive world for students like Luke, Zoe, and Ella!
Footnotes
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical considerations
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Northern Colorado (
