| Home | Site TOC | Site Search | Outreach | Newsletter Index |

Summer 2007 Table of Contents
Versión Español de este artículo (Spanish Version)

Using Move, Touch, Do! in the 21st Century

by Wendy Drezek, Teacher of the Visually Impaired, NEISD, San Antonio, TX

Abstract: The author of Move, Touch, Do! discusses some ways to incorporate changes in society and education, as well as experience gained using the curriculum for twenty years, to make the curriculum more useful in the context of current educational practice.

Keywords: infant education, infant development, infant curriculum, visually impaired infants, preschool education, preschool curriculum

Move, Touch, Do! (Drezek, 1995) was first compiled thirty years ago and field tested and edited for ten years. It was designed to provide: 1) familiarity with the content, skills and vocabulary of the early childhood, pre-kindergarten and kindergarten curricula; and 2) a cookbook or starting place for new teachers, teachers of the visually impaired who did not have infant background, and infant teachers who did not have a background in visual impairment. It was also designed to progressively teach and incorporate increasingly complex techniques. In the last twenty to thirty years, there have been many changes both in the education of infants and in the field of visual impairment. In addition, I have learned as I have used it, and gradually adapted it in ways that I think make it more useful.

This list is intended to provide some thoughts about ways the basic framework can be useful today.

1. What would I do differently?
   1. Simplify and reduce materials and activities. I wrote the original units requiring explicitly highly structured lessons with multiple materials, activities, extensions and “reteaches”. I have found over the years that simpler, uncluttered, concrete, and enactive activities with lots to do, feel, and hear repetitively are far more engaging than elaborate lessons with multiple materials.

      For instance, when I teach “hat”, during Unit Time on the first day we explore feeling and trying on lots of hats which vary in sensory characteristics. I stress feeling the materials and parts of the hat, and play a kind of “peek-a-boo” game, putting hats on and off. I also emphasize the hat sign and symbols as well as the criterial features such as brim, band, and crown. Then in One-to-One Time, one group does hat play and finding a hat, while another group might match and identify a variety of hat pictures.

   2. Do more art. As with many of us, I used to belittle art activities as not meaningful for our population. Increasingly we live in a graphical interface environment, and I’ve learned that a rich art experience is a wonderful introduction and training opportunity for this new interface as well as tactile page training.

      We do lots of art activities for several reasons. First of all, art is a common activity in school as well as leisure settings and I want my students to feel comfortable with these activities. Secondly, art teaches important page skills which train for both visual and tactile literacy: edge, corner, scanning for and keeping track of information on a page. Third, art is the beginning of interpreting graphical representation.

   3. Have remarkable conversations that develop from the child’s topic and use hand-UNDER-hand to help the child safely move towards exploring the content world needed in school as a base for language and thinking by touching, moving and doing. I use Barbara Miles’ (Miles & Riggio, 1992), phrase—remarkable conversations—to mean that we must base our facilitation of both social interaction and communication on the child’s topics, that is to say, what the child wants to interact and communicate about. This respect for the child’s topics not only respects the dignity and integrity of the child, but also, in the long run, is less threatening and more meaningful, encouraging the child to take risks with new experiences. Using Miles’ hand-under-hand technique allows the child to approach and control the exploration.
   4. Work for the ability to generate new language with flexibility and novelty, stressing non-cued language initiated and maintained by the child. Over the years, I incorporated Ellyn Lucas-Arwood’s (1983) “pragmaticism” theory, which argues that both our assessment and instruction essentially provide an adult framework for language, rather than developing language which emerges spontaneously to effect the environment. Much of both assessment and instruction still relies on imitation or choice-making, rather than placing children in situations requiring action using their own communication to create a change. For instance, frequently we provide a set of choices to act as requests, essentially providing the language to the children. What we want is to lead children to communicate requests, as in “What do you want?”, rather than “Do you want a cookie?”
   5. Look at new materials—e.g. CVI/FVE mats, Tactile Connections (Conlin & Jahnel, 2005), Setting the Stage (Poppe, 2004), Pre-Feeding Skills (Evans & Klein, 1987). These American Printing House materials <www.aph.org> are examples of the many new programs, materials, and media available for our students. CVI/FVE mats have served as a nice starting place for visual interest and reaching to act on the environment, and assessment of beginning interest on the lightbox. Tactile Connections (Conlin & Jahnel, 2005) gives us all a common tactile symbol vocabulary. Setting the Stage (Poppe, 2004) provides materials to move from objects through two levels of tactile representation <www. aph.org>. APH and National Braille Press (e.g.Curran, 1994, Keller & Rubin, 2007) also produce a variety of tactile early learning books to introduce emergent braille literacy to children and parents.
   6. Gentle your discipline (See Gentle Discipline on my website <http://tw.neisd.net/webpages/wdreze/>. We want to use our own model and “gentling” to create a positive and emotionally secure environment which fosters positive behavior. Gentling involves using our actions—low, slow, soft speech and movement—to minimize reactivity and provide a nonverbal message conveying calm, relaxation, and safety.
2. How do we deal with TEKS and accountability? We need to give the children the experiential base of the content that is assumed in the state curriculum.

   Traditionally, special education has been skill centered. IEPs and IFSPs list skills. Skills are tools, but many skills lists are lists of benchmarks, which may not be functionally important. Benchmarks are easily observable items, generally from tests. Unfortunately, this approach neglects both process and content. When we sat isolated in special education classrooms, skills might have made more sense, but now our children are tested on curriculum content. If our children are going to be able to handle grade level content progressively through school, they need to have an experience base of the content as infants.

   1. Matrixteks gives you an overview which correlates the curriculum with TEKS (email <wdreze @ neisd.net>, or <http://tw.neisd.net/webpages/wdreze/resources.cfm>).
   2. There are temporary 0-4 TEKS called Starting Blocks [Education Service Center 20 (ESC 20)] which segue into the Pre-kindergarten Guidelines [Texas Education Agency (TEA)].
   3. Literacy is complex, involving book and page and book skills, picture interpretation, narration, rhyme and phonics, recalling details, causal relations and sequences, making multiple statements on multiple topics, and whatever code or symbol system is used (see Move, Touch, Read, <www.tsbvi.edu/Education/move-touch-read.htm>). It also involves the ability to produce and consume text for a variety of purposes. It presupposes social skills such as initiating and maintaining interaction and communication, and physical skills such as locating, opening and finding relevant material in books, as well as tactual training. Braille teachers are reading teachers and need to understand all the prerequisites and curricular relationships of literacy; braille literacy is not just code. Reading is, after all, about language, cognition and social interaction. There are excellent materials for evaluating learning media (e.g. Koenig & Holbrook, 1995).
   4. Language is the base of all academics. For example, math is really a narrative. “I have four and I need to remove three; how many are left?” is subtraction. To do any other academics children must be able to identify the reference and topics—language skills.
3. What is the role of technology?
   1. There are new software and interfaces such as the HATCH computer <www.computersforkids.com> and Intellitacktiles Pre-Braille software for infants and toddlers <www. aph.org>. Programs have more options for differentiation in stimuli characteristics and response mode.
   2. Work on page skills is more essential than ever in an increasingly graphical interface and visual search world—Intellitools (http://www.intellitools.com/), HATCH and Touchwindows (http://www.broderbund.com/products/364249.jsp) all provide training for this webpage based interface.
4. How do we incorporate sensitivity to differences in our diverse society? We are sensitive to issues of gender, ethnicity/race/language, religion, and personal choice as our society becomes more diverse in many ways. Respect for this diversity needs to be infused into the curriculum, with books, music, foods, celebrations, role descriptions and terminology.
5. What have we learned about cortical visual issues? We are much more aware of the complexity and neuroscience of cortical visual impairment, and the complexity of functional vision in general, and how to assess and remediate in these areas (Langley 1998, Levack, 1994). There are excellent resources available to assist with programming in this area, e.g. Dr. Christine Roman’s intervention program (Lueck, 2005), online CVI course <http://www.aerbvi.org>, and information <www.aph.org>.
6. What is my current philosophy of infant education for our population? I am more TEKS and future focused, wanting my children to be comfortable in whatever non-adapted environments they may discover. I have come to believe that the starting point for infant intervention must be the emotional comfort of both families and children. At the same time, we want to be able to facilitate change and progress in children—this is always a delicate balancing act. I have also learned to, when in doubt, go simple and safe both in my interaction and in my instructional choices. Most of all, I have learned to respect the slow accretion of change, and not to pine after fast and flashy results!

References

Blaha, R. (2001). Calendars for Students with Multiple Impairments Including Deaf Blilndness. Austin, TX: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.

Clarke, K. L. (2004). Hold Everything. Colulmbus, OH: Ohio Center for the Deafblind Education.

Conlin, K. & Jahnel, K. (2005). Tactile Connections. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.

Curran, E. P. (1994). Just Enough to Know Better. Boston, MA: National Braille Press.

Drezek, W. (1995). Move, Touch, Do! Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.

Evans, S. & Dunn Klein, M. (1987). Prefeeding Skills. Tucson, AZ: Therapy SkillBuilders.

Hagood, L. (1997). Communication: A Guide for Teaching Students With Visual and Multiple Impairments. Austin, TX: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.

Harrell, L. (2002). Teaching Touch. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.

Holbrook, M. C., Croft, J. & Koenig, A.J. (2005). Project SLATE. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.

Keller, S. & Goldberg, I. (2000). Humpty Dumpty and Other Touching Rhymes. Boston, MA: National Braille Press National Braille Press.

Koenig, A. & Holbrook M.C. (1995). Learning Media Assessment. Austin, TX: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.

Langley, M. (1998). ISAVE. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.

Levack, N. (1994). Low Vision. Austin, TX: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.

Lucas, E. (1980). Semantic and Pragmatic Language Disorders: Assessment and Remediation. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Lucas-Arwood. E. (1983). Pragmaticism: Theory and Application. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Lueck, A. & Dennison, E. M., (Eds) (2005). Proceedings of the Summit on Cerebral/Cortical Visual Impairment: Educational, Family, and Medical Perspectives, April 30, 2005. New York, NY: American Foundation for the Blind.

Luecke, A., Chen D. & Kekelis, L. (1997). Developmental Guidelines. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.

Miles, B. and Riggio, M. (Eds) (1999). Remarkable Conversations. Watertown, MA: Perkins School for the Blind.

Poppe, K. (2004). Setting the Stage for Tactile Understanding. Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.

Smith, M. & Levack, N. (1996). Teaching Students With Visual and Multiple Impairments: A Resource Guide. Austin, TX: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.

Starting Blocks: An Instructional Guide for Teachers of Three and Four-Year-Olds Children. (2000). San Antonio, TX: Region 20 Education Service Center, Region 20.

Materials from American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, Kentucky

Swirly Mat Sets, Light Box and Materials Levels 1-3, Let’s See: Vision Development Activities Kit, IntelliTactiles Pre-Braille Concepts, On the Way to Literacy: Early Experiences for Visually Impaired Children, Moving Ahead Series, Alphabet Scramble Storybook, Tactile Treasures: Math and Language Concepts for Young Children with Visual Impairments, Rolling Into Place, Lots of Dots.

| Summer 2007 Table of Contents | Send E-Mail to Editor |

Please complete the comment form or send comments and suggestions to Webmaster

Last Revision: October 4, 2007