The Relationship of Personnel

Preparation to the Competence

of Teachers of Students with Visual
Impairments in Turkey
Ayşe Dolunay Kesiktaş and Ayşe Gonul Akcamete
Abstract: The study reported in this article sought to determine the degree to
which the professional standards for Turkish teachers of students with visual
impairments were addressed during preservice training and the degree to which
in-service teachers of visual impairments implemented these professional stan-
dards. The results of the nationwide survey showed that teachers faced problems
in both attaining and implementing certain important knowledge and skill areas
for teaching students with visual impairments.

The past decade has seen wide public in-
terest in teacher education issues in devel-
oped countries. This interest has led author-
ities to improve teacher education by
linking the quality of teachers and profes-
sional development with performance stan-
dards that define the knowledge and skills
that are needed to become a qualified
teacher (Brownell, Rosenberg, Sindelar, &
Deutsch Smith, 2004). Countries such as
Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and
the United States have developed national
professional standards in collaboration with
national authorities (Teacher Training
Agency, 2003; Tuning Educational Struc-
tures in Europe, 2004; Turkish Education
Association, 2009). Although special edu-
cation was not identified in these endeavors
(Brownell et al., 2004), professional educa-
tion standards now exist in that field as well.
Special education teachers must master a
variety of skills prior to entering the field to
establish a knowledge base from which to
draw when faced with challenges. This is
why personnel preparation programs in
special education are the first and per-
haps the most important step in ensur-
ing teachers’ competence as measured
by professional standards that are endorsed
by national authorities (Brownell, Ross,
Colon, & McCallum, 2005; Pogrund &
Wibbenmeyer, 2008; Turkish Ministry of
Education, 2008).
According to Brownell and colleagues
(2005), little evidence exists on the effec-
tiveness of personnel preparation pro-
grams in special education. This also
holds true for the field of visual impair-
ment, with its unique roles and responsi-
bilities required of teachers of students
with visual impairments (Spungin & Fer-
rell, 2007). In several countries, such as
the United States and United Kingdom,
professional standards have been ad-
dressed and, together with empirical evi-
dence, have helped shape personnel prep-
aration programs. In the United States,
several efforts have been made to identify

108 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 ©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
the roles and responsibilities of teachers
of students with visual impairments and
the professional standards that clearly de-
fine them. For example, in their position
paper, Spungin and Ferrell (2007) identi-
fied the roles that a teacher of students
with visual impairments is required to
play, including assessment, educational
and instructional strategies, guidance and
counseling, administration and supervi-
sion, and school-community relations. A
position paper by Erin, Holbrook,
Sanspree, and Swallow (2006) stated that
teachers of students with visual impair-
ments need to acquire skills that are spe-
cific to the field of visual impairment,
such as braille, the use of optical and
nonoptical devices, and orientation and
mobility. In 2003, the Council for Excep-
tional Children (CEC) established profes-
sional standards for teachers of students
with visual impairments, with 10 profes-
sional standards for first-year teachers
(CEC, 2009). These standards are being
used by the National Council for Accred-
itation of Teacher Education to accredit
programs in visual impairment (Pogrund
& Wibbenmeyer, 2008).
Pogrund and Wibbenmeyer (2008)
stated that a qualified teacher of students
with visual impairments is one who has
taken essential courses and has had super-
vised practicum experiences that lead to
effective teaching practices. Erin and col-
leagues (2006) claimed that one criterion
that an agency has to look for when re-
cruiting teachers of students with visual
impairments is that the candidate has met
the standards established by such author-
ities as the CEC. Therefore, professional
standards can be said to be critical in
determining the quality of a teacher of
students with visual impairments, and the
©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
role of preservice personnel preparation
programs should be investigated.
In Turkey, professional standards for
teachers have recently been developed by
the Turkish Ministry of Education in col-
laboration with universities, and these
standards have begun to be taken into
account in preservice and in-service train-
ing programs. Beginning in 2002, the
project addressed the generic competen-
cies of the teaching profession and the
subject-matter competencies for 16 disci-
plines, including special education. The
subject-matter competencies for special ed-
ucation were divided into three categories
according to students’ type of disability (vi-
sual impairment, hearing impairment, and
intellectual disability), and the committee
developed several performance indicators
for each competence. These performance
indicators were observable behaviors of
teachers that could be used as evidence for
the quality of teachers (Turkish Education
Association, 2009; Turkish Ministry of Ed-
ucation, 2008, 2010).
This attempt by the Turkish Ministry of
Education can be considered an important
step in raising the quality of the teaching
workforce in the field of visual impair-
ment. However, no study to date has
sought to discover the relationship of
these performance indicators to the per-
sonnel training programs that these teach-
ers attended. Swallow (1990) claimed that
the field of visual impairment has to ad-
dress questions concerning the quality of
instruction at universities and the level of
teaching competence of teachers of stu-
dents with visual impairments. Therefore,
there seems to be a need to investigate the
degree to which personnel preparation
programs fulfill the professional stan-
dards for teachers of students with visual
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 109
impairments established by authorities.
Since the development of these profes-
sional standards began long before 2008,
teachers of students with visual impair-
ments who graduated before then know
about these standards, and their views
should also be examined. Apart from the
degree of attainment of those standards
during preservice training, the degree to
which teachers of students with visual
impairments can practice them in their
work should also be sought to gain a
general understanding of the issues in
Turkey. Thus, the purpose of the study
presented here was to determine the de-
gree to which the professional standards
for teachers of students with visual im-
pairments that were determined by the
Turkish Ministry of Education have been
attained during preservice training and
the degree to which teachers of students
with visual impairments practice these
professional standards in their everyday
work. In addition, since the performance
indicators developed by the Turkish Minis-
try of Education were classified by level,
and some were the responsibility of the
undergraduate program, the study also in-
vestigated the possible differences in the
attainment of the skills across levels. The
research questions posed were as follows:
1. How do teachers rate the perfor-
mance indicators for teachers of
students with visual impairments
that were developed by the Turkish
Ministry of Education according to
the degree of attainment in the pre-
service program and the degree of
implementation?
2. Do the highest- and lowest-ranked
performance indicators differ accord-
ing to the levels of performance in-
110 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011
dicators (basic, medium, or ad-
vanced) determined by the Turkish
Ministry of Education?
3. What additional knowledge or skill
areas do the teachers of students with
visual impairments believe should
have been covered in greater detail
during their preservice training?
Methods
INSTRUMENTATION
The survey used in the study consisted of
three sections. The first section, which we
developed, included questions on demo-
graphic characteristics. The second sec-
tion included 80 performance indicators
pertaining to professional standards for
teachers of students with visual impair-
ments, developed by the Turkish Ministry
of Education (2008). This professional
standards section was divided into five
domains: communication and social
skills; modifying the program; collabora-
tion with the school, family, and other
professionals; behavioral management;
and getting involved in professional de-
velopment activities.
The performance indicators under these
standards were also grouped according to
level: Level 1 ⫽ basic, Level 2 ⫽ me-
dium, and Level 3 ⫽ advanced. Basic-
level performance indicators are the basic
knowledge, skills, and attributes of the
teaching profession and are considered to
be the general responsibility of preservice
programs. In other words, all first-year
teachers are expected to possess these be-
haviors. Medium-level knowledge and
skills are behaviors that are developed
through experience in the field and in-
clude using various strategies and attend-
ing to the needs and preferences of
©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
individual students during teaching. Table 1
The demographic characteristics of the
Advanced-level behaviors are behaviors participants.
that build on Level 2 behaviors; teachers
Variable n %
who have reached this level of perfor-
mance have the capacity to make original Agea
contributions to the field (Turkish Minis- 22-29 83 37.1
30-39 125 55.8
try of Education, 2008).
40 and over 13 5.8
The items in this section were filled Missing 3 1.3
according to two criteria. The first, placed Gender
on the left column of the item, was the Male 82 36.6
degree of attainment, which could be de- Female 135 60.3
Missing 7 3.1
fined as “the degree to which that specific Educational level
knowledge or skill was covered during Bachelor’s 214 95.5
preservice training,” and the second, Master’s 10 4.5
placed on the right column of the item, Years of work (with students
with visual impairments)b
was the degree of implementation, which 0-5 115 51.3
is “the degree to which the respondent is More than 5 105 46.9
able to implement that knowledge or Missing 4 1.8
skill.” Both columns were scored on a Years of work (in total)c
0-5 85 37.9
5-point Likert-type scale (1 ⫽ never, 2 ⫽
More than 5 135 60.3
rarely, 3 ⫽ average, 4 ⫽ mostly, and 5 ⫽ Missing 4 1.8
totally). The last section included an a
X ⫽ 31.43, SD ⫽ 4.84, range: 22-46.
open-ended question for which the partic- b
X ⫽ 6.30, SD ⫽ 4.58, range: 0-17.
ipants were to write additional knowledge
c
X ⫽ 8.00, SD ⫽ 4.57, range: 0-18.
or skill areas that they believed should
have been covered in greater detail in the teachers were graduates of one university
preservice program. with an undergraduate program for teach-
ers of students with visual impairments in
PARTICIPANTS AND DATA ANALYSIS Ankara, the capital of Turkey. This per-
The survey and the cover letter (which sonnel preparation program is the only
included the aim of the study and a state- undergraduate and graduate program for
ment regarding informed consent of the teachers of students with visual impair-
participants), which were approved by the ments in Turkey. The names of the par-
Educational Research and Development ticipants were not taken, to protect their
Directorate of the Ministry of National anonymity. Of the 284 surveys that
Education, were mailed by the Ministry were mailed, 254 were returned, 224 of
of Education in fall 2009 to 284 teachers which were suitable for analysis, result-
of students with visual impairments who ing in a 78% return rate. The demo-
were working in 1 of the 16 schools for graphic characteristics of the partici-
students who are visually impaired or the pants are presented in Table 1. As Table
government-run Research and Rehabilita- 1 shows, the participants were a fairly
tion Centers in the urban and rural regions young group of teachers, slightly more
of 60 cities throughout Turkey. All the than half of whom had limited work

©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 111
experience in the field of visual impair-
ment and most of whom did not have
graduate degrees.
The demographic variables in Section 1
and all the items in Section 2 were entered
and analyzed in the Statistical Package
for the Social Services, version 13.0 for
Windows. Descriptive statistics were
used to examine the participants’ re-
sponses to the performance indicators in
Section 2. The open-ended question in
Section 3 was content analyzed.
Results
TEACHERS’ RATINGS
OF THE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Table 2 shows the ratings and rankings of
all the performance indicators and profes-
sional standards according to the degree
of attainment and the degree of imple-
mentation. As the table shows, only 3
items were rated higher than 4.00 in terms
of degree of attainment. Two of these
items were in the modifying the program
domain, and one was in the behavioral
management domain. Fifty-nine items
were rated between 3.00 and 4.00, and 18
were rated lower than 3.00. None of the
items was rated higher than 4.00 for de-
gree of implementation, 17 were rated
lower than 3.00, and the remaining 63
were rated between 3.00 and 4.00. Ac-
cordingly, the ratings for the five stan-
dards were generally between 3.00 and
4.00, with the exception of those in the
Communication and Social Skills do-
main, which had a mean score of 2.98 for
degree of implementation.
According to Table 2, the teachers be-
lieved that the preservice program was
more beneficial for professional skills re-
lated to modifying the program and be-
112 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011
havioral management, while skills related
to teaching communication and social
skills, collaborating with others, and get-
ting involved in professional develop-
ment activities were considered to be ac-
quired less often during preservice
training. Similarly, the teachers consid-
ered themselves to practice the two high-
est ranked standards for degree of attain-
ment (modifying the program and
behavioral management), with behavioral
management ranked the first. However,
although they rated the professional de-
velopment activity standard the last for
attainment, the participants considered
themselves to practice those skills more
often than they did teaching communica-
tion and social skills and collaborating
with others. Also, the participants’ ratings
showed that the teachers were much less
able to practice teaching communication
and social skills with students with visual
impairments (ranked third for degree of
attainment) than the other standards. Last,
all domains except getting involved in
professional development activities re-
ceived higher ratings for degree of attain-
ment than for degree of implementation.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS RANKED
THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST
Beside the rankings for the performance
indicators and standards, a further look at
individual items according to level was nec-
essary to identify the role of the preservice
program in providing the necessary knowl-
edge and skills to preservice teachers. Table
2 shows the rankings of all performance
indicators according to degree of attainment
and implementation. In this section, the five
highest and lowest rated performance indi-
cators for degree of attainment were exam-
ined to see whether there was an emerging
©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Table 2
Participants’ ratings and rankings for the standards and the performance indicators.
Standards Level DA DI

1. Communication and social skills — 3.18 2.98

(3) (5)
Create environments to teach social skills to students with visual impairments 1 3.47a 3.13
(34)b (55)
Design activities to teach social skills to students with visual impairments 1 3.45 3.23
(36) (45)
Design activities that provide access to incidental social skill learning
experiences 1 3.28 3.06
(45) (59)
Guide teachers in creating various social opportunities for students who have
acquired social skills 2 3.19 3.00
(50) (63)
Guide teachers and classmates in teaching communication and social skills to
students with visual impairments via peer tutoring 2 3.36 3.17
(41) (52)
Give seminars to school administrators and teachers on teaching social skills to
students with visual impairments 3 2.67 2.49
(77) (78)
Create environments that increase the social acceptance of students with visual
impairments 1 3.11 2.95
(58) (65)
Arrange activities to help peers become aware of visual impairment and its
impact on people with visual impairments 1 3.27 3.03
(46) (60)
Guide the school staff and peers in increasing the social acceptance of students
with visual impairments 2 3.24 3.16
(47) (53)
Design activities to help the school staff and peers become aware that students
with visual impairments can overcome issues, such as orientation and mobility
and reading braille with physical accommodations in the learning environment 2 3.45 3.35
(35) (36)
Provide students with positive role models, such as inviting to the classroom or
visiting a person with visual impairments who has succeeded in areas like
business, sports, or arts 3 2.85 2.63
(72) (75)
Guide administrators, teachers, and families in collaborating with non-
governmental organizations on the social acceptance of students with visual
impairments 3 2.90 2.87
(67) (70)
2. Modifying the program — 3.65 3.33
(1) (2)
Make accommodations in the individualized lesson plans for students with
visual impairments 1 4.04 3.62
(2) (10)
Plan with other teachers activities that support the effective use of learning
materials and class participation of students with visual impairments 1 3.83 3.46
(6) (22)
Teach mobility skills to students with visual impairments 1 4.11 3.76
(1) (4)

(cont.)

©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 113
Table 2
(cont.)
Standards Level DA DI

Guide teachers in implementing individualized lesson plans 2 3.73 3.35

(12) (34)
Guide teachers in making accommodations in visual materials for students with
visual impairments 2 3.77 3.39
(10) (30)
Guide teachers in teaching mobility skills 2 3.78 3.38
(9) (32)
Prepare materials and demonstrate activities to inform teachers about
multisensory teaching techniques 3 3.44 2.93
(37) (68)
Collaborate with other teachers in planning Individualized Education Programs
(IEPs) for students with exceptionalities 3 3.56 3.35
(29) (35)
Prepare materials for nonvisual assessment 1 3.70 3.28
(14) (41)
Do functional vision assessments to plan class- and schoolwide
accommodations 1 3.81 3.49
(7) (21)
Guide teachers in preparing nonvisual materials and conducting nonvisual
assessments 2 3.51 3.21
(32) (48)
Guide teachers in the learning media used by individual students according to
their functional vision 2 3.63 3.24
(21) (44)
Prepare materials and activities regarding nonvisual assessments 3 3.69 3.21
(16) (47)
Interpret medical reports during IEP planning 1 2.96 3.28
(63) (42)
Interpret educational reports during IEP planning 1 3.33 3.62
(43) (12)
Guide teachers and others in interpreting medical reports 2 2.85 3.14
(71) (54)
Guide teachers and others in interpreting educational reports 2 3.12 3.32
(57) (39)
Offer various teaching-learning methods according to levels of functional vision 3 3.56 3.54
(28) (18)
Arrange seminars for teachers, administrators, and families on the importance of
educational assessment on students’ performance 3 2.94 2.86
(65) (71)
3. Collaborating with the school, families, and other professionals — 3.17 3.13
(4) (4)
Inform administrators, teachers, and families on institutions serving people with
visual impairments and related laws and policies 1 2.95 2.94
(64) (67)
Inform administrators, teachers, and families about the information acquired
from other professionals and the needs of students with visual impairments 1 2.89 2.92
(68) (69)

(cont.)

114 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 ©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Table 2
(cont.)
Standards Level DA DI

Guide teachers, administrators, and families on interpreting the related laws and
policies 2 2.88 3.03
(69) (61)
Guide health referrals in accordance with the results of functional vision
assessments of students with visual impairments 2 3.14 3.40
(55) (29)
Arrange meetings, seminars, and family groups to tackle special education laws
and policies 3 2.69 2.76
(76) (73)
Arrange informative and practical events about functional vision 3 2.79 2.72
(74) (74)
Offer opinions and suggestions about the limitations in special education laws
to authorities 3 2.70 2.80
(75) (72)
Develop programs in daily living skills for families of students with visual
impairments 1 3.58 3.22
(27) (46)
Teach daily living skills to students with visual impairments in accordance with
their IEPs 1 3.87 3.55
(5) (16)
Guide the family in teaching their children daily living skills 2 3.72 3.63
(13) (9)
Inform the family on the individual differences in learning daily living skills in
people with visual impairments 2 3.69 3.61
(15) (13)
Arrange seminars and meetings about students who have difficulty in learning
daily living skills 3 3.14 2.94
(54) (66)
4. Behavioral management — 3.62 3.39
(2) (1)
Make accommodations that foster the active participation of students with
visual impairments in learning activities 1 3.87 3.72
(4) (5)
Guide teachers in making accommodations that foster the active participation of
students with visual impairments in learning activities 1 3.59 3.39
(25) (31)
Make accommodations to foster independent study for students with visual
impairments 1 3.75 3.59
(11) (14)
Design learning environments that foster the active participation of students with
and without visual impairments 2 3.61 3.44
(23) (25)
Guide teachers in the necessary accommodations for the active participation of
students with visual impairments in learning activities 2 3.51 3.32
(31) (38)
Guide teachers and families in fostering the independent study of students with
visual impairments 2 3.51 3.42
(30) (27)

(cont.)

©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 115
Table 2
(cont.)
Standards Level DA DI

Inform teachers, administrators, and families about the importance of classroom

accommodations on the learning experiences of all students 3 3.38 3.09
(40) (56)
Teach behaviors that are alternative to blindisms 1 3.79 3.54
(8) (17)
Develop a behavioral modification plan to decrease negative behavior 1 4.02 3.50
(3) (19)
Arrange activities for teachers, administrators, and families to decrease
blindisms and use behavioral management techniques 2 3.61 3.18
(22) (50)
Guide teachers in planning and implementing techniques related to increasing
positive behaviors 2 3.63 3.20
(20) (49)
Guide teachers in decreasing negative behavior, increasing positive behavior,
and generalizing positive behaviors for all students 3 3.66 3.25
(18) (43)
5. Getting involved in professional development activities — 3.15 3.27
(5) (3)
Evaluate one’s professional competence 1 3.13 3.37
(56) (33)
Keep records regarding one’s professional competence 1 2.93 2.96
(66) (64)
Do objective self-evaluations regarding professional competence 2 3.21 3.41
(48) (28)
Identify one’s professional needs in light of colleagues’ opinions and criticisms 2 3.14 3.45
(53) (24)
Consider the opinions of parents, students, colleagues, administrators, and
other related professionals in identifying one’s professional competence 3 3.18 3.50
(51) (20)
Be willing to keep track of related literature 1 3.39 3.56
(39) (15)
Keep track of events in the field 1 3.48 3.62
(33) (11)
Prepare an individualized professional development plan 1 3.00 3.09
(62) (57)
Improve oneself in other areas of special education 2 3.29 3.44
(44) (26)
Act sensitively toward malpractice in the field 2 3.68 3.83
(17) (1)
Use technology in planning, implementation, and evaluation 2 3.60 3.78
(24) (2)
Attend conferences, seminars, and meetings on special education 2 3.35 3.30
(42) (40)
Keep track of trends in special education laws and policies 2 3.39 3.71
(38) (6)
Arrange and share events related to special education 3 3.06 3.08
(61) (58)

(cont.)

116 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 ©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Table 2
(cont.)
Standards Level DA DI

Participate in conferences, seminars, and other professional meetings with a

poster or an oral presentation 3 2.51 2.51
(79) (77)
Search resources and materials on special education and form an archive 3 3.10 3.18
(59) (51)
Do academic work on at least one area of special education 3 2.83 2.55
(73) (76)
Be proficient in at least one foreign language 3 2.26 2.18
(80) (80)
Offer solutions to problems faced in the operation of laws 3 2.85 3.02
(70) (62)
Be aware of the need for scientific research methods and techniques in the field
of special education 1 3.63 3.77
(19) (3)
Benefit from scientific research methods and techniques in one’s research
related to professional development 2 3.58 3.66
(26) (7)
Do scientific research in the field of special education 3 2.66 2.42
(78) (79)
Share with others one’s opinions on the importance of information technologies
for the individual and the society 1 3.19 3.33
(49) (37)
Use search engines, websites and databases to reach and share information 2 3.17 3.66
(52) (8)
Use information technologies to communicate and collaborate with students,
colleagues, administrators, families, and other related professionals 3 3.08 3.46
(60) (23)

Note: Level ⫽ level of the performance indicator according to the Turkish Ministry of Education, DA ⫽
degree of attainment, and DI ⫽ degree of implementation.
a
Mean on the 5-point Likert scale.
b
Ranking out of all the performance indicators.

pattern according to level. The results
are displayed in Table 3. According to
these results, the five highest-ranked
performance indicators were Level 1
(basic), and the five lowest ranked were
Level 3 (advanced) performance indica-
tors. Skills that the teachers thought
were acquired the most during preser-
vice training were skills related to
working directly with students, while
skills that were related to one’s profes-
sional development and arranging
events to inform related others were
ranked the least.
The highest and lowest rankings for the
performance indicators in terms of degree
of implementation were also analyzed to
gain an understanding of the teachers’
current levels of competence. The five
highest and lowest ratings for degree of
implementation are presented in Table 4.
According to these results, the teachers
considered themselves more competent in
skills related to working directly with stu-
dents (teaching mobility and making ac-
commodations in learning activities) and
in being sensitive to malpractice, being
aware of the research methods used in the

©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 117
Table 3
The highest- and lowest-ranked performance indicators for degree of attainment.
Performance indicator DA Level Standarda

Highest
Teach mobility skills to students with visual impairments 4.11 1 2
Make accommodations in the individualized lesson plans for students
with visual impairments 4.04 1 2
Develop a behavioral modification plan to decrease negative behavior 4.02 1 4
Make accommodations that foster the active participation of students
with visual impairments in learning activities 3.87 1 4
Teach daily living skills to students with visual impairments in
accordance with their Individualized Education Programs 3.87 1 3
Lowest
Arrange meetings, seminars, and family groups to tackle special
education laws and policies 2.69 3 3
Give seminars to school administrators and teachers on teaching
social skills to students with visual impairments 2.67 3 1
Do scientific research in the field of special education 2.66 3 5
Participate in conferences, seminars, and other professional meetings
with a poster or an oral presentation 2.51 3 5
Be proficient in at least one foreign language 2.26 3 5

Note: DA ⫽ degree of attainment and Level ⫽ level of the performance indicator according to the Turk-
ish Ministry of Education.
a
The numbers under this column stand for (1) communication and social skills; (2) modifying the pro-
gram; (3) collaborating with the school, family, and other professionals; (4) behavioral management; and
(5) getting involved in professional development activities.

field, and using technology. As Table 4
shows, the two highest-ranked skills were
medium-level (Level 2) skills and points
to personal or working conditions or both
that support the professional development
of teachers in in-service training. On the
other hand, the lowest ranked items were
all advanced-level (Level 3) skills and
show that teachers may not have the op-
portunities to develop advanced skills in
their working years, especially ones that
are related to professional development.
TOPICS THAT SHOULD BE COVERED
IN THE PRESERVICE PROGRAM
The content analysis revealed 6 themes
with a total of 381 responses from 167
respondents, while 51 claimed that the
preservice program curriculum was very
satisfactory, and 6 left the question blank.
Themes emerging from this analysis were
knowledge and skills needed to work with
students with visual impairments (n ⫽
267); laws, policies, and practices in spe-
cial education (n ⫽ 33); early extensive
field experiences (n ⫽ 26); a global eval-
uation of the preservice program (n ⫽
18); and suggestions regarding the gen-
eral structure of the preservice program
(n ⫽ 33).
In-service training needs (n ⫽ 4), with
a total of 19 subthemes, included addi-
tional knowledge and skills related to var-
ious areas in the field of visual impair-
ment and special education in general.
The results showed that the participants
desired a variety of knowledge and skill
areas to be covered during preservice
training, especially in such areas as
working with students with multiple
disabilities and those with disabilities
other than visual impairment (n ⫽ 96);

118 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 ©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Table 4
The highest- and lowest-ranked performance indicators for degree of implementation.
Performance indicator DI Level Standarda

Highest
Act sensitively toward malpractice in the field 3.83 2 5
Use technology in planning, implementation, and evaluation 3.78 2 5
Be aware of the need for scientific research methods and techniques
in the field of special education 3.77 1 5
Teach mobility skills to students with visual impairments 3.76 1 2
Make accommodations that foster the active participation of students
with visual impairments in learning activities 3.72 1 4
Lowest
Do academic work on at least one area of special education 2.55 3 5
Participate in conferences, seminars, and other professional meetings
with a poster or an oral presentation 2.51 3 5
Give seminars to school administrators and teachers on teaching
social skills to students with visual impairments 2.49 3 1
Do scientific research in the field of special education 2.42 3 5
Be proficient in at least one foreign language 2.18 3 5

Note: DI ⫽ degree of implementation, and Level ⫽ level of the performance indicator according to the
Turkish Ministry of Education.
a
The numbers under this column stand for (1) communication and social skills; (2) modifying the pro-
gram; (3) collaborating with the school, family, and other professionals; (4) behavioral management; and
(5) getting involved in professional development activities.

teaching academic and nonacademic
skills to students with visual impair-
ments (n ⫽ 59); and skills specific to
certain work settings, such as the Reha-
bilitation and Counseling Centers (n ⫽
17). Twenty-six participants also be-
lieved that the preservice program
should provide early extensive field ex-
periences and that there should be a
coherence between preservice training
and working conditions.
Discussion
The findings of the study generally point
to the following conclusions. The ratings
of the 80 performance indicators showed
that only 3 items for degree of attainment
and none for degree of implementation
were higher than 4.00 on the 5-point Lik-
ert scale. This finding indicates that the
participants did not believe they acquired
the knowledge and skills for working
with students with visual impairments ef-
ficiently and that they were not able to
practice these knowledge and skills effec-
tively in the field. A further look at the
rankings of the five professional stan-
dards showed that most were rated near
average, with none rated higher than 4.00.
The degree of attainment and degree of
implementation were the highest for
modifying the program and behavioral
management, showing a consistency
across the two criteria. This finding
means that the participants were better pre-
pared for these standards and were able to
practice them in the field accordingly. Com-
munication and social skills was ranked the
third for degree of attainment. These three
standards mainly include the knowledge
and skills needed to work directly with stu-
dents with visual impairments. Thus, one
may conclude that the preservice program
was more effective in training preservice

©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 119
teachers in instructional strategies and be-
havioral modification, but not as effective in
enhancing skills related to collaborating
with others and engaging in ongoing pro-
fessional development.
Although the first two standards were
the same for degree of attainment and
degree of implementation, the communi-
cation and social skills standard was
ranked third for attainment but fifth for
implementation. Thus, although the par-
ticipants ranked this standard to be at-
tained more than the collaboration and
professional development standards, they
were less likely to practice them in their
day-to-day work. In their study on the
professional competence levels of South
Korean teachers working with visual im-
pairments, Lee, Kim, and Kang (2008)
found similar results for degree of imple-
mentation and concluded that although
teachers found these skills important, they
had difficulty providing social environ-
ments to their students and teaching them
various communication techniques. The
teachers in our study did not rate the items
according to degree of importance, but it
may be that they were not aware of the
importance of teaching these skills to stu-
dents with visual impairments and therefore
did not practice these skills efficiently.
The reverse was true for getting in-
volved in professional development activ-
ities, which was ranked fifth for degree of
attainment and third for degree of imple-
mentation. That is, the participants did
not consider their preservice program’s
focus on professional development activ-
ities as adequate as others but were able to
practice them better compared to degree
of attainment. Therefore, it can be said
that although the participants believed
that they did not benefit from preservice
120 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011
training in terms of professional develop-
ment activities, they thought they were
capable of developing these skills in their
daily work, at least to some degree. How-
ever, by looking at the mean score for this
standard, one cannot conclude that their
personal efforts and their working condi-
tions were satisfactory for practicing
those skills in the field. Lee and col-
leagues (2008) also claimed that the
teachers in their study did not get in-
volved as needed in professional devel-
opment activities during their working
years and that in-service training programs
were needed to enhance teachers’ profes-
sional development skills. Taken together,
the findings imply that both preservice and
in-service training programs have to put
greater effort in enhancing the ongoing pro-
fessional development of teachers of stu-
dents with visual impairments.
A further look at the performance indi-
cators by level was necessary to examine
whether the participants rated Level 1 be-
haviors higher than the others. The five
highest and five lowest rankings for de-
gree of attainment and implementation
confirmed this assumption. This finding
supported the ministry’s approach that
Level 1 behaviors should be acquired dur-
ing preservice training and that Levels 2
and 3 behaviors should be acquired dur-
ing in-service training (Turkish Ministry
of Education, 2008). However, one
should keep in mind that the mean scores
were not satisfactory for Level 1 perfor-
mance indicators.
The five highest scores for degree of
implementation included two Level 2 and
three Level 1 items, and three of these
items were from the standard on getting
involved in professional development ac-
tivities. Since two of these items were
©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Level 2, it can be said that the participants
were able to put effort into their profes-
sional development. However, the first
Level 3 item on the entire list was ranked
18 (see Table 2). Therefore, teachers
could be said to be at risk for developing
Level 3 behaviors while teaching. Again
this finding calls for an effort on behalf of
providers of in-service training in enhanc-
ing Level 3 behaviors.
The results of the content analysis re-
vealed that the participants suggested a
number of knowledge and skill areas to
be covered in their preservice program.
The subtheme with the most frequent re-
sponse was working with students with
multiple disabilities and disabilities other
than visual impairment (Theme 1). An-
other subtheme under suggestions regard-
ing the general structure of the preservice
program was also related to the issue of
multiple disabilities, pointing to the fact
that minor courses of study on other dis-
abilities should be offered as part of pre-
service training programs. A closer look
at the responses revealed that the partic-
ipants who worked in Rehabilitation and
Research Centers claimed that they came
across many children with disabilities
other than visual impairments because
their job descriptions included the assess-
ment and evaluation of people with vari-
ous disabilities. A similar problem exists
for teachers who work in schools for stu-
dents with visual impairments because
approximately 60% of students with vi-
sual impairments have additional disabil-
ities (Deitz & Ferrell, 1994), and these
teachers most probably face the chal-
lenge of teaching students with multiple
disabilities. Therefore, it seems reason-
able to conclude that preservice pro-
grams for teachers of students with vi-
©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
sual impairments have to include
extended courses on multiple disabili-
ties for the teachers of students with
visual impairments to fulfill the require-
ments of different work settings.
Another important finding from the
content analysis was that 59 participants
expressed the need for more training in
teaching academic and nonacademic
skills to students with visual impairments
(Theme 1). This theme can be linked to
another theme, early extensive field expe-
riences, which is one of the major features
of a special education personnel prepara-
tion program that exemplifies excellence
(Brownell et al., 2005). Twenty-six par-
ticipants stated that they wished that they
had more extensive practicum experi-
ences during their preservice years. They
may have meant by this that theory should
have been more closely blended with
practice during preservice training—a
point that has been substantiated in other
studies on personnel preparation pro-
grams (Brownell et al., 2005; Swallow,
1990). According to Erin and colleagues
(2006), basic knowledge and skills can be
effectively acquired in the university
classroom, but it is necessary to apply
these skills during the practicum. This
practicum should give preservice teachers
opportunities to work with a variety of
individuals in at least two different set-
tings. Taken together, it can be claimed
that providing a preservice practicum
should be a major issue in preservice pro-
grams in the field of visual impairment.
The participants’ opinions concerning
working in Rehabilitation and Counseling
Centers also seem critical because the
teachers of students with visual impair-
ments who worked in these centers
claimed that they had not gained the
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 121
necessary knowledge and skills to do so
during preservice training. Thus, exten-
sive courses and field experiences in
Rehabilitation and Counseling Centers
should also be a priority of preservice
programs, or rehabilitation teaching
should become a separate specialty within
the field.
Taken together, the results of the con-
tent analysis showed that preservice per-
sonnel preparation programs for teachers
of students with visual impairments
should expand their courses and practi-
cums in several areas, with an emphasis
on multiple disabilities and instructional
strategies. The preservice practicum
should begin early in the preservice years
to provide students with extensive oppor-
tunities to tie theory to practice.
LIMITATIONS
The study presented here had at least two
limitations that should be considered in
future studies. First, information was
gathered only from teachers of students
with visual impairments who were work-
ing in the field. However, the impact of
any preservice personnel preparation pro-
gram can be evaluated only in light of the
views of all parties involved, in this case the
academic personnel who taught those sur-
veyed how to teach and the students and
families who are served by the teachers of
students with visual impairments surveyed.
Therefore, future studies should gather in-
formation from such important resources to
gain a comprehensive view of the prepara-
tion and competence of teachers of students
with visual impairments.
Second, the sample consisted of teach-
ers of students with visual impairments
who were working in schools for students
with visual impairments or Rehabilitation
122 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011
and Counseling Centers across Turkey.
There are also teachers of students with
visual impairments, however, who work
in special education and rehabilitation
centers that are supported by the govern-
ment that provide education to students
with visual impairments on a weekly ba-
sis. These work settings definitely have
their unique demands for teachers. Future
work on this group would definitely be of
worth to the field.
Implications for training
and research
Although descriptive in nature, the findings
of the study have important implications for
pre- and in-service personnel training pro-
grams in the field of visual impairment in
Turkey. According to the teachers of stu-
dents with visual impairments who were
surveyed, at least three issues have to be
taken into account by both preservice and
in-service training programs. First, preser-
vice programs have to blend theory and
practice with well-supervised field experi-
ences that begin early during the preservice
years, because there seems to a discrepancy
between what is learned during preservice
training and what is expected in the work-
place. These field experiences should offer
students opportunities to work with persons
with various as well as multiple disabilities
in different work settings, such as Rehabil-
itation and Counseling Centers.
Second, the results also point to the fact
that the collaboration and professional de-
velopment skills of teachers of students
with visual impairments seem to fall a little
behind other professional skills. For this
reason, both pre- and in-service training
programs need to find ways to encourage
these teachers to develop collaborative
©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
skills and get involved in professional
development activities, especially at a
time when being a teacher of students
with visual impairments requires a
commitment to life-long learning
(Swallow, 1990).
Third, in-service training programs
should focus on enhancing the Level 2
and 3 performance indicators of the na-
tional professional standards, with an em-
phasis on encouraging teachers to be in-
volved in professional development
activities. Despite this conclusion, it
should be kept in mind that all ratings
were near average and that the findings
for all professional standards point to the
fact that teachers of students with visual
impairments may be at risk of becoming
incompetent teachers. Therefore, it may
be safe to conclude that efforts should be
made by pre- and in-service training pro-
grams to enhance teachers’ qualifications
across all professional standards.
One last important point concerns the
core competencies in the field of special
education. The CEC (2009) established a
set of common core competencies for all
teachers working in special education that
are the basic competencies that vision com-
petencies build upon. The Turkish Ministry
of Education (2008) took a similar perspec-
tive and postulated that the subject-matter
competencies in visual impairments should
build on these competencies and raise the
quality of teachers of students with visual
impairments. Therefore, future research is
needed to evaluate the core competencies of
teachers of students with visual impair-
ments to improve pre- and in-service train-
ing programs in Turkey.
High-quality personnel preparation is
determined mainly by a competence-
based approach, which has been criticized
©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
as being too technically oriented, limiting
quality to technical knowledge (Brownell
et al., 2004). This study also took such a
narrow perspective. However, we be-
lieve that the findings are a starting
point for enhancing the quality of teach-
ers in the field of visual impairment in
Turkey. The next step may well be, as
some authors have proposed (Brownell
et al., 2004, 2005), to evaluate teachers’
outcomes on the basis of what is going
on in the classroom.
References
Brownell, M. T., Rosenberg, M. S., Sindelar,
P. T., & Deutsch Smith, D. (2004). Teacher
education: Toward a qualified teacher for
every classroom. In A. McCray Sorrells,
H. J. Rieth, & P. T. Sindelar (Eds.), Criti-
cal issues in special education: Access, di-
versity and accountability (pp. 243–257).
Boston: Pearson Education.
Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., &
McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of
special education teacher preparation: A
comparison with general teacher education.
Journal of Special Education, 38, 242–252.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2009).
What every special educator must know:
Ethics, standards and guidelines (6th ed.
Revised). Arlington, VA: Author.
Deitz, S. J., & Ferrell, K. A. (1994). Project
PRISM: A national collaborative study on
the early development of children with vi-
sual impairments. Journal of Visual Im-
pairment & Blindness, 88, 470 – 471.
Erin, J. N., Holbrook, C., Sanspree, M. J., &
Swallow, R. M. (2006). Professional prep-
aration and certification of teachers of stu-
dents with visual impairments. Retrieved
from http://www.cecdvi.org/Position%
20Papers/060406%20Professional%
20Preparation.doc
Lee, H., Kim, J., & Kang, J. (2008). The
assessment of professional standard com-
petence of teachers of students with visual
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011 123
 impairments. International Journal of Spe-
cial Education, 23(2), 33– 46.
Pogrund, R. L., & Wibbenmeyer, K. A. (2008).
Interpreting the meaning of the terms certi-
fied and highly qualified for teachers of
students with visual impairments. Journal of
Visual Impairment & Blindness, 102, 5–15.
Spungin, S. J., & Ferrell, K. A. (2007). The
role and function of the teacher of students
with visual impairments. Retrieved from
http://www.cecdvi.org/Postion%20Papers/
RevisedRole&FunctionofTVI2006.doc
Swallow, R. M. (1990). The future of training
programs for teachers of the visually im-
paired: A commitment to life-long learn-
ing. RE:view, 22(1), 13–22.
Teacher Training Agency. (2003). Qualifiying
to teach: Handbook of guidance. London:
Author.
Tuning educational structures in Europe.
(2004). Retrieved from http://tuning.
unideusto.org/tuningeu
124 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, February 2011
Turkish Education Association. (2009).
Öğretmen yeterlikleri [Teachers’ compe-
tencies]. Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği.
Turkish Ministry of Education. (2008).
Öğretmen yeterlikleri: Öğretmenlik
mesleği genel ve özel alan yeterlikleri
[Teachers’ competencies: Teachers’ ge-
neric and subject matter competencies].
Ankara: Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.
Turkish Ministry of Education. (2010). Study
areas. Retrieved from http://otmg.meb.
gov.tr/Calismalar.html
Ayşe Dolunay Kesiktaş, M.S., specialist, Special
Education Research Center, Egitim Bilimleri
Fakultesi, Ankara University, Cemal Gursel Cad-
desi, 06590 Cebeci, Ankara, Turkey; e-mail:
⬍aysedolunay@yahoo.com⬎. Ayşe Gonul Akca-
mete, Ph.D., professor of special education and
dean, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Egitim Bil-
imleri Fakultesi Ankara University Cemal Gursel
Caddesi, 06590 Cebeci, Ankara, Turkey; e-mail:
⬍akcamete@education.ankara.edu.tr⬎.
©2011 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Copyright of Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness is the property of American Foundation for the Blind
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.