International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2018, Vol. 14(4) 126-143

Preservice Mathematics Teachers' Perceptions about Visually Impaired Persons

Tuğba Horzum

pp. 126 - 143   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1807-10-0002

Published online: September 11, 2018  |   Number of Views: 141  |  Number of Download: 626


The aim of this study is to determine what perceptions preservice mathematics teachers have about visually impaired persons and their environments. Seventy volunteer preservice mathematics teachers participated in the study. In this qualitative research, data were obtained through semi-structured interviews and “Draw a Visually Impaired Person and his/her Environment-DAVIPE” test. The results showed that perceptions of preservice mathematics teachers on visually impaired persons are in five different categories as outdoor environment, indoor environment, abstract environment, dark environment and aid-available environment. Besides, it was also determined that perceptions of preservice mathematics teachers on visually impaired persons have six different sources such as physical, emotional, sensorial, environmental, educational and mental. According to this, visually impaired persons are generally the people who can move freely with white canes, wear glasses, are happy, have improved auditory and tactual senses, and have easy lives with proper environmental arrangements, however, suffer from difficulties from insensitivities of other people, for whom accessible educational environments should be provided, and who have a rich dream world.

Keywords: visually impaired person, preservice mathematics teacher, perception, equity in education

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Horzum, T. (2018). Preservice Mathematics Teachers' Perceptions about Visually Impaired Persons. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(4), 126-143. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2018.154.10

Horzum, T. (2018). Preservice Mathematics Teachers' Perceptions about Visually Impaired Persons. International Journal of Progressive Education, 14(4), pp. 126-143.

Chicago 16th edition
Horzum, Tugba (2018). "Preservice Mathematics Teachers' Perceptions about Visually Impaired Persons". International Journal of Progressive Education 14 (4):126-143. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2018.154.10.

  1. Akerson, A. (2016). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of mathematics through drawings-Research. Kentucky Journal of Excellence in College Teaching and Learning, 14(3), 37-53. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alerby, E. (2015). A picture tells more than a thousand words. In J. Brown & N. F. Johnson (Eds.), Children’s Images of Identity: Drawing the self and the other (pp. 15-25). The Netherlands, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  3. Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 86-95. [Google Scholar]
  4. Arslan, Y., Şahin, H.M., Gülnar, U., & Şahbudak, M. (2014). Görme engellilerin toplumsal hayatta yaşadıkları zorluklar (Batman merkez örneği). Batman Üniversitesi Batman University Yaşam Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(2), 1-14. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ball, D. L. (1988). The subject matter preparation of prospective mathematics teachers: Challenging the myths (Research Report 88-3). East Lansing: Michigan State University, National Center for Research on Teacher Education. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bender, W., Vail, C., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes toward increased mainstreaming: Implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87-94. [Google Scholar]
  7. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of railside school. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brian, A., & Haegele, J. A. (2014). Including students with visual impairments: Softball. JOPERD: The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 85(3), 39-45. [Google Scholar]
  9. Buhagiar, M.A., & Tanti, M.B. (2011). Working toward the inclusion of blind students in Malta: The case of Mathematics classrooms. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 7(1), 59-78. [Google Scholar]
  10. Burkitt, E. (2017). The effects of task explicitness to communicate on the expressiveness of children’s drawings of different topics. Educational Psychology, 37(2), 219-236 [Google Scholar]
  11. Burns-Nader, S. (2017). Examining children’s healthcare experiences through drawings. Early Child Development and Care, 187(11), 1809-1818. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bülbül, M.Ş. (2016). The function that makes visually impaired student physicist. Journal of Subject Teaching Research, 2(1), 17-26. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chambers, D.W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2). 255-265. [Google Scholar]
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd edition). Sage publication. USA: Thousand Oaks. [Google Scholar]
  15. Çarkçı, Ş. (2011). Engellilerin mesleki eğitimi ve istihdamı. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fazzi, D. L., & Klein, M. D. (2002). Cognitive focus: Developing cognition, concepts and language. R. L. Pongrund ve D. L. Fazzi (Editörler), Early Focus: Working with young children who are blind or visually impaired and their families. 2nd edition. New York: AFB Press.  [Google Scholar]
  17. Gürsel, O. (2013). Görme yetersizliği olan öğrenciler. İ. H. Diken (Ed.), Özel eğitime gereksinimi olan öğrenciler ve özel eğitim içinde (8th ed.) (s. 217-249). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  18. Haber, R.N., Haber, L.R., Levin, C.A., & Hollyfield, R. (1993). Properties of spatial representations: Data from sighted and blind subjects. Perception and Psychophysics, 54(1), 1-13. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hamama, L., & Ronen, T. (2009). Drawing as self-report measurement. Child and Family Social Work, 14(1), 90-102. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hansen, A. K., Dwyer, H. A., Iveland, A., Talesfore, M., Wright, L., Harlow, D. B., & Franklin, D. (2017, March). Assessing children's understanding of the work of computer scientists: The draw-a-computer-scientist test. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 279-284). ACM. [Google Scholar]
  21. Harrower, L., Thomas, C.B., & Altman, A. (1975). Human figure drawings in a prospective study of six disorders: Hypertension, coronay heart diease, malignant tumor, suicide, mental illness, aand emotional disturbance. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diease, 161(3), 191-199. [Google Scholar]
  22. Haynes, M. (1996). Influences on practice in the mathematics classroom: An investigation into the beliefs and practices of beginning teachers. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, Massey University, NZ. [Google Scholar]
  23. Herrera, L. M., Jones, G., & Rantala, J. (2006). Enacting equity in Education: Towards a comparison of equitable practices in different European local contexts. Helsinki: Research Centre for Social Studies Education University of Helsinki [Google Scholar]
  24. Hertting, K., & Alerby, E. (2009). Learning without boundaries: To voice indigenous children’s experiences of learning places. International Journal of Learning, 16(6), 633–648. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hill, E.W., & Ponder, P. (1976). Orientation and mobility techniques. New York: AFB Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hofer, B.K, & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140. [Google Scholar]
  27. Horzum, T. (2013). Görme engelli öğrencilerin bazı matematiksel kavramlardaki kavram imajları ve temsilleri. Yayımlanmamış doktora  tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  28. Howard, V. F., Williams, B., & Lepper, C. E. (2010). Very young children with special needs: A foundation for educators, families, and service providers (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  29. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (2007). 20 U.S.C. § 1400. [Google Scholar]
  30. İkizoğlu, M. (2005). Özürlü, özürlü ailesi ve toplum ilişkisi. Ufkun Ötesi Bilim. Dergisi, 5(1), 47-60. [Google Scholar]
  31. Johnson, A. (2001). Attitudes towards mainstreaming: Implications for inservice training and teaching the handicapped. Education, 107, 229-233. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kennedy, J.M. (1993). Drawing and the blind: Pictures to touch. New Haven, CT: Yale Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kızar, O. (2012). Farklı branşlardaki görme engelli sporcuların yalnızlık düzeylerinin karşılaştırılması. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Fırat Üniversitesi, Elazığ. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kohanová, I. (2008). The ways of teaching mathematics to visually impaired students. Bratislava, Slovakia: Comenius University. İCME 11. [Google Scholar]
  35. Landau, B., Gleitman, H., & Spelke, E. (1981, September). Spatial knowledge and geometric representation in a child blind from birth. Science, New Series, 213(4513), 1275-1278. [Google Scholar]
  36. Landau,B., Spelke, E., & Gleitman, H. (1984). Spatial knowledge in a young blind child. Cognition, 16(3), 225–260. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lev-Wiesel, R., & Yosipov-Kaziav, J. (2005). Deafness as reflected in self-figure drawings of deaf people, Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 17(2), 203–212. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lieberman, L. J., Houston-Wilson, C., & Kozub, F. M. (2002). Perceived barriers to including students with visual impairments in general physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19(3), 364-377. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mavers, D. (2003). Communicating meanings through image composition, spatial arrangement and links in primary school students mind maps. In C. Jewitt & G. Kress (Eds.), Multimodal literacy (pp. 19-33). New York, NY: Peter Lang. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mays, R. M., Sturm, L. A., Rasche, J .C., Cox, D. S., Cox, A. D., & Zimet, G. D. (2011). Use of drawings to explore U.S. women’s perspectives on why people might decline HIV testing. Health Care for Women International, 32(4), 328-343. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mesleki Eğitim ve Öğretim Sisteminin Güçlendirilmesi Projesi (MEGEP) (2013). Çocuk gelişimi ve eğitimi: Görme engelliler. Ankara. Avaible from [Google Scholar]
  42. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage. [Google Scholar]
  43. Millar, S. (1985). Movement cues and body orientation in recall of locations by blind and sighted children. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 37(2), 257–279. [Google Scholar]
  44. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2006). Özel Eğitim Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği. Retrieved January 25, 2016 from [Google Scholar]
  45. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2008). Özel eğitim ve rehabilitasyon merkezi görme engelli bireyler destek eğitim programı. Özel Eğitim Kurumları Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara.  [Google Scholar]
  46. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2017). Öğretmenlik mesleği genel yeterlikleri. Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü. Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  47. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. [Google Scholar]
  48. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM Publications. [Google Scholar]
  49. No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Retrieved from [Google Scholar]
  50. Özyürek, M. (1995). Görme yetersizliği olan çocuğu bağımsızlığa hazırlamak için ana baba rehberi. T.C. Başbakanlık Aile Araştırma Kurumu. Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  51. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  52. PISA (2015). PISA 2012 araştırması ulusal nihai raporu. Retrieved January 30, 2017 from [Google Scholar]
  53. Picker, S. & Berry, J. S. (2000). Investigating pupils’ images of mathematicians. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 43, 65-94. [Google Scholar]
  54. Pritchard, C. K. & Lamb, J. H. (2012). Teaching geometry to visually impaired students. Mathematics Teacher, 106(1), 23-27. [Google Scholar]
  55. Regev, D., & Ronen, T., (2012). The image of the special education teacher as reflected in drawings made by teachers in trainning Israel.  British Journal of Special Education. 39(2), 71-79. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rock, D., & Shaw, J.M. (2000). Exploring children's thinking about mathematicians and their work. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(9), 550-555. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rule, A. C., Stefanich, G. P., Boody, R. M., & Peiffer, B. (2011). Impact of adaptive materials on teachers and their students with visual impairments in secondary science and mathematics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 865-887. [Google Scholar]
  58. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. [Google Scholar]
  59. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22. [Google Scholar]
  60. Spindler, R. (2006). Teaching mathematics to a student who is blind. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 25(3), 120-126. [Google Scholar]
  61. TIMSS (2016). TIMSS 2015 Ulusal matematik ve fen ön raporu 4. ve 8. sınıflar. Retrieved January 30, 2017 from [Google Scholar]
  62. Tortop, H.S., Kandemir, B., Kaya, Ö.E., & Demir, F. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının zihin engelli birey kavramına yönelik algıları. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(Özel Sayı), 307-322. [Google Scholar]
  63. Turkish Statistical Institute (2010). Survey on Problems and Expectations of Disabled People. Retrieved January 25, 2017 from [Google Scholar]
  64. UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for action on special needs education: adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education; Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain, 7-10 June 1994. Unesco. Available online at: [Google Scholar]
  65. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2012). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally (8th ed.). New York: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  66. Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2007). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in the general education classroom (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  67. Villanen, H. & Jonsson, G. (2013). Envisioning the future – A question of distances. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 3(1), 1-16. [Google Scholar]
  68. Vinner, S., & Dreyfus, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concepts of functions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356-366. doi: 10.2307/749441. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  69. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  70. Witcher, A. E., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Minor, L. C. (2001). Characteristics  of effective teachers: Perceptions of preservice teachers. Research in the  Schools, 8, 45-57. [Google Scholar]
  71. World Health Organization. (2017). World health statistics 2017: Monitoring health for the SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva: World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  72. Yazlık, D.Ö., & Erdoğan, A. (2018). Examining the ımage of prospective teachers towards mathematicians. Universal Journal of Educational Research 6(1): 42-56. [Google Scholar]
  73. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (10th edition). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.  [Google Scholar]