The Cognitive Load Impacts
of Assistive Technology
Devices Used by Sighted
Teachers in Training During
Literary Braille Instruction
Charles R. Farnsworth Jr., Ed.D.
Dominican College
Jamis J. Perrett, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University
Purpose
 To
compare perceived cognitive load
impacts encountered by the manual
Perkins braillewriter (MPB) and hybrid
technology (HYB) groups in the
learning of the literary braille code by
sighted teachers in training
Review of literature

Paas, Renkl, and Sweller (2003) posit the
existence of “schemas” (p.2)…
 constructs
of long-term memory which appear
to be permanent in duration

There appears to be an unlimited storage
capacity in the long-term memory construct
 one
schema may represent all of the
combined skills of a single activity
Review of literature



The process of receiving instructions for a
learning task creates an extraneous
cognitive load on short term memory
When the task is learned to proficiency there
has been a transition from extraneous to
germane cognitive load
The learner has now engaged existing shortterm memory resources to accomplish a task
(Kirschner, 2002)
Research questions

RQ1 To what extent are mental demand and
frustration levels impacted in the (MPB) or (HYB)
groups during the learning of literary braille?

RQ2 How do temporal (time) demand and effort
levels differ in impact in the MPB and HYB
groups during the learning of the literary braille?

RQ3 How do physical demand and own
performance differ in the MPB and HYB groups?
Research questions

RQ4 How do literary braille code proficiency
levels differ between the MPB and HYB groups
according to the NLBCT practice test protocol
standard?

RQ5 How do literary braille code proficiency
levels differ between the MPB and HYB groups
according to the National Certification in
Literary Braille (NCLB) test standard?

RQ6 How do attrition/non-completion rates
differ between the MPB and HYB groups?
Research Design
 This
study employed a quasiexperimental design involving the use of
both quantitative and qualitative
measures
 Quantitative instruments
 NASA
TLX, NLBCT Practice Test, NCLB test
 Qualitative
interviews
Sample selection
In July 2008, 30 colleges and universities
in the U.S. and Canada were invited to
participate
 Between August 2008 and June 2009, 94
participants were recruited from 18
universities/colleges in the USA and
Canada
 MPB group: N=43
 HYB group: N=51

Procedure
Four instruments were used to collect data




The NASA – Task Load Index, N = 77
NLBCT – practice test protocol, N = 72
NCLB – National Certification in
Literary Braille test, N = 39
Semi-structured interview schedule
(Miller, 2006), N = 10

Perceptions of assistive technology
environments and cognitive load
NASA –Task Load Index
 Participants
submitted ratings using
the NASA-TLX via the Internet upon
completion of each literary braille
lesson
http://shinytomato.com/nasa/
Quantitative data analysis – RQ 1-5

Means of dependent variables were
analyzed using a MANOVA design with
the following independent variables:
 Technology group
 Age
 Program delivery type
 Prior education level
 Previous level of braille
 College term
experience
RQ6 – Attrition Rates

The DV complete or did not complete was
analyzed with Chi-square tests of
association using the following IV’s:
 Gender
 Age
 Program delivery type
 Prior education level
 Previous level of braille
 School
 College term
 Technology group
experience
Results
RQ1 - Mental demand and frustration
by technology group



Technology group was not relevant (p = .628)
Prior Braille experience was relevant (p = .006)
College term was relevant (p = .002)
RQ2 - Temporal demand and effort in
the MPB and HYB groups



Technology group was not relevant (p = .361)
Prior Braille experience was relevant (p = .001)
College term was relevant (p = .028)
Results
RQ3 – physical demand and own
performance - MPB and HYB groups
Technology
group was not relevant (p =.822)
Prior braille experience was relevant (p = .037)
RQ4 – Braillewriting and proofreading
scores by technology group
Technology
group and prior braille experience
were not relevant in the model
Results
RQ4 – NLBCT practice test protocol
5 errors allowed on each task
 HYB group: 42 participants, 26% passed
 MPB group: 30 participants, 47% passed

RQ5 –NCLB descriptive results
participants had to pass all 4 sections
 HYB group: 22 participants, 14% passed
 MPB group: 17 participants, 47% passed

RQ5 – NCLB
Results by technology group

A MANOVA was used to analyze the
MPB and HYB groups

Technology group was not relevant in
the model at alpha = .05, Wilks' Lambda
= .85, F(4,24) =1.03, p=.413
NCLB mean scores
MPB group
 Perkins
89.00
 Proofreading
90.71
HYB group
83.81
85.27
Passing scores for the Perkins and proofreading sections
are approximately 95 out of a possible 100 points
Multiple choice
 Slate

46.11
44.65
44.77
41.81
Passing scores for the multiple choice and slate/stylus
sections are approximately 45 out of a possible 50 points
Results
RQ-6 Attrition vs. completion of literary
braille courses by technology group

It was found that technology group was
not associated with attrition
 X2(1,

N=94)=0.007, p=.934
The attrition rate was 9% for both MPB
and HYB groups
Qualitative Analysis




Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) constant comparison
method was employed to analyze the interviews
for emerging themes.
Themes were sorted into categories (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1992)
The frequency of each theme was tabulated
across all transcripts (Miles & Huberman, 1984)
Themes that occurred with the highest
frequencies were taken as the most meaningful
results.
Results: Thematic Analysis
Six themes emerged from the interviews:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Physical perceptions of Perky Duck, Perkins and
slate and stylus
Perceptions of efficiency of the three devices
Instructional Design Issues
Mental effort attributed to braille code complexity;
comparison with foreign language learning
Time pressure for lesson completion due to
extraneous (lifestyle) factors other than technology
Muscle memory typical with using the Perkins
does not easily transfer to Perky Duck
Theme 1: Perceptions of Perky
Duck/Perkins Brailler
“There’s no more state competency tests
that I have to prove myself to (on the
Perkins) for Nemeth code.”
 “I think it’s a million times easier…to use
Perky Duck than the Perkins.”
 “…with Perky Duck your mental effort was
changed because you could draft it quickly
and go back and proofread it.”

Theme 2: Perceptions of Efficiency Perkins
Brailler/Perky Duck/Slate and Stylus



“…I would like to see something else that
is…easier on fingers and is more correctable.”
“I really don’t understand why I have to use the
brailler for my exam.…why don’t we have the
option to use Perky Duck when everybody else
is in the computer age?”
“Well, I’m glad that I have the experience on the
Perkins but I will not be doing (future)
assignments on that at all. I’m just using the
computer.”
Conclusions/Implications
 The
lack of significance of technology
group was surprising
 Possible
 MPB
explanation
group participants focused primarily
on one or two devices (Perkins, Slate and
stylus)
 HYB participants’ had to demonstrate
proficiency on three devices (Perkins, Slate
and stylus, Perky Duck)
Conclusions/Implications
NASATLX Data: Previous braille
experience was significant on RQ’s 1-3
This finding was unexpected
 Participant background and interview data
suggest that a large proportion of the
sample had previous experience

 Already
serving as TVIs in school districts
 Prior Awareness of need to demonstrate
proficiency on state competency tests
Conclusions/Implications
NCLB results: Multiple choice section

There may be some instructional design
“disconnects” regarding perceptions of most
appropriate background knowledge of literary
Braille
 Lower
than anticipated scores by both groups on
multiple choice sections
 Concerns raised by instructors who used the
NLBCT practice test as a final exam.
Conclusions/Implications
NCLB results: Slate and stylus

Despite the reduced usage of slate and
stylus in programs generally, MPB and
HYB mean scores on these sections were
relatively high
Perhaps some consideration may need
to be given as to the appropriateness of
competency demonstration with this
device considering recent changes in
the field regarding electronic devices.
Contact information
 For
additional information on
The Cognitive Load Impacts of
Assistive Technology Devices Used
by Sighted Teachers In Training
During Literary Braille Instruction
 Please e-mail:
charles.farnsworth@dc.edu
jamis@stat.tamu.edu