Taylor Goldhardt
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is in UEB Math/Science. This is at the bottom of a print page with 8 additional long division questions on that page, plus all the occasions earlier in the lesson. The student gets plenty of exposure to the usual method.
I see two options for this situation, and I don't much like either one. I attached a screenshot showing both versions. The boxes in the screenshot are purely to differentiate the options.
The document I pulled up (approved May 2019) says (on page 3):
For directions preceding itemized materials, use margins 5-5. If there are additional paragraphs, use margins 7-5. For directive sentences that precede material that is not itemized use margins 3-1.
Thoughts?
I have never heard that suggestion before (to follow Nemeth rules when the book is in UEB). I would think that if a book is requested in UEB Math/Science, then we should proceed under the premise that the student is not familiar with Nemeth. Therefore, we should follow the rules that the student HAS seen in other sources - namely, the formats that are used in all their other textbooks. Also, isn't one major point of UEB that everything follows the same rules as much as possible, and that we don't need to learn multiple codes (and sets of rules) for a single book?
This isn't actually a multiple choice question, but it looks the same as the ones I've seen in the past. So I'm asking about a question that looks like this (with or without the exterior box lines), with a question like "Which table is done correctly?"
If we follow the "boxes start in cell 1" logic, then the student loses the formatting cues that the box is part of the preceding question. So to me it seems more logical to have boxes start at the adjusted left margin instead of always starting in cell 1 regardless of context, usage, or other formatting rules. And if it is important to have boxes start in cell 1 at all times, then I think it should have been made clear in the box section of BF - there is currently no rule that someone can point to and say "According to rule __, all boxes must start in cell 1 - no exceptions, no transcriber discretion."
Mostly out of curiosity, do you have any insight into how this will be addressed in the new guidelines? Even if it's just a little more guidance on when it's appropriate to use mat/layering methods and when it's appropriate to use 3D cubes, that would be very helpful.
I think so. In order to help me cement my understanding of the whole conversation, can you think of the kind of print situation that might warrant using the 2 styles of orthographic maps described in GSTG? The only time I've seen the type of graphic shown above is when the print is talking about volume. (I exclusively work with material for K-12 students, primarily math textbooks. That may be why I can't think of a context.)
Mostly section 6.15, especially 6.15.2.
6.15.2 A three-dimensional cube structure should not be reproduced in tactile graphic form as shown in print.
Now that I look at the section again (after having looked up the definition of "orthographic" from another source), I think that this section might not actually apply here - even though 6.15.2 seems to be talking about the source of my original question.
Does section 6.15 refer to three-dimensional cube structures such as those shown above, or is this section referring to situations where print uses orthographic maps? That would certainly explain why I'm so confused!
I'm still confused. You told me that orthographic maps are not suitable when teaching the concept of volume. But then you said that it's important to follow GSTG - which does not allow for any option except orthographic maps, even when teaching the concept of volume. Which point is more important? Or is it a case-by-case, transcriber-discretion kind of decision?
You also said that your advice (specifically: not using an orthographic map) is specific to the examples you viewed, and that it's best to maintain consistency throughout a transcription. In this textbook, any graphic that would require an orthographic map is being used to teach the concept of volume (and how to calculate it). I know of no instances that were not reflected in the images I provided. Furthermore, using orthographic maps would by default reduce consistency in the book, as there are composite 3D shapes that are not suitable for orthographic maps.
So my interpretation is that orthographic maps are not appropriate for instances requiring volume, and that we need to find an alterative method to portray the graphic for images used to teach volume. Is this an accurate assessment?
For context on the shading: I use the same method of shading for all the complex 3D shapes. This helps the student to know how to identify the top/right/left of the graphic with a little more ease than going based only on the shapes and angles. Also, if I remember correctly, I ran this theory by our 4 (blind) proofreaders a year or two ago and they liked the method.
So to clarify your response, I need to go in and change all of the orthographic maps/nets to 3D shapes for the whole book? Even though the rules specifically say that it is "not possible" to do these graphics clearly in 3D and that we absolutely must use orthographic nets?
Here are the two pages I mentioned. (Print pages 111 and 112.) I believe there are other similar pages, but you probably don't want the whole chapter lol.
We also have pages with simple rectangular prisms with side labels (not included), and then we have pages like 121. I'm attaching a snippet of how I did problem 9 from page 121 for reference.
In the actual example, the student is comparing the volumes of two figures (which they must calculate). On the previous page, the student is instructed to find the volume of several such figures. That is the extent of what I can officially prove.
Based on my observations of the text, I believe these problems are intended as a bridge between the "find the volume" (with blocks but no side labels), and "find the volume" of composite solid figures with only side labels (figures which cannot be shown using either of the approved orthographic methods, since they are not unit-based). This part is more of an inference, though, and as such may not count for the purpose of determining intent.
How do we handle mixed numbers, especially if we aren't using the numeric indicator? As you can see, it doesn't make sense (from a UEB perspective) to omit the numeric indicators.
#B#B/E
B#B/E
BB/ESo how do we handle mixed numbers?
Thanks, that's helpful. And thanks (to you and the TG Committee) for the peek at the new TG guidelines!
I guess I didn't specify clearly enough. All of these questions are in regards to number lines using UEB braille symbols - not tactile graphic number lines. That's why I put this in UEB Technical. I know that it's frequently better to use tactile graphics, but that's not always a valid option. The problem is that there's basically no information about number lines in Guidelines for Technical Materials. It does not tell us how to divide a number line between braille lines. Do we just cut it off? Do we use the line continuation indicator? Does the runover start two cells to the right (or is it based on the format of the surrounding material)? I know a number line can theoretically have a runover. But we still don't have any information on how to make the runover (among many other important things).
In other words (for anyone else who's curious), the 2010 supplement is no longer available. So unless you know someone who bought it before they pulled it from production, then you'll have to wait. In the meantime, I would suggest utilizing this forum for any questions that would otherwise be answered by checking the supplement (like how to handle coordinate grids with shading).
