Cardona-Molto - Scale Adaptations

This article was downloaded by: [University of Thessaly]
On: 18 November 2013, At: 01:17

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Special Needs

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20
Mainstream teachers' acceptance of

instructional adaptations in Spain
Mara Cristina Cardona Molt
Department of Health Psychology, School of Education, Campus

San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain
Published online: 22 Oct 2010.
To cite this article: Mara Cristina Cardona Molt (2003) Mainstream teachers' acceptance of
instructional adaptations in Spain, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18:3, 311-332,
DOI: 10.1080/0885625032000120206
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0885625032000120206
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Eur. J. of Special Needs Education, Vol. 18, No. 3

October 2003, pp. 311332
Mainstream teachers acceptance of

instructional adaptations in Spain
CRISTINA CARDONA MOLTO
MARIA
Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013
Department of Health Psychology, School of Education, Campus San Vicente del

Raspeig, Spain
Address for correspondence:

Mara Cristina Cardona Molto,
Department of Health Psychology, School of
Education, Social Science Building, Campus San Vicente del Raspeig, PO Box 99,
03080 Alicante, Spain.
Tel: 965-903960. Fax: 965-903990.
E-mail: cristina.cardona@ua.es
ABSTRACT
This study explored mainstream education teachers perceptions of instructional
adaptations in inclusive classrooms and its feasibility, effectiveness, and desirability
of implementation. It was of particular interest to know how teachers of different
grade levels would respond to such adaptations. Kindergarten (n = 16), elementary
(n = 34), secondary (n = 26) and high school (n = 13) teachers rated the feasibility,
effectiveness and desirability of 29 items on the Teaching Adaptation Scale. Results
indicated a moderate teacher acceptance of instructional adaptations. Additionally,
statistically significant differences between grade grouping (high school vs compulsory grades) surfaced. Findings are discussed in the light of needs of professional
practice and significant reforms to improve curriculum preparation programmes.
KEYWORDS
Instructional adaptations, regular education teacher perceptions, Spain
INTRODUCTION
One of the most controversial and debatable subjects regarding education during the
past two decades has been the mainstreaming/inclusion of students with special
educational needs. It is taken for granted that the regular classroom is the ideal place
European Journal of Special Needs Education
ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/0885625032000120206
312
European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 18, No. 3, October 2003
for teaching all students because of its potential capacity to offer full learning
experiences within a peer group. Nevertheless, experts warn that the success of
mainstreaming depends basically on the predisposition of schools and teachers will
to carry out the necessary instructional adjustments.
Very little is known about the kind and level of acceptance of teachers
instructional adaptations, an assertion which is particularly true for Spain, where
mainstreaming/inclusion has been imposed by law (LISMI, 1982; LOGSE, 1990),
rather than after a process of consultation, deliberation, and teacher training. When
one reviews the literature available, the foregoing fact is borne out. In general, very
little evidence dealing with the subject is to be found, and basically that is supplied
from the USA.
For research purposes, specialized literature differentiates between general and
specific adaptations (Fuchs et al., 1995). The former is that which the teacher carries
out for a class group as a whole, which does not call for significant curriculum
change or modification. On the other hand, a specific adaptation refers to individual
adaptations of a planned curriculum in order to respond to particular and extreme
educational needs. Research suggests (Scott, Vitale and Masten, 1998; Scruggs and
Mastropieri, 1996) that teachers perceive instructional adaptations advisable and
necessary but they experience difficulty in implementing them in the regular
classroom. In fact, there are studies that show teachers seldom put into practice
actions redounding to substantial teaching modifications (Baker and Zigmond,
1990). Consequently, teaching the whole-class group is more the norm than the
exception (McIntosh et al., 1993; Schumm et al., 1995). Furthermore, when teachers
are aware of the need to adapt instruction, they try to carry out adaptations which,
with reasonable dedication of time and effort, are useful to all students and are easy
to apply and integrate into the dynamic of the classroom (Kauffman, Gerber and
Semmel, 1998; Patton, 1997).
On being asked, mainstream classroom teachers replied that they do not have the
knowledge, skills or resources to plan as well as teach adequately students with
special educational needs (SEN) (Minke et al., 1996; Semmel et al., 1991; Wholery
et al., 1995). This is borne out by the meta-analysis carried out by Scruggs and
Mastropieri (1996). From this study it followed that about two-thirds of the
teachers polled agreed with the policy of mainstreaming/inclusion but only a small
majority were willing to accept it in the classroom. It also seems that teachers
opinions about inclusion differed in terms of their implicit responsibilities; therefore,
although half the number of teachers polled believed that mainstreaming/inclusion
can reap benefits, only one-third said that they had the time, training and resources
needed to adapt instruction.
The existing lack of harmony between teachers thinking and acting underlines
the need to investigate in-depth teachers convictions regarding differentiated
instruction. One of the critical factors that can help us to understand teacher
reticence and/or resistance to adapt instruction is the cost of adaptation. According
to the research synthesis carried out by Scott et al. (1998) and by Scruggs and
Mastropieri (1996), teachers usually preferred instructional adaptations that call for
the minimum preparation, take up little time and benefit all the students. In other
words, they chose to carry out a general adaptation of instruction over a significant
individual adaptation of the curriculum.
Things being as they are, we decided to analyse teacher acceptance of general
instructional adaptations in the Spanish context. In line with Kazdin (1980),
acceptance depends on a global evaluation of the adaptive strategy in terms of
feasibility, effectiveness and desirability. We thought that the degree of teachers
acceptance of general adaptations would be a key variable for understanding their
Teachers acceptance of instructional adaptations
313
compromise in teaching diverse students in inclusive classrooms, and learning to

what extent they are ready to differentiate instruction. Moreover, studying how
teachers approach adaptations may contribute not only to identify teacher
preferences, but also barriers and impediments to implementing them.
Our existing available knowledge in Spain (Aguilera et al., 1990; Cardona,
2000a, 2001; Cardona, Reig and Ribera, 2000) is still precariously slight and, for
this reason, we began to explore the field in the works of Bettencourt (1999);
McLeskey and Waldron (2002); Schumm and Vaughn (1991); Schumm et al. (1994);
Vaughn et al. (1999); Whinnery, Fuchs and Fuchs (1991); Ysseldyke et al. (1990),
and others. The analysis led us to stress the need to deal in depth with teacher
thinking regarding adaptations in Spain. At present, we do not know whether
Spanish teachers perceptions of general adaptations are similar to those identified
with teachers working in other educational contexts, or whether on the contrary,
they differ. In addition, we believe that the problem of teaching differentiation is a
major one for secondary and high school education, where teachers feel themselves
more under pressure than those involved in teaching at lower levels. Therefore, a
study on instructional adaptations must cover each educational stage. It is very likely
that teacher acceptance of strategies to differentiate instruction in kindergarten,
elementary and secondary school matches little with that desired by high school
teachers, and vice versa.
The aim, therefore, of this preliminary study on differentiation in Spain was to
analyse the way in which teachers valued general instructional adaptations in terms
of feasibility, effectiveness and desirability. It was of particular interest to know
whether kindergarten, elementary, secondary and high school teachers valued the
adaptations in different ways. Therefore, using research literature as a base
(McIntosh et al., 1993; Schumm et al., 1995; Scott et al., 1998; Scruggs and
Mastropieri, 1996; Wholery et al., 1995), we assumed that some kinds of
adaptations (those that are low in cost, time and training) would be regarded as
more feasible, effective and desirable by the teachers.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were the regular education teachers (N = 99) from five elementary (four
state schools and one private) and one secondary high school. These teachers came
from a small urban town whose population was 11,009 inhabitants; this area was
chosen because of its accessibility and closeness to the university. According to the
district information regarding schooling in 1999/2000 (Direccion
Territorial de
Cultura y Educacion,
2000), the schools had a total of 2,035 students in all (1,275 were
kindergarten and elementary students and 760 secondary and high school students).
All the mainstream teachers from the six schools were asked to take part in the
study after reaching agreement with the principal. Of the 99 regular education
teachers, 97 completed a questionnaire, which represented 98 per cent of teacher
participation; and of these 97 questionnaires, eight were discarded (four because the
questionnaires related to special education teachers, two to speech therapists and
two were uncompleted).
The sample finally consisted of 89 mainstream teachers: 16 from kindergarten, 34
from elementary, 26 from secondary and 13 from high schools. Their ages ranged
from 24 to 64 years (M = 36.69, SD = 9.71). Seventy-three per cent of the teachers
were female, and 27 per cent male. Thirty per cent held a Masters degree, while 70
per cent held a Bachelors degree. Over half of the teachers (61 per cent) had more
314
Table 1: Demographic data on teachers, by grade grouping

Variable
Kindergarten
Elementary
N
Secondary
N
High School
N
Gender
Female
Male
15
1
6.3
93.8
24
10
29.0
71.0
19
7
73.0
27.0
7
6
54.0
46.0
Age
30
3040
+ 40
10
4
2
62.5
25.0
12.5
5
12
17
15.2
36.3
48.5
10
13
3
38.5
50.0
11.5
0
8
5
00.0
61.5
38.5
Education
Bachelors degree 13
Masters degree
3
81.0
19.0
32
2
93.0
7.0
9
17
35.0
65.0
0
13
00.0
100
Years of teaching
experience
03
48
915
+ 15
75.0
00.0
6.0
19.0
9
3
5
11
26.0
9.0
15.0
50.0
11
8
2
5
42.3
30.8
7.7
19.2
3
1
7
2
23.0
8.0
54.0
15.0
12
0
1
3
Number of students M = 17.8

in class
SD = 5.58
M = 22.29
M = 24.56
M = 23.46
SD = 5.32
SD = 4.74
SD = 6.59
than three years of teaching experience. Although only 5 per cent of the sample had
previous experience in special education, 100 per cent of the teachers said that they
had students with special educational needs in their classrooms (33 per cent mild, 38
per cent moderate and 14 per cent severe learning difficulties). Fifteen per cent of
these teachers did not specify the severity and type of their students special
educational needs.
The special needs detected represented 10 different categories of exceptionality:
mental retardation (n = 15); learning difficulties (n = 41); emotional/behavioural
disturbance (n = 10); communication disorder (n = 3); high risk (n = 2); physical or
health disability (n = 0); multiple disabilities (n = 1); and gifted/talented (n = 0). See
Table 1 for more detailed demographic information; the digit n stands for the
number of teachers who had at least one pupil in these categories in their classroom.
Instrumentation
The Teaching Adaptation Scale, TAS (Spain) (Cardona, 2000b: see Appendix) was
designed specifically to examine teachers perceptions of instructional adaptations.
The TAS allows for the evaluation of three different dimensions: feasibility,
effectiveness and desirability of adaptations. The instrument consists of 29 strategies
made up of several procedures to adapt instruction. These strategies are grouped in
315
six categories or domains (Classroom Management, Grouping Strategies, Additional

Teaching, Strategic Teaching, Activity Adjustment and Formative Assessment). As a
system of evaluation, the Teaching Adaptation Scale incorporates a Likert-type scale
(1 = little; 5 = very/a lot).
The items making up the scale were worked out following a two-stage procedure:
reviewing literature and interviews with experts (Patton, 1980). After a wide search,
which included articles on research and disclosure of practical experience, manuals
and curriculum guides, these documents were studied to identify, select and classify
the most frequent forms of adaptations. Once the material had been classified,
interviews with experts were held. Four consultant teachers from kindergarten,
elementary, secondary and high schools, as well as five regular education teachers
with wide teaching experience took part in two two-hourly sessions of interviews,
the aim being to check both the categories and strategies of adaptations and decide
whether to mantain, modify or eliminate them.
Two researchers steered the group interview with the experts. One acted as an
agent who put forward the queries, while the other took down notes. After each
session, both researchers compiled notes together and processed the relevant
information. Based on their suggestions and recommendations, we eliminated
confusing, or repeated, items, thereby reducing the number to 46 (29 related to
instructional adaptations and 17 relating to curriculum adaptations). Then the
resulting instrument was piloted through a group of 55 inservice regular education
teachers who were completing a Masters degree course in Educational Psychology
at the University of Alicante. Afterwards, some minor changes were made, especially
with regard to clarification and/or simplifying some items in line with the
development procedures and guidance as recommended by Schuman and Presser
(1981).
The Cronbach coefficient alpha was applied to measure internal consistency
and yielded reliability coefficients of 0.85, 0.77 and 0.91 for the feasibility,
effectiveness, and desirability dimensions, respectively. For categories, the Cronbach coefficient alpha within the feasibility dimension were: Classroom Management (0.61), Grouping Strategies (0.52), Additional Teaching (0.52), Strategic
Teaching (0.79), Activity Adjustment (0.69) and Formative Assessment (0.78). For
the effectiveness dimension: Classroom Management (0.71), Grouping Strategies
(0.68), Additional Teaching (0.68), Strategic Teaching (0.74), Activity Adjustment
(0.80) and Formative Assessment (0.70). For the desirability dimension: Classroom Management (0.83), Grouping Strategies (0.68), Additional Teaching (0.96),
Strategic Teaching (0.45), Activity Adjustment (0.69) and Formative Assessment
(0.94).
Procedure
The teachers taking part in the study completed a questionnaire that was made up
of two parts. The first part (12 items) asked for data relating to demographic
information (sex, age, training, teaching experience, etc.). The second part consisted
of 29 items.
The questionnaires were handed out to the regular education teachers of all local
schools before the general school meetings took place. They were distributed by
different researchers. Before filling in the questionnaire, the researcher explained the
aim of the study, as well as the importance of teacher participation. At the same
time, the researcher thanked the teachers for their contribution. Once the
questionnaires had been completed, they were collected.
316
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics (arithmetic means, standard deviations and percentages) were
calculated in order to analyse demographic information and teacher ratings of
instructional adaptations. Additionally, successive analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
were run in each dimension for each of the 29 items to determine whether there were
group differences between kindergarten, elementary, secondary and high school
teacher ratings.
RESULTS
Overall Ratings of Adaptations
The arithmetic means and standard deviation ratings for feasibility, effectiveness and
desirability are to be found in Table 2.
The most feasible adaptations were as follows: items 2629 (Formative
Assessment) with 4.45 points on a scale of 1 to 5; item 1 (establishing norms,
rules and routines), 4.44; and item 17 (provide reinforcement), 4.34. On the other
hand, the least feasible adaptations were: item 25 (use computers), 2.32; item 24
(use of specific teaching resources), 2.66; and item 7 (between-class grouping),
2.82.
With regard to effectiveness, the teachers considered as most effective: items
2629 (Formative Assessment), 4.25; item 8 (within-class grouping), 4.20; and item
11 (additional teaching to the whole class), 4.13. However, they considered as less
effective: item 25 (using computers), 3.04; item 4 (responding adequately to the
educational needs of the class as a whole), 3.13; and item 10 (pair SEN student with
a classmate), 3.21.
A low percentage of teachers (14 per cent) stated their opinion on the desirability
of implementation of practices that had not been used before. In a similar manner,
we identified the most desirable and the least desirable adaptations. The most
desirable adaptations were as follows: item 17 (providing reinforcement), 4.62; item
6 (meeting the individual and group educational needs at the same time), 4.47; item
15 (teaching learning strategies), 3.60; and item 18 (coach them how to learn), 4.33.
The adaptations respondents deemed to be least desirable were: item 10 (pair SEN
students with a classmate), 2.03; item 9 (group all students in pairs), 2.37; item 4
(teach the class as a whole), 2.63; and item 7 (group students from other
classrooms), 2.89.
Besides analysing the level of acceptance of instructional adaptations, we
calculated the percentage of teachers that rated more favourably each strategy
(levels 4 and 5 of the scale). Therefore, the practices accepted by a larger number
of teachers in terms of feasibility of implementation were: item 26 (check students
previous mastery and skills), 93 per cent; item 27 (establishing norms, rules and
routines), 90 per cent; and item 19 (giving more time to complete activities), 84
per cent. However, computer activities (item 25) were considered feasible by only
23 per cent of the teachers, followed by the use of specific resources for teaching
(item 24), 28 per cent, and alternative material (item 23), 39 per cent. In terms of
effectiveness: Formative Assessment was effective for 78 per cent of regular
education teachers; giving more time to activities (item 19), 70 per cent; and
establishing norms, rules and routines (item 1), 69 per cent. Only a minority of
teachers thought that the following strategies were effective: computer activities,
317
13 per cent, use of specific teaching resources, 15 per cent and grouping students
in pairs, 21 per cent. In terms of desirability, computer activities were desirable for
44 per cent of the teachers, specific teaching resources for 35 per cent and the use
of alternative material was desirable for 21 per cent. A minority considered
grouping the class in pairs (5 per cent) and using formative assessment (7.7 cent)
as desirable.
To sum up, a small majority of teachers considered that, in practice, instructional
adaptations are feasible, 62 per cent, and effective, 51 per cent (see average
percentage in Table 2). For teachers who had not applied such strategies before (14
per cent), it was observed that there was a tendency to consider as more feasible and
desirable those strategies which did not imply curricular modifications (e.g. provide
reinforcement), while grouping students in pairs or using formative assessment were
desirable practices only for a few.
Ratings of Adaptations, by Grade Grouping

The arithmetic means and SD feasibility, effectivity and desirability ratings for each
inventory item, by grade grouping (kindergarten, elementary, secondary and high
schools), are presented in Tables 35.
An ANOVA one-way analysis of variance was conducted for each inventory item
category (feasibility, effectivity, desirability) to compare grade grouping ratings of
each of the 29 adaptations. Differences among grade groupings proved to be
statistically significant for seven feasibility items (items 1, 3, 6, 11, 19, 26 and 27)
and seven effectiveness items (items 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, 19 and 26). No differences
among grade grouping were found for desirability items.
Post hoc analyses were conducted using the Scheffe method. As Table 3
indicates, differences between the feasibility ratings of kindergarten/elementary
and secondary/high school teachers were statistically significant for item 1
(establish norms, rules and routines), F (3,85) = 9.12, p < 0.001; item 3 (meeting
the needs of all the students), F (3,85) = 3.87, p < 0.05; item 6 (meeting
individual and group needs at the same time), F (3,82) = 3.22, p < 0.05; item 11
(additional teaching to the whole class), F (3,75) = 5.74, p < 0.01; item 19 (giving
more time to complete activities), F (3,63) = 4.35, p < 0.01; item 26 (checking
students previous mastery and skills), F (3,84) = 3.28, p < 0.05; and item 27
(monitoring their progress), F (3,84) = 4.70, p < 0.01. In all cases, high school
teachers arithmetic means were lower than those of kindergarten, elementary or
secondary teachers respectively.
Differences between the effectiveness ratings of high schools and kindergarten,
elementary and secondary school teachers were statistically significant for some
items (see Table 4): item 7 (grouping students from other classrooms), F (3,42) =
3.69, p < 0.05; item 8 (within-class grouping), F (3,67) = 3.15, p < 0.05; item 11
(additional teaching to the whole class), F (3,72) = 7.00, p < 0.001; item 17
(providing reinforcement), F (3,62) = 6.26, p < 0.001; item 18 (coaching how to
learn), F (3,59) = 3.67, p < 0.05; item 19 (giving more time to complete activities),
F (3,80) = 5.04, p < 0.01; and item 26 (checking students previous mastery and
skills), F (3,82) = 4.51, p < 0.01.
No statistically significant differences were found among teachers for desirability
of adaptations (see Table 5). Kindergarten, elementary, secondary and high school
teachers did not differ in their interest or desire to put into practice instructional
adaptations that might not have been applied previously.
318
Table 2: Teachers acceptability ratings of instructional adaptations

Instructional
adaptations
Feasibility
Effectiveness
Desirability
Mean/SD
Mean/SD
Mean/SD
4.44/0.81
90
3.95/0.77
69
4.00/0.82
10
4.01/1.06
75
3.94/0.78
65
3.47/1.23
11
3.93/0.97
71
3.69/1.09
53
4.24/0.75
16
3.24/1.19
39
3.13/0.90
25
2.63/1.54
12
3.40/1.04
45
3.62/1.03
45
4.33/0.82
14
3.19/1.11
39
3.32/0.95
33
4.47/0.80
19
2.82/1.47
35
3.65/1.14
34
2.89/1.33
20
4.10/1.05
76
4.20/0.80
65
3.10/1.12
3.91/1.24
64
3.77/1.05
48
2.37/1.26
3.04/1.44
37
3.21/1.16
21
2.03/1.08
14
4.13/1.07
3.99/1.01
72
63
4.01/0.89
3.90/0.90
65
56
3.35/1.69
3.39/1.42
10
12
4.11/1.08
72
4.13/1.00
67
4.25/0.93
15
Classroom
management
strategies
1. Establish norms,
rules and routines
2. Rearrange the
physical layout in
the classroom
3. Meet the needs of
all students
4. Teach the class as
a whole
5. Meet personally
the needs of some
students
6. Meet individual and
group needs at the
same time
Grouping strategies
7. Group students
with pairs from
other classrooms
(between-class
grouping)
8. Group students of
my class in small
groups
(homogeneous or
heterogeneous) for
some activities
(within-class
grouping)
9. Group all students
in pairs
10. Pair SEN student
with a classmate
Additional teaching
11. The whole class
12. Certain subgroups
in the class
13. A particular student
319
Table 2: (Continued)
Instructional
adaptations
Feasibility
Effectiveness
Desirability
Mean/SD
Mean/SD
Mean/SD
3.91/1.20
58
3.80/0.94
46
3.17/1.34
3.69/1.09
44
3.55/1.07
32
3.60/1.10
16
4.26/0.80
66
3.97/0.86
51
4.08/0.86
12
4.34/0.85
67
3.95/0.97
51
4.62/0.65
14
4.07/1.05
60
3.62/1.11
37
4.33/0.90
15
4.24/0.97
4.01/1.06
84
73
3.99/0.95
4.10/0.82
70
64
3.94/1.03
3.47/1.17
13
11
4.07/1.01
73
3.95/0.91
63
4.14/0.95
12
3.61/1.32
54
3.84/0.97
52
3.36/1.11
14
3.24/1.34
39
3.58/1.07
29
3.42/1.35
21
2.66/1.49
28
3.39/1.34
15
3.80/1.21
35
2.32/1.54
23
3.04/1.53
13
4.12/1.16
44
4.42/0.60
93
4.17/0.67
82
4.00/1.00
4.59/0.64
4.41/0.71
93
87
4.42/0.70
4.27/1.06
85
73
4.33/0.87
4.00/0.87
8
9
4.37/0.69
85
4.15/0.80
72
3.67/1.41
3.85/1.07
62%
3.80/0.9
51%
3.67/1.10
14%
Strategic teaching
14. Put the process of
solving a problem
into words
15. Teach learning
strategies
16. Use strategies to
catch student
attention
17. Provide
reinforcement
18. Coach them how
to learn
Activity adjustment
19. Give more time
20. Break down
activities
21. Activities at various
levels of difficulty
22. Forward diverse
activities
simultaneously
23. Use alternative
materials
24. Use specific
resources
25. Use computers
Formative assessment
26. Check students
previous mastery
and skills
27. Monitor progress
28. Plan according to
the results of the
assessment
29. Check if the
objectives are
within the student
range
Averages
320
Table 3: Feasibility of adaptations, by grade grouping

Instructional
adaptations
Kindergarten Elementary Secondary High School Total

Mean/SD
Mean/SD
Mean/SD Mean/SD
Mean/SD
Classroom management strategies

1. Establish norms,
rules and routines
2. Rearrange the
physical layout in
the classroom
all students
a whole
5. Meet personally
the needs of some
students
6. Meet the individual
and group needs
at the same time
4.75/0.58a
4.74/0.45a
4.27/0.83
3.62/1.12
4.44/0.81
4.19/0.91
3.94/0.98
4.15/1.08
3.69/1.38
4.01/1.06
4.13/0.81
4.15/0.89b
3.92/0.74
3.15/1.41
3.93/0.97
2.93/1.44
3.33/1.27
3.22/1.17
3.46/0.66
3.24/1.19
3.44/0.89
3.53/1.05
3.48/0.92
2.85/1.34
3.40/1.04
3.62/0.81c
3.32/1.17
3.08/1.06
2.42/1.08
3.19/1.11
3.27/1.39
2.77/1.52
2.96/1.46
2.09/1.38
2.82/1.47
4.69/0.48
3.90/1.25
4.12/1.08
3.75/0.75
4.10/1.05
3.56/1.55
4.07/1.17
4.12/0.99
3.62/1.39
3.91/1.24
2.67/1.45
2.91/1.62
3.45/1.32
3.08/1.24
3.04/1.44
4.19/0.91d
4.20/0.77
4.30/0.78d
4.08/1.06
4.42/1.06d
4.04/1.02
3.08/1.31
3.36/1.03
4.13/1.07
3.99/1.01
4.33/0.72
4.41/0.73
3.92/1.23
3.50/1.51
4.11/1.08
5.00/0.00
4.13/1.04
3.65/1.40
3.67/1.15
3.91/1.20
5.00/0.00
4.07/0.98
3.26/1.14
3.33/0.89
3.69/1.09
Grouping strategies
7. Group students in
pairs from other
classrooms
my class in small
groups
in pairs
with a classmate
Additional teaching
11. To the whole class
12. To certain
subgroups in the
class
13. To a particular
student
Strategic teaching
solving a problem
into words
15. Teach learning
strategies
321
Instructional
adaptations

Mean/SD
Mean/SD
Mean/SD Mean/SD
Mean/SD
Strategic teaching (Continued)

catch student
attention
17. Provide
reinforcement
18. Coach them how
to learn
5.00/0.00
4.39/0.72
4.04/0.95
4.25/0.62
4.26/0.80
5.00/0.00
4.63/0.61
4.08/1.00
4.08/0.86
4.34/0.85
5.00/0.00
4.23/0.99
3.92/1.14
3.83/1.03
4.07/1.05
4.81/0.40e
4.19/1.28
4.41/0.66
3.93/0.96
3.88/1.14
3.88/1.03
3.77/1.30
4.23/1.09
4.24/0.97
4.01/1.06
3.94/0.93
4.17/1.02
4.13/0.80
3.92/1.44
4.07/1.01
4.38/0.81
3.57/1.37
3.44/1.29
3.08/1.50
3.61/1.32
3.13/1.30
3.50/1.41
3.09/1.35
3.15/1.34
3.24/1.34
2.67/1.63
2.57/1.57
2.74/1.57
2.67/1.15
2.66/1.49
2.27/1.62
1.86/1.46
2.83/1.64
2.25/1.22
2.32/1.54
4.75/0.45f
4.39/0.66
4.42/0.58
4.08/0.49
4.42/0.60
4.50/0.82
4.50/0.63
4.82/0.39g
4.61/0.66
4.58/0.64
4.27/0.78
4.08/0.67
4.08/0.64
4.59/0.64
4.41/0.71
4.50/0.63
4.52/0.63
4.27/0.78
4.08/0.64
4.37/0.69
Activity adjustment
19. Give more time
20. Break down
activities
22. Forward diverse
activities
simultaneously
23. Use alternative
materials
24. Use specific
resources
25. Use computers
26. Check students
previous mastery
and skills
the results of the
assessment
29. Check if the
objectives are
within the student
range
Notes: ANOVA test comparisons between means of feasibility ratings.

a
K, E > Hb E > Hc K > Hd K, E, S > He K > S, Hf K > Hg E > Ha, d, e, g = significant at .01 level
or above.
b, c, f = significant at .05 level.
322
Table 4: Effectiveness of adaptations, by grade grouping

Instructional
adaptations

Mean/SD
Mean/SD
Mean/SD Mean/SD
Mean/SD

1. Establish norms,
rules and routines
2. Rearrange the
physical layout in
the classroom
all students
a whole
5. Meet personally
the needs of some
students
6. Meet the individual
and group needs
at the same time
3.94/0.85
4.15/0.70
3.88/0.83
3.55/0.52
3.95/0.77
3.87/0.62
3.90/0.92
4.09/0.68
3.80/0.79
3.94/0.78
3.63/0.96
3.94/1.05
3.69/0.95
3.09/1.51
3.69/1.09
3.00/0.89
3.37/0.96
2.90/0.83
3.27/0.90
3.13/0.90
3.31/0.95
3.86/0.93
3.75/0.99
3.18/1.33
3.62/1.03
3.44/0.73
3.52/1.06
3.18/0.80
2.90/1.20
3.32/0.95
3.80/0.92
3.93/1.10a
3.80/0.86
2.33/1.51
3.65/1.14
4.53/0.64b
4.27/0.83
4.14/0.73
3.56/0.88
4.20/0.80
3.80/0.79
3.60/1.29
4.17/0.78
3.33/0.98
3.77/1.05
2.71/1.25
3.20/1.37
3.80/0.77
2.70/0.95
3.21/1.16
4.20/0.94c
3.92/0.95
4.15/0.72c
4.08/0.78
4.22/0.74c
3.87/0.85
3.00/0.89
3.50/1.18
4.01/0.89
3.90/0.90
3.93/0.83
4.43/0.74
4.17/1.03
3.55/1.44
4.13/1.00
4.50/0.71
3.93/0.81
3.68/1.11
3.50/0.97
3.80/0.94
4.50/0.71
3.78/1.01
3.47/1.12
2.78/0.83
3.55/1.07
Grouping strategies
pairs from other
classrooms
my class in small
groups
in pairs
with a classmate
Additional teaching
12. To certain
subgroups in the
class
13. To a particular
student
Strategic teaching
solving a problem
into words
15. Teach learning
strategies
323
Instructional
adaptations

Mean/SD
Mean/SD
Mean/SD Mean/SD
Mean/SD

catch student
attention
17. Provide
reinforcement
18. Coach them how
to learn
4.50/0.71
4.07/0.78
3.86/0.96
3.80/0.92
3.97/0.86
4.50/0.71d
4.40/0.77d
3.68/0.95
3.25/0.97
3.95/0.97
4.50/0.71
3.86/1.03e
3.67/1.06
2.73/1.10
3.62/1.11
4.56/0.63f
4.31/0.85
4.12/0.88
4.04/0.77
3.50/1.02
4.09/0.81
3.80/0.92
4.00/1.00
3.99/0.95
4.10/0.82
4.07/0.73
4.19/0.74
3.91/0.75
3.33/1.44
3.95/0.91
4.20/0.56
3.91/1.00
3.44/0.92
3.86/1.46
3.84/0.97
3.71/0.76
3.75/1.12
3.64/1.03
3.10/1.20
3.58/1.07
3.83/1.17
3.56/1.67
3.44/1.24
2.25/0.50
3.39/1.34
4.33/0.58
2.88/1.73
3.09/1.64
2.40/1.14
3.04/1.53
4.31/0.60
4.41/0.61g
4.04/0.68
3.69/0.63
4.17/0.67
4.14/0.66
3.94/0.57
4.73/0.57
4.59/1.07
4.28/0.79
4.04/0.89
4.17/0.58
4.31/1.55
4.42/0.70
4.27/1.06
4.21/0.70
4.38/0.82
3.96/0.86
3.92/0.64
4.15/0.80
Activity adjustment
19. Give more time
20. Break down
activities
22. Forward diverse
activities
simultaneously
23. Use alternative
materials
24. Use specific
resources
25. Use computers
26. Check students
previous mastery
and skills
the results of the
assessment
29. Check if the
objectives are
within the student
range
Notes: ANOVA test comparisons between means of effectiveness ratings.

a
E > H
b
K > H
c
K, E, S > H
d
K, E > S, H
e
E > H
f
K > S
g
E > H
c, d, f, g = significant at 0.01 or above.
a, b, e = significant at 0.05 level.
324
Table 5: Desirability of adaptations, by grade grouping
Instructional
adaptations

Mean/SD
Mean/SD
Mean/SD Mean/SD
Mean/SD

1. Establish norms,
4.00/0.00
rules and routines
2. Rearrange the
3.00/
physical layout in
the classroom
3. Meet the needs of 3.67/1.15
all students
4. Teach the class as 2.83/1.60
a whole
5. Meet personally
3.67/1.15
the needs of some
students
6. Meet the individual 4.63/0.58
and group needs
at the same time
4.50/0.71
4.33/0.58
3.33/1.15
4.00/0.82
2.86/1.68
4.20/0.45
3.75/0.50
3.47/1.23
4.75/0.50
4.33/0.82
4.00/0.00
4.24/0.75
2.30/1.57
2.40/1.71
3.75/0.50
2.63/1.54
4.33/1.15
4.80/0.45
4.25/0.50
4.33/0.82
4.50/1.22
4.40/0.55
4.33/0.58
4.47/0.80
2.44/1.33
2.79/1.12
3.29/1.44
2.86/1.57
2.89/1.33
3.50/0.71
2.88/1.25
3.17/1.33
3.25/0.96
3.10/1.12
1.71/0.95
2.60/1.34
3.00/1.41
2.00/
2.37/1.26
1.80/1.03
1.89/1.05
2.20/1.14
3.00/1.41
2.03/1.08
4.00/1.73
3.25/1.50
3.43/1.81
2.89/1.54
3.50/1.91
4.50/0.58
2.33/1.53
4.00/
3.35/1.69
3.39/1.42
3.67/1.53
4.57/0.79
4.20/0.84
4.00/
4.25/0.93
3.00/1.33
3.25/2.06
3.50/0.58
3.17/1.34
3.38/0.99
3.13/1.36
4.00/0.00
3.60/1.10
Grouping strategies
pairs from other
classrooms
my class in small
groups
in pairs
with a classmate
Additional teaching
12. To certain
subgroups in the
class
13. To a particular
student
Strategic teaching
solving a problem
into words
15. Teach learning
strategies
325
Instructional
adaptations

catch student
attention
17. Provide
reinforcement
18. Coach them how
to learn

Mean/SD
Mean/SD
Mean/SD Mean/SD
Mean/SD
3.80/1.30
4.50/0.58
4.00/0.00
4.08/0.86
4.60/0.89
4.80/0.45
4.33/0.58
4.62/0.65
4.14/1.21
4.60/0.55
4.33/0.58
4.33/0.90
3.50/2.12
3.00/1.41
4.67/0.52
3.75/1.04
3.67/0.82
3.75/1.26
3.33/1.15
3.00/1.41
3.94/1.03
3.47/1.17
3.33/1.53
4.43/0.79
4.33/0.58
4.00/
4.14/0.95
3.00/
3.90/0.88
3.25/1.39
2.67/0.82
3.36/1.11
2.90/1.60
3.44/1.33
3.73/1.27
4.00/0.00
3.42/1.35
4.36/0.92
3.18/1.47
3.79/1.37
3.87/0.35
3.80/1.21
4.18/1.25
4.13/1.41
4.07/1.16
4.14/0.38
4.12/1.16
2.00/
4.50/0.58
4.00/0.00
4.00/1.41
2.00/
4.50/1.00
4.40/0.55
4.50/0.71
4.00/0.00
2.50/2.12
4.50/1.00
3.33/1.15
Activity adjustment
19. Give more time
20. Break down
activities
22. Forward diverse
activities
simultaneously
23. Use alternative
materials
24. Use specific
resources
25. Use computers
26. Check students
previous mastery
and skills
the results of the
assessment
29. Check if the
objectives are
within the student
range
Notes: ANOVA test comparisons between means of effectiveness ratings.

a
P > B
b
I > B
c
I, P, S > B
d
P > S, B
e
P > B
f
I > S
g
P > B
c, d, f, g = significant at 0.01 or above.
a, b, e = significant at 0.05 level.
4.00/
4.00/
4.00/1.00
4.33/0.87
4.00/0.87
3.67/1.41
326
DISCUSSION
One of the objectives of this study was to analyse the degree of acceptance of
teachers instructional adaptations in Spain in terms of feasibility, effectiveness and
desirability of implementation. The results of the survey suggest that mainstream
teachers do not perceive these types of adaptations as highly feasible, effective or
desirable. Most of the adaptations were considered somewhat feasible, effective and
desirable (averages of 3.85, 3.80 and 3.60 respectively), although some of them were
rated as less acceptable. However, it must be pointed out that although a small
majority of the teachers considered adapting instruction to be feasible (62 per cent)
and about half (51 per cent) thought of it as effective (at a high level of values 4 and
5 on the scale), only 14 per cent of the teachers considered that some adaptation
which had not been applied before was desirable. In general, regular education
teachers favourably valued the effectiveness of all instructional adaptations (even
though those adaptations considered as less effective were rated on the positive side
of the scale, i.e. above three points).
What stands out in this study is the relationship between feasibility and
effectiveness of adaptations, since the strategies considered more effective are, at the
same time seen as having greater possibility of application (e.g., formative
assessment, establishing norms, rules and routines, and allowing additional time to
complete activities). Nevertheless, attention is called to the fact that the teachers
showed some uncertainty regarding the acceptance of strategies, such as adaptation
of materials and the use of specific resources (e.g. computers). These observations
confirm the hypothesis that teachers in their appraisal balance effectiveness and cost
of adaptations, and tend to accept those adaptations that with reasonable dedication
and effort can be applied to a larger number of students (Kauffman et al., 1988;
Witt, 1986). Additionally, this explains why teachers put up more resistance in
implementing those adaptations that imply an important alteration of their
programme (Scott, Vitale and Masten, 1988).
There were some differences between grade grouping with kindergarten,
elementary, secondary and high school teachers providing a different pattern of
response. On the whole, high school teachers considered adaptations as less feasible
and effective than kindergarten, elementary and secondary mainstream teachers.
Therefore, high school and, in some cases, secondary teachers differ from
kindergarten and elementary school teachers concerning the feasibility and
effectiveness of: using norms, rules and routines in class; attending to the
educational needs of the group as a whole; responding to individual and group needs
at the same time; spending more time on teaching; and using formative assessment.
All these adaptations require effort and adjustment in teacher planning and routines.
They demand further motivational back-up, continuous assessment and an adjusted
response. They are essential components for effective teaching. As deduced from the
information obtained in this study, high school teachers, in the main, and to a lesser
extent, secondary school teachers, expect less from adaptations than teachers at
other levels: this is indicative that it could be a little unrealistic to think of the
inclusion of SEN students in secondary and high school education. As we know,
inclusion greatly depends on the kinds of student educational needs, and the degree
to which teachers can be involved in the process. In addition, teacher skills and
expertise in dealing with complex situations and heterogeneous environments need
to be strengthened and improved. Therefore, training plans should provide models
for differentiated instruction and curriculum; provide prospective teachers with
knowledge and skills to implement a growing range of instructional strategies; and
lend opportunities for observing teachers who practise differentiation.
327
Practical Implications
This study has several implications for professional practice, particularly in Spain.
Today classroom reality is more diverse than in the past, which implies the need to
change obsolete patterns of response. Therefore, educators in Spain need to be
trained to face their new challenges and demands and to respond satisfactorily to the
varied needs of their students. This study indicates those domains in which Spanish
teachers need greater knowledge and the skills to adjust their teaching more flexibly.
Moreover, today, more than ever, both support teachers and the mainstream teacher
need to collaborate to co-teach since without their mutual cooperation their
goals otherwise remain unattainable (Tikunoff and Ward, 1983). This way of
working is less frequently found in the higher levels of teaching; therefore greater
efforts would be required from secondary and high school teachers. Universities and
teacher training colleges should help to meet this need.
To be effective pre- and in-service training programmes need to provide
teachers with a meaningful understanding of the principles and elements of
differentiated instruction. The findings of this study, that some instructional
strategies (e.g. class-wide grouping) are considered very little desirable, raise
questions about teachers lack of knowledge and preparation, rather than lack of
willingness for their implementation. In general, the results of this research show
a moderate acceptance by teachers of instructional adaptations, which thus raises
serious doubt about the feasibility of using highly specialized curriculum adaptation in the general education classroom. So, before we ask teachers to differentiate
the curriculum, we need to be sure that they have the basics in order to
differentiate their instruction.
Additionally, the demands on teachers time and dedication call for a different
classroom organization (Fuchs et al., 1997; Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1996): more
support teachers working in the classroom and co-teaching, together with more time
available for teachers to organize their instruction and with greater opportunities for
teachers to learn from one another are needed (Phillips and McCullough, 1990).
Consequently, early partnership is crucial; it is clear from the work of WaltherThomas et al. (2000) and McLeskey and Waldron (2002), that effective collaboration is the cornerstone of good inclusive programmes, especially if teachers are to
successfully manage their instruction (Pettig, 2000).
Limitations
Certain limitations need to be taken account of when interpreting the findings of this
study. First, the information collected was based on teachers own subjective views
of themselves, with all the possibilities for some unconscious inexactitudes. A second
limitation relates to the experimental nature of the instrument used. Although
information has been provided regarding its reliability and validity, the instrument
is still undergoing revision. Finally, there is the terminology used in the definition of
instructional adaptations. Although the use of such terminology was clearly
explained to the teachers who completed the questionnaires, in practice, some of this
might well have appeared unfamiliar; and because of this, one cannot dismiss the
possibility that, in some cases, the answers to the questions might have been
uncertain or tentative.
As to the rest, this study draws interesting conclusions regarding teachers
perceptions of instructional adaptations in Spain. However, since the sample used
involved the population of teachers of a small urban area of some 11,000
328
inhabitants, it would be worthwhile to replicate the study involving a wider

geographic and representative sample.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was supported by federal funds from the Conselleria de Cultura,
Educacion
y Ciencia de la Generalitat Valenciana, Valencia, Spain, research project
reference GV995617 (DOGV, 21/12/99). I am deeply grateful to the principals
and teachers of the Novelda state and private schools for participating in this
study.
REFERENCES
AGUILERA, M. J., ALVAREZ,

K., BOBIO, M., COLL, C., ECHEITA, G., GALAN, M.,
MARCHESI, A., MARTIN,

E. and MARTINEZ-ARIAS, R. (1990). Evaluacion
del
programa de integracion
escolar de alumnos con deficiencias. Madrid: Centro de
Publicaciones del Ministerio de Educacion
y Ciencia. [[AU QY 6]]
BAKER, J. M. and ZIGMOND, N. (1990). Are regular education classes equipped to
accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515526.
BETTENCOURT, L. U. (1999). General educators attitudes toward students with mild
disabilities and their use of instructional strategies: implications for training, Remedial
and Special Education, 20, 2735.
CARDONA, M. C. (2000a). Spanish teachers perceptions of general and specialized teaching
adaptations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association (AERA), New Orleans, USA, April.
CARDONA, M. C. (2000b). The Teaching Adaptation Scale. Alicante: University of Alicante,
Department of Health Psychology.
CARDONA, M. C.(2001). Feasibility and effectiveness of teachers instructional adaptations.
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), The
Effectiveness of Inclusive Education, Lille, France, September.
CARDONA, M. C., REIG, A. and RIBERA, M. D. (2000). Teora y practica
de la adaptacion
de la ensenanza.
Alicante: University of Alicante Press.

TERRITORIAL DE CULTURA Y EDUCACION
(2000). Estadillo de centros
DIRECCION
de la provincia de Alicante. Alicante: Servicio de Inspeccion.
FUCHS, D., FUCHS, L. S., MATHES, P. G. and SIMMONS, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted

learning strategies: making classrooms more responsive to diversity, American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174206.
FUCHS, L. S., FUCHS, D., HAMLETT, C. L., PHILLIPS, N. B. and KARNS, K. (1995).
General educators specialized adaptation for students with learning disabilities,
Exceptional Children, 61, 440459
KAUFFMAN, J. M., GERBER, M. M. and SEMMEL, M. I. (1988). Arguable assumptions
underlying the Regular Initiative, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 611.
KAZDIN, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior,
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259273.
LISMI (1982). Ley 13/1982, de 7 de abril, de Integracion
Social de los Minusvalidos,
BOE,
30/04/82.
LOGSE (1990). Ley 1/1990, de 3 de octubre, de Ordenacion
General del Sistema Educativo,
BOE, 04/10/90.
McINTOSH, R., VAUGHN, S., SCHUMM, J. S., HAAGER, D. and LEE, O. (1993).
Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms,
Exceptional Children, 60, 249261.
McLESKEY, J. and WALDRON, N. L. (2002). Inclusion and school change: teacher
perceptions regarding curricular and instructional adaptations, Teacher Education and
Special Education, 25, 4154.
329
MINKE, K. M., BEAR, G. G., DEEMER, S. A. and GRIFFIN, S. M. (1996). Teachers

experiences with inclusive classrooms: implications for special education reform, Journal
of Special Education, 30, 152186.
PATTON, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
PATTON, R. (1997). Effective accommodations for students with exceptionalities, CEC
Today, 4, 115.
PETTIG, K. L. (2000). On the road to differentiated instruction, Educational Leadership,
September, 1418.
PHILLIPS, V. and McCULLOUGH, L. (1990). Consultation-based programming: instituting
the collaborative ethic in schools, Exceptional Children, 56, 291304.
SCHUMAN, H. and PRESSER, S. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New
York: Academic Press.
SCHUMM, J. S. and VAUGHN, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students:
general classroom teachers perspectives, Remedial and Special Education, 12, 1827.
SCHUMM, J. S., VAUGHN, S., GORDAN, J. and ROTHLEIN, L. (1994). General
education teachers beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for mainstreamed students
with learning disabilities, Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 2237.
SCHUMM, J. S., VAUGHN, S., HAAGER, D., McDOWELL, J., ROTHLEIN, L. and
SAUMELL, L. (1995). Teacher planning for individual student needs: what can
mainstreamed special education students expect? Exceptional Children, 61, 335352.
SCOTT, B. J., VITALE, M. R. and MASTEN, W. G. (1998). Implementing instructional
adaptations for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: a literature review,
Remedial and Special Education, 19, 106119.
SCRUGGS, T. E. and MASTROPIERI, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/
inclusion, 19581995: a research synthesis, Exceptional Children, 63, 5974.
SEMMEL, M. L., ABERNATHY, T. V., BUTERA, G. and LESAR, S. (1991). Teacher
perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative, Exceptional Children, 58, 923.
TIKUNOFF, W. J. and WARD, B. A. (1983). Collaborative research on teaching, Elementary
School Journal, 83, 453468.
VAUGHN, S., REISS, M., ROTHLEIN, L. and HUGHES, M. T. (1999). Kindergarten
teachers perceptions of instructing students with disabilities, Remedial and Special
Education, 20, 184191.
WALTHER-THOMAS, C., KORINEK, L., McLAUGHLIN, V. and WILLIAMS, B. (2000).
Collaboration for Inclusive Education: Developing Successful Programs. Needham
Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
WHINNERY, K. W., FUCHS, L. S. and FUCHS, D. (1991). General, special, and remedial
teachers acceptance of behavioral and instructional strategies for mainstreaming students
with mild handicaps, Remedial and Special Education, 12, 617.
WHOLERY, M., WERTS, M. G., CALDWELL, N. K., SNYDER, E. D. and LISOWSKI, L.
(1995). Experienced teachers perceptions of resources and supports for inclusion,
Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, March,
1525.
WITT, J. C. (1986). Teachers resistance to the use of school-based interventions, Journal of
School Psychology, 24, 3744.
YSSELDYKE, J. E., THURLOW, M. L., WOTRUBA, J. W. and NANIA, P. A. (1990).
Instructional arrangements: perceptions from general education, Teaching Exceptional
Children, 22, 48.
330
APPENDIX: THE TEACHING ADAPTATION SCALE

(TAS)(CARDONA, 2000b)
Regular education teachers often have to make instructional and curricular

adaptations to respond satisfactorily to their students educational needs. Although
such adaptations may be desirable, some of them may not be feasible due to a large
number of students in class, lack of time or need of support. Rate each of the
instructional adaptations listed below on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = low; 5 = high), in terms
of its feasibility (how practical is it to implement the adaptation in your
classroom?), effectiveness (if implemented, how efficient or successful was it?) and
desirability (if not implemented before, how much would you like to implement the
adaptation in your classroom?).
The Teaching Adaptation

Scale (TAS)
If
implemented:
Effectiveness
If not
implemented:
Desirability
High
Low
High
Low
Feasibility
Low
High
I. Classroom Management Strategies

1. Establish norms, rules,
and routines . . .
2. Rearrange the physical
layout in the classroom
3. Meet the needs of all my
students . . .
4. Teach the class as a
whole . . .
5. Meet personally the
needs of some students
6. Meet individual and
group needs at the same
time . . .
II. Grouping Strategies

7. Group students with
pairs from other
classrooms (betweenclass grouping) . . .
8. Group students of my
class in small groups
(homogeneous or
heterogeneous) for some
activities (within-class
grouping) . . .

Scale (TAS)
If
implemented:
Effectiveness
If not
implemented:
Desirability
High
Low
High
Low
Feasibility
Low
331
High
II. Grouping Strategies (Continued)
9. Group all my students in

pairs . . .
10. Pair SEN student with a
classmate . . .
III. Additional Teaching (more time spent on direct instruction). This extra time is
directed at:
11. The whole class . . .
12. Certain subgroups in the
class . . .
13. A particular student . . .
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
IV. Strategic Teaching

14. Make my students put
the process of solving a
problem or an activity
into words . . .
15. Teach them learning
strategies (e.g., testtaking skills, note-taking
skills) . . .
16. Use strategies to catch
my student attention in
my explanations . . .
17. Provide reinforcement
and encouragement
constantly . . .
18. Coach them how to learn
meaningfully . . .
V. Activity Adjustment
19. Give more time to some
students so that they
might finish their tasks
20. Break down activities
into simple sequences.
332

Scale (TAS)
If
implemented:
Effectiveness
If not
implemented:
Desirability
High
Low
High
Low
Feasibility
Low
High
V. Activity Adjustment (Continued)

21. Put forward activities at
various levels of difficulty
(same activity) . . .
22. Put forward diverse
activities simultaneously
(while some students
devote themselves on
some tasks, other
students work at other
tasks) . . .
23. Use alternative materials
for some students (e.g.,
different textbooks;
supplemental workbooks)
24. Use specific resources
(e.g., ear phones,
perforated boards, attend
resource-room, etc.) . . .
25. Use computers to
enhance learning in the
subject I teach (e.g., as
a tool for practising skills
or obtain information) . . .
VI. Formative Assessment

26. Check student previous
mastery and/or skills
27. Monitor their progress
(e.g., understanding of
concepts, acquisition of
skills) . . .
28. Plan according to the
results of the
assessment . . .
29. Check if objectives are
within the student range

Cardona-Molto - Scale Adaptations

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cardona-Molto - Scale Adaptations

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

This article was downloaded by: [University of Thessaly]

On: 18 November 2013, At: 01:17

European Journal of Special Needs

Mainstream teachers' acceptance of

Department of Health Psychology, School of Education, Campus

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Eur. J. of Special Needs Education, Vol. 18, No. 3

Mainstream teachers acceptance of

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Department of Health Psychology, School of Education, Campus San Vicente del

Address for correspondence:

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Teachers acceptance of instructional adaptations

compromise in teaching diverse students in inclusive classrooms, and learning to

Table 1: Demographic data on teachers, by grade grouping

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Number of students M = 17.8

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Teachers acceptance of instructional adaptations

six categories or domains (Classroom Management, Grouping Strategies, Additional

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Teachers acceptance of instructional adaptations

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Ratings of Adaptations, by Grade Grouping

Table 2: Teachers acceptability ratings of instructional adaptations

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Teachers acceptance of instructional adaptations

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Table 3: Feasibility of adaptations, by grade grouping

Kindergarten Elementary Secondary High School Total

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Classroom management strategies

Teachers acceptance of instructional adaptations

Kindergarten Elementary Secondary High School Total

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Strategic teaching (Continued)

Notes: ANOVA test comparisons between means of feasibility ratings.

Table 4: Effectiveness of adaptations, by grade grouping

Kindergarten Elementary Secondary High School Total

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Classroom management strategies

Teachers acceptance of instructional adaptations

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Kindergarten Elementary Secondary High School Total

16. Use strategies to

Notes: ANOVA test comparisons between means of effectiveness ratings.

Table 5: Desirability of adaptations, by grade grouping

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Kindergarten Elementary Secondary High School Total

Classroom management strategies

Teachers acceptance of instructional adaptations

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

16. Use strategies to

Kindergarten Elementary Secondary High School Total

Notes: ANOVA test comparisons between means of effectiveness ratings.

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

Teachers acceptance of instructional adaptations

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

inhabitants, it would be worthwhile to replicate the study involving a wider

Downloaded by [University of Thessaly] at 01:17 18 November 2013

AGUILERA, M. J., ALVAREZ,

MARCHESI, A., MARTIN,