Instructional Adaptations: Accommodations and Modifications That Support Accessible Instruction

This chapter discusses accessibility of classroom-based instruction to support students with disabilities in educational environments. Specifically, we articulate assumptions related to the content of instruction and student performance expectations when making instructional adaptations as well as potential consequences of misalignment between adaptations used in instruction and assessment. We identify distinctions underlying the use of instructional accommodations as opposed to instructional modifications and present examples to illustrate the similarities and differences between these adaptations. This chapter is intended to help special education service providers, administrators, and policy makers understand the role of instructional adaptations for improving the accessibility of educational environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 42.79 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 52.74 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

Using Modifications and Accommodations to Enhance Learning of Young Children with Disabilities: Little Changes That Yield Big Impacts

Accessibility Progress and Perspectives

Increasing Accessibility Through Inclusive Instruction and Design

References

• Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S., Trela, K., & Baker, J. (2006). Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 309–321. Google Scholar
• Christensen, L. L., Lazarus, S. S., Crone, M., & Thurlow, M. L. (2008). 2007 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 69). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Google Scholar
• DeStefano, L., Shriner, J. G., & Lloyd, C. A. (2001). Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment. Exceptional Children, 68(1), 7–22. Google Scholar
• Elliott, S. N., Kurz, A., Beddow, P., & Frey, J. (2009). Cognitive load theory: Instruction-based research with applications for designing tests. Presentation at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Boston, MA. Google Scholar
• Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206. Google Scholar
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., & Karns, K. (1995). General educators’ specialized adaptation for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 440–459. Google Scholar
• Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., et al. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ Google Scholar
• Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved on February 1, 2009 from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.html
• Hollenbeck, K., Tindal, G., & Almond, P. (1998). Teachers’ knowledge of accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing. The Journal of Special Education, 32(3), 175–183. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Alonzo, J., Braun-Monegan, J., & Tindal, G. (2007). Recommendations for accommodations: Implications of (in)consistency. Remedial and Special Education, 28(4), 194–206.ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 42, 212–218. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• La Marca, Paul M. (2001). Alignment of standards and assessments as an accountability criterion. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(21). Retrieved on January 31, 2010 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=21
• Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2006). Mathematics instructional practices and assessment accommodations by secondary special and general educators. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 217–234. Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 2010–451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Google Scholar
• O’Connell, M., Lieberman, L., & Petersen, S. (2006). The use of tactile modeling and physical guidance as instructional strategies in physical activity for children who are blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100(8), 471–477. Google Scholar
• Phillips, S. (1999, June). Needs, wants, access, success: The stone soup of accommodations. Presentation at the 29th annual Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large-Scale Assessment, Snowbird, UT. Google Scholar
• Rose, D., & Dalton, B. (2009). Learning to read in the digital age. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(2), 74–83. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Thompson, S. J. (2005). An introduction to instructional accommodations. Special Connections. Retrieved on May 1, 2006 from http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/specconn/main.php?cat=instruction§ion=main&subsection=ia/main
• Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Anderson, M. E., & Miller, N. A. (2005). Considerations for the development and review of universally designed assessments (Technical Report 42). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved on November 1, 2006 from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical42.htm
• Tindal, G. (1998). Models for understanding task comparability in accommodated testing. Washington, D. C.: Council of Chief State School Officers. Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Google Scholar
• University of Kansas. (2005). Special Connections: Connecting Teachers to Strategies that Help Students with Special Needs Successfully Access the General Education Curriculum. Retrieved on February 1, 2010 from http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/specconn/index.php
• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: [AUTHOR]. Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2004). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: [AUTHOR]. Google Scholar
• Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states: Research monograph no. 18. Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Google Scholar
• Wilkins, A. J., Lewis, E., Smith, F., Rowland, E., & Tweedie, W. (2001). Coloured overlays and their benefit for reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 24, 41–64. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Bielinski, J., House, A., Moody, M., & Haigh, J. (2001). The relationship between instructional and assessment accommodations in an inclusive state accountability system. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 212–220. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, 75252, USA Leanne R. Ketterlin-Geller
2. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, 97403, USA Elisa M. Jamgochian

1. Leanne R. Ketterlin-Geller