Lipscomb, T. T. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of accommodations for students with specific learning disabilities (Publication No. 3503089) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Capella University (Minneapolis, MN)

Specific accommodations were not examined in this study, but rather teachers’ perceptions about accommodations typically used by students with specific learning disabilities. These accommodations were identified by participants and so are listed as part of the findings.

Teachers who were instructing students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) in grade 2 through grade 6 in an urban Maryland (U.S.) school district were surveyed for the study. There were 56 teachers in this population’s sample, with 44 general educators and 7 special educators.

Teachers completed the survey from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS2), and the Cochran Scale of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC) for measuring educator perceptions about accommodations use by students with SLD.

First of all, there were no overall differences in positivity or negativity about the accommodations or modifications that the checklist identified, although the general education teachers rated all adaptations as more effective than the special education teachers did. Specific adaptations rated significantly more highly by general educators than special educators included read-aloud and modified test grading. General educators provided overall responses about fewer accommodations, and the researcher suggested that this phenomenon may have been related to lack of familiarity with some accommodations listed, or perhaps a perception that some accommodations were not available. When comparing perspectives of female regular education teachers and female special education teachers, there were no apparent differences overall regarding their views of the effectiveness of the adaptations for students with LD. However, there were some perception differences about specific adaptations, including that female regular educators rated modified tests more favorably than female special educators did. Due to few female special educators participating in the study, some score differences could not be reported. Finally, comparisons between male general educators and male special educators could not be reported with reliability due to there being only two male special educators. Limitations of the study were reported, and future research directions were suggested.