Journal of Reading Behavior

1992, Volume XXIV, No. 4

WHAT TEACHERS DO WHEN THE TEXTBOOK IS TOUGH:

STUDENTS SPEAK OUT

Jeanne Shay Schumm, Sharon Vaughn, and Linda Saumell

University of Miami

ABSTRACT

The primary purpose of this study was to examine middle and high school students'
views of instructional practices teachers may use to facilitate reading of difficult
textbooks. One thousand eight hundred nineteen students (776 middle school and
1,043 high school) completed the Student Textbook Adaptation Evaluation
Instrument (STAEI). The STAEI consists of a list of 33 textbook adaptations for
students to rate in terms of their preference and perceptions of teacher use of the
adaptations. A secondary purpose of the study was to compare lower and higher
achieving students' responses on the STAEI. To address this purpose, a subset of
the initial cohort of students (120 lower achieving and 120 higher achieving)
was selected. Results indicate a difference between students' perceptions of the
desirability of textbook adaptations (high) and their perceptions of the frequency
of use of these adaptations in the classroom (low). Students do not feel they are
being exposed to the types of instructional adaptations they need. This is
particularly true among high school students and higher achieving students.
Discussion focuses on the disparity between student preferences and prevailing
practices in secondary school classrooms, as well as the role of students'
perceptions in teacher decision making.

Since the early 1900s educators have explored instructional practices that en-
able students to derive information from textbooks that are often difficult (Johnson
& Vardain, 1975) and uninteresting (Baldwin, 1985). These instructional practices
include teaching and learning strategies (Alvermann & Moore, 1991) and grouping
practices (Barr & Dreeban, 1991) that assist students with learning from their
textbooks. Considerable evidence documents the effectiveness of instructional prac-
tices designed to enhance students' comprehension and retention of text material
(Alvermann & Swafford, 1989; Darch, Carnine, & Kameenui, 1986; Swafford,
1991; Swafford & Alvermann, 1989). This quest for instructional strategies and

481
482 Journal of Reading Behavior

adaptations seems all the more imperative with the growing range of academic,
cultural, and linguistic diversity among students in the United States rendering the
reader/textbook match even more disparate.
Unfortunately, many practices such as strategy instruction have been used
largely by researchers and have yet to become part of the classroom routine of
teachers (Graham & Harris, in press). Indeed teacher resistance to content reading
instruction is well documented (Davey, 1988; Hinchman, 1987; O'Brien, 1988;
Ratekin, Simpson, Alvermann, & Dishner, 1985; Smith & Feathers, 1983; Stewart
& O'Brien, 1989). It would seem that teachers who have been trained to use
various content reading practices would be inclined to use them. However, con-
flicting views have emerged in this area. Conley (1986) reported that teachers who
had been trained in the use of certain content area reading strategies spend more
time using those strategies to meet the needs of the students. Other findings
(O'Brien, 1988; Stewart & O'Brien, 1989) indicate that even when teachers have
completed university coursework in content area reading, their employment of
textbook adaptations to accommodate student diversity may be quite limited. In
spite of conflicting views about why teachers choose not to use reading strategies
and textbook adaptations, one clear impression emerges, inclusion of these reading
practices in content area classroom instruction is infrequent (Davey, 1988; Konopak
et al., 1990; Rich & Pressley, 1990) or, at best, intermittent (Schumm, Vaughn,
& Saumell, 1992). There is a gap between preferred and prevailing practice (Wood
& Muth, 1990).
In examining the gap between preferred and prevailing practice, one perspec-
tive has been noticeably missing from the research literature—the perspective of
students. What textbook reading and learning strategies do students prefer and/or
find most helpful? In a recent study of school dropouts, the authors commented,
" . . . it seems imperative to give some kind of voice to the people most affected
by the problem" (Farrell, Peguero, Lindsey, & White, 1988, p. 500). In the
case of textbook learning, attending to the voice of students seems particularly
germane—especially with middle school and high school students. Secondary stu-
dents' educational preferences are communicated to teachers covertly and overtly. It
is likely that student rejection of particular instructional practices would discourage
teachers' subsequent use. Because secondary students' preferences affect their mo-
tivation and interest in learning, an understanding of how the consumer views
textbook adaptations is needed.
The few studies that have focused on students' perceptions of teachers' instruc-
tional practice have revealed that student insights provide valid, thoughtful informa-
tion about student learning. Weinstein and colleagues have conducted a series of
related research studies focussing on student perceptions of instructional practice
(Marshall & Weinstein, 1986; Weinstein, 1983, 1985; Weinstein, Marshall, Sharp,
& Botkin, 1987). These studies have concluded that students are highly aware of
differential behavior from their teachers and describe that behavior in a sensitive
 Text Adaptations—Students 483

and consistent manner. Babad's work (Babad, 1990; Babad, Bernieri, & Rosenthal,
1991; Tal & Babad, 1989, 1990) indicates that students are surprisingly good
judges of teachers' behavior (both verbal and nonverbal). In a study of students'
perceptions of adaptations teachers make to accommodate diverse student needs in
the classroom, students overwhelmingly preferred teachers who make accommoda-
tions to meet individual student needs (Vaughn, Schumm, Niarhos, & Gordon, in
press). However, these same students indicated that they were less accepting of
instructional adaptations that provided obvious differential treatment to students (for
example, providing different textbooks for readers of varying reading achievement
levels). If students generally appreciate accommodations that enhance learning but
are resistant to differentiated textbooks, do they feel the same about all textbook
adaptations and do they feel they are exposed to the textbook adaptations that help
them learn best?
This study had two purposes. First, to investigate students' preference for
textbook adaptations and perceptions of teachers' use of adaptations across two
grade groupings: middle school and high school. For purposes of this investigation,
textbook adaptation was broadly defined as any instructional accommodation used
to facilitate reading of textbook material (for review, see Schumm & Strickler,
1991). This includes actual changes to the textbook (e.g., abridging textbook con-
tent), teaching strategies (e.g., preteaching vocabulary), learning strategies that
promote independence in textbook reading (e.g., SQ3R), and grouping practices
(e.g., student pairing).
A second purpose was to compare students' preference for textbook adaptations
and perceptions of teachers' use between two achievement groupings: higher
achieving students and lower achieving students. We predicted that achievement
level may be an important factor when examining students' preferences for teach-
ers' instructional practices. Research has indicated that higher and lower achieving
students differ in their preference for curricular materials (Frymier, 1991). Frymier
reported that students who were judged as being more likely to finish high school
preferred curricular materials that were cognitively demanding, age level appro-
priate, and less motivating. Students deemed less likely to finish high school en-
dorsed curricular materials that were less cognitively demanding, appropriate for
younger students, and highly motivational. In addition, two studies examined stu-
dents' perceptions of teachers' instructional adaptations for individual student needs
and revealed that lower achieving students prefer adaptations less than higher
achieving students (Vaughn et al., 1991; Vaughn et al., in press). Several reasons
have been hypothesized to explain higher achieving students' preferences for adap-
tations. Perhaps higher achieving students are more tolerant of individual differ-
ences and feel that all students benefit when teachers make instructional adapta-
tions. From the perspective of low-achieving students it may be they feel that
adaptations single them out and underscore their inadequacies in academic tasks.
This study was designed to further investigate how higher and lower achieving
484 Journal of Reading Behavior

youngsters compare on types of adaptations students prefer as well as their general

tolerance for adaptations.

METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were students from three feeder middle schools (Grades 6 to 8) and
their parent senior high school (Grades 9 to 12). Seven hundred seventy-six middle
school students (425 females, 351 males) and 1,043 high school students (561
females, 482 males) participated in the study for a total of 1,819 students. Schools
were selected because they reflect a student and teacher ethnicity that is representa-
tive of many urban area schools and the county in the Southeastern United States
where the study was conducted.
To investigate the effects of reading achievement level on students' perceptions
of textbook adaptations, a subset of the initial cohort of students was identified.
This subset included higher achieving students (stanine scores of 6 to 9) and lower
achieving students (stanine scores of 1 to 4). Standardized test scores were derived
from the reading subtest of the most recent administration of the Stanford Achieve-
ment Test (SAT) (Garner, Rudman, Karlsen, & Merwin, 1982). The SAT is a
battery of group administered, norm-reference, objectively scored measures of stu-
dent academic achievement. The standardization of the SAT was extensive, system-
atic, and technically sound with 450,000 students and 300 school districts partici-
pating. The SAT is group administered to all students in the district by their
homeroom teacher in the spring of each year.
Students were randomly chosen from the pool of students who had completed
the Student Textbook Adaptation Evaluation Instrument (STAEI). After checking
achievement test records, students with stanines of 6 to 9 were placed in the higher
achieving group, students with stanines of 1 to 4 were placed in the lower achieving
group, students with stanines of 5 were not included in this aspect of the study.
This process was continued until two groups of 120 students were indentified:
higher achieving (60 middle school; 60 high school) and lower achieving (60 middle
school; 60 high school).

Materials
To gauge student perceptions of textbook adaptations, we developed the Stu-
dent Textbook Adaptation Evaluation Instrument (STAEI). The instrument consists
of two parts: Adaptations Evaluation (Part I) and Comments (Part II) which pro-
vides an open-ended format for student comments. Part I, Adaptations Evaluation,
consists of a list of 33 possible textbook adaptations. The instrument directs stu-
dents to rate (on a Likert-type scale; 1 =low, 7 = high) each of the adaptations in
terms of their preference for the textbook adaptation and the degree to which their
teachers actually use the adaptations.
 Text Adaptations—Students 485

The STAEI is based on an instrument designed to tap teacher perceptions

of textbook adaptations, Textbook Adaptation Evaluation Instrument (TAEI)
(Schumm, Vaughn, & Saumell, in review). The list of adaptations for TAEI (the
teacher instrument) was derived from two sources: (a) an extensive review of
literature and (b) transcripts of a series of focus group interviews with teachers.
Our literature search included articles pertaining to textbook adaptations, as well
as content area reading textbooks and reading methods compendiums (Schumm &
Strickler, 1991). The focus group interviews were conducted because it was our
contention that a list of adaptations should be buttressed with practices teachers
actually use and students are likely to encounter. Therefore, a series of focus
group interviews (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990) was conducted with content area
teachers, reading resource specialists, special education teachers, and ESL teachers.
Each interview included four to five participants and lasted approximately IV2
hours. Each focus group interview involved five or six participants.
A focus group interview is a structure that was originally used in marketing
research for probing perceptions of individuals (Bellenger, Bernhardt, & Gold-
stucker, 1976). Unlike individual interviews, the focus group interview enables
participants to exchange ideas and elaborate on them through discussion. Although
guided by a core of questions and facilitated by a discussion leader, participants
are not confined to a highly structured question-answer sequence. Rather, the inter-
view is flexible and fluid, encouraging exploration and elaboration of ideas. Each
interview was audiotaped and then audio scanned by two researchers to derive
additional adaptations that were not on the list generated by the literature review.
After both the literature review and focus group interviews with teachers were
completed, we compiled a master list of textbook adaptations.
To adapt the teacher scale for students, we conducted a series of three focus
group interviews with secondary school students of varying achievement levels to
identify adaptations that students might suggest. Although no new items were
identified, we felt that these interviews helped us to confirm the existing list. We
omitted items from the teacher scale that were inappropriate for a student audience
(i.e., items related to determination of text readability). All remaining items were
reworded to address students.
Three independent researchers collapsed and condensed items and then items
were reviewed and compared in a group meeting and revised accordingly (Sudman
& Bradburn, 1982). Borrowing extensively from Slavin (1984), a checklist was
developed against which each item in the inventory was compared and evaluated
for clarity, brevity, and appropriateness; as well as freedom from ambiguity. To
further clarify items, we provided an example for each item and bolded the key
idea in each item. Thus, typical items read as follows: "Some teachers work with
students in small groups or alone to teach difficult textbook material," or "Some
teachers provide study guides to direct reading of textbooks."
To organize the individual items into meaningful categories for discussion
486 Journal of Reading Behavior

purposes, two independent coders read the inventory items and generated possible
categories using an "open coding" category generating process (Strauss & Corbin,
1990) that yielded a total of 14 initial categories. After combining related catego-
ries, the initial list of categories was then reduced to five. Each category was
operationally defined (see Table 1) and, then using the revised five-category
scheme, two raters independently sorted the items into one of the five categories
with an interrater agreement of .86. The resulting superordinate categories were:
provide direct assistance, simplify textbook, supplement textbook, structure lessons
to promote comprehension, and teach reading/study strategies. One item that could
not be labelled as a textbook adaptation was included as a gauge of student prefer-
ence for and teacher reliance on text-based instruction. That was item 33 (avoid
use of textbooks). The superordinate categories were used for reporting and summa-
rizing data only and were not placed on the scale. Individual items were randomly
ordered on subjects' protocols.
A pilot study with 107 middle school and high school students was conducted
to field test items and ascertain scale reliability. Based on the results of the pilot,
items were revised to further clarify wording for students. Pilot data yielded Cron-
bach's alpha coefficients of .92 for the preference subscale for the STAEI and .92
for the use subscale. We were also interested in finding out whether or not students
could rate their teachers as a whole (rather than focusing on a particular teacher).
Interviews with a random sample of students in the pilot indicated that the task did
not present a problem.

Procedure
Following the pilot testing and refinement of the STAEI, we delivered the
instrument to participating schools. Participating principals recommended English
classes as data collection sites because English is a required subject. Thus, we
could recruit students from the full range of achievement levels. Prior to data
collection, teachers distributed parental permission forms to students. Teachers
administered the student instrument to all participating subjects by giving students
a copy of the scale, providing background information about the purpose of the
scale, and assuring students that their answers would remain confidential, would
not be looked at by anyone other than the researchers, and would be reported as
group data. Students were also told to complete the scale by considering their
teachers "as a whole" rather than responding to what one teacher does.

RESULTS

Comparison Between Preference and Use

A Wilcoxon Matched-Pair Signed Rank statistic was used to assess differences
between students' preference and actual use ratings (Table 2). With one excep-
 Text Adaptations—Students
Table 1
Operational Definitions for Superordinate Categories Used to Classify
Inventory Items
Category
Provide Direct Assistance
Simplify Textbook/Assignments
Supplement the Textbook Assignments
Structure Lessons to Promote Compre-
hension of Textual Material
Teach Reading/Study Strategies
487
Operational Definition
Adaptations in which direct human assistance
is provided by the student's teacher or peers
(e.g., reading aloud; individual or small
group instruction; cooperative learning
group; or lectures).
Adaptations in which the actual textbook is
changed (e.g., color code or highlight text;
construct abridged versions of the text).
Adaptations in which other materials augment
or replace textbook (e.g., computer pro-
grams, films, videotapes, recordings, field
trips, or experiments; and use of multilevel,
multimaterial approaches).
Adaptations involving teacher methods that
enhance student learning of text material
(e.g., provide summaries, outlines, ques-
tions to guide reading, views of assign-
ments; introduce key vocabulary; set pur-
pose for reading; slow pace of assignments;
guide class discussions; provide assistance
for answering text questions; activate prior
knowledge; create interest for reading; or
structure post-reading activities to increase
retention of material).
Adaptations in which the teacher provides di-
rect instruction that teaches students strate-
gies that can be used independently by stu-
dents to enhance their comprehension and
retention of textbook material (e.g., develop
study guidelines or outlines; model effective
comprehension strategies; teach students to
use graphic aids, record key concepts or use
SQ3R; or teach memory strategies).
488 Journal of Reading Behavior

Table 2
Means and Medians of Student Ratings of Overall Preference and Use of
Textbook Adaptations

Preference Use
Textbook Adaptation Mean Median Mean Median
Provide Direct Assistance
1. Teacher read textbook aloud to students 4.36 5 3.42 3
2. Students read textbook aloud 4.31* 5 4.30 4
3. Explain textbook information thor- 5.00 5 4.18 4
oughly in lectures
4. Pair students 5.38 6 3.19 3
5. Work with students individually or in 5.22 6 3.12 3
small groups
6. Form cooperative learning groups 5.46 6 3.65 4
Simplify Textbook/Assignments
7. Tape record readings of difficult books 3.79 4 2.08 1
8. Use outlines and overheads to point out 4.73 5 4.35 4
important information
9. Write material for students to read 4.82 5 3.01 3
when textbook is too difficult
10. Have students read only important parts 4.86 5 2.79 2
of the chapter
11. Study guides 5.23 6 3.67 4
12. Color code textbooks 5.25 6 3.11 3
13. Give shorter reading assignments 5.29 6 3.01 3
14. Use easier books when the textbook is 4.56 5 2.49 2
too hard
15. Use books, magazines, newspapers, and 5.22 6 3.50 3
other materials besides the regular
textbook
16. Rewrite textbook questions in easier 5.23 6 3.37 3
words or provide page numbers where
answers can be found
Supplement the Textbook
17. Use film/videotape/recordings 5.58 6 4.04 4
18. Use computer programs 4.51 5 2.04 1
19. Direct experiences (field trips, etc.) 5.79 7 2.97 3
Structure Reading Lessons to Promote Comprehension
20. Conduct preview of the textbook to 4.17 4 3.64 4
help locate textbook learning tools
21. Conduct surveys of reading assignment 4.37 4 3.18 3
to introduce material
 Tejcr Adaptations—Students 489

Table 2 (Continued)
Preference Use
Textbook Adaptation Mean Median Mean Median

22. Discuss major ideas and key point be- 5.45 6 4.21 4
fore reading the assignment
23. Provide purposes for reading 5.06 5 3.72 4
24. Create interest in reading assignments 5.60 6 3.12 3
25. Teach meanings of new words before 5.26 6 3.78 . 4
reading
26. Provide questions to guide reading 4.43 5 3.65 4
27. Require students to write summaries or 3.63 4 5.12 5
answer questions about reading
Teach Reading Strategies
28. Teach students ways to keep track of 5.27 6 3.32
whether or not they understand the
material
29. Show students how to "read to learn" 5.02 5 3.08
by demonstrating reading strategies
30. Teach methods to use when students do 5.52 6 3.39
not understand the textbook
31. Teach students to use charts, illustra- 4.99 5 3.35
tions, pictures, graphs, etc.
32. Teach study tricks and special ways to 5.33 6 3.31
remember textbook information
33. Avoid using textbooks 4.28 4 3.43
* Indicates no statistically significant differences; 1 =low, 7 = high.

tion, all items had statistically significant differences between preference and ac-
tual use. Preference ratings (range = 3.63 to 5.79) were higher than use ratings
(range = 2.04 to 5.12) on all items except one (item 27, require students to write
summaries or answer questions about reading). There was essentially no difference
between student ratings of preference and use on item 2 (have students read out
loud in class). The greatest disparity between preference and use (judging by z
scores) was on item 19 (direct experiences) and item 24 (create interest in reading
assignments).

Grade Grouping Differences

Preference. The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon statistic was used to assess signifi-
cant differences (p<.05) between middle school and high school students on their
ratings for preference of textbook adaptations. The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon statis-
490 Journal of Reading Behavior

tic indicated that statistically significant differences for preference existed between
the ratings given by middle school and high school students on all but seven items
(see Table 3). Overall, middle school students' preference ratings of items were
lower than high school students with the exception of seven items: items 1, 2, 4,
and 6 related to provision of direct assistance; item 10 (read only important parts
of chapter); item 18 (computer use); and item 33 (avoid using textbooks).
Some adaptations received higher preference ratings than others, and in general
grade grouping rankings of inventory items were remarkably similar. Items 17 (use
film/videotape/recordings, 19 (direct experiences), and 24 (create interest in read-
ing assignments) were among the highest ranked items for both middle school and
high school groups. Middle school students preferred adaptations that provided
direct, primarily peer assistance, whereas high school students preferred learning
procedures that promote independent learning from text, for example, item 30
(teach methods to use when students do not understand).
In general, high school and middle school students' identification of least
preferential adaptations was also similar. However, middle school students pre-
ferred read-aloud practices (items 1 and 2) and use of computers (item 18) more
than high school students.
Use. The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon statistic comparing middle and high school
ratings on use indicated that 23 of the 33 STAEI items reached traditional levels
of significance (p<.05) (see Table 3). When statistically significant differences did
occur, the reported use of adaptations was higher in middle school than in high
school with four exceptions: item 3 (explain textbook information in lectures), item
6 (cooperative learning groups), item 7 (tape record readings), and item 12 (color
code textbooks).
Overall, students' reports of teacher adaptations indicated moderate to low
usage with the range of middle school scores ranging from 1.87 to 5.07 and high
school, 1.92 to 5.16. Only four items (12%) had a median score of 5 or above for
middle school students; only two items (6%) for high school students.
Middle school and high school students' reports of adaptations that teachers
frequently used overlapped considerably. One difference is that middle school
teachers are reported to provide direct assistance by having students read the text-
book aloud, whereas high school teachers provide direct assistance by explaining
textbook information in class lectures.
Among those items reported as lowest in teacher use was item 18 (use computer
programs). All other items rated the lowest fell in the category of simplifying
textbook assignments.

Student Comments
Part II of the STAEI invited student comments. Forty-one percent of the middle
school students and 34% of the high school students offered written comments.
 Text Adaptations—Students 491

Three researchers read all comments and searched for themes or common ideas
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Based on each theme the researchers worked together
to develop an initial list of categories that reflected students' responses. After
combining categories that appeared to reflect similar attitudes, the list of categories
was reduced to 26. The three raters then coded a random subset (« = 5) of students'
comments independently. The categories were revised and finalized. Using the
revised category coding scheme, two raters then coded the students' comments
independently. Intercoder agreement was defined as the proportion of agreement
by category between the two coders and ranged from .50 to .95, with a mean
interrater agreement of .75. The two coders conferenced to clarify differences of
interpretation of categories, and then all categories with an interrater agreement of
less than .70 were independently recoded. No category had an intercoder agreement
less than .80. Table 4 presents the list of categories used to code the students'
responses and includes the frequency with which each code was used for both
middle school and high school students' comments.

Achievement Group Differences

To investigate achievement group differences on the STAEI, a subset of the
initial group of students was identified. This subset included 120 higher achieving
students (60 middle school; 60 high school) and 120 lower achieving students (60
middle school; 60 high school).

Preference. The Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon statistic was used to determine

whether there were statistically significant differences (p<.05) between higher
achieving and lower achieving students' preference ratings for each item. In gen-
eral, high achieving students expressed higher ratings on items (29 out of 33
cases) and those differences reached significance on 16 items (see Table 5). Higher
achieving students expressed statistically significantly higher preference ratings for
various grouping patterns (items 4, 5, 6), simplifying assignments (items 10, 11,
12, and 13), variety of materials (items 15) and direct experiences (item 19),
prereading activities (items 21, 22, 24, 25, and 26), and for activities that foster
independence in learning (items 30 and 32). Lower achieving students' ratings
were statistically significantly higher on only one item (item 1), teacher reads
textbook aloud to students.

Use. The lower achieving students' ratings were higher on teacher use than
their higher achieving peers. Lower achieving students' ratings were higher for
28 of the 33 items and statistically significantly so (p<.05) in 13 cases (Mann-
Whitney-Wilcoxon statistic). Lower achieving students reports of teacher use of
the following practices were higher than higher achieving students: oral reading
(items 1 and 2), simplifying assignments (items 7, 13, and 14), computer use (item
Table 3

Student Ratings of Textbook Adaptations by Grade Grouping

Preference Use
Middle High Middle High
Textbook Adaptation Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
Provide Direct Assistance
1. Teacher read textbook aloud to students 4.65* 5 4.15 4 3.78* 4 3.15 3
2. Students read textbook aloud 4.56* 5 4.12 4 4.75* 5 3.97 4
3. Explain textbook information thoroughly in lectures
4. Pair students
4.66*
5.50*
5
6
5.26
5.30
6
6
4.00*
5.06
4
5
4.31
5.16
4
5
1
5. Work with students individually or in small groups 4.97 5 5.40 6 3.08 3 3.14 3
6. Form cooperative learning groups 5.50* 6 5.44 6 3.45* 3 3.80 4
3
Simplify Textbook/Assignments 00

7. Tape record readings of difficult books 3.61* 4 3.91 4 1.87* 1 2.23 1

8. Use outlines and overheads to point out important
information 4.64 5 4.80 5 4.51* 5 4.23 4
9. Write material for students to read when textbook is too
difficult 4.66* 5 4.94 5 3.18* 3 2.88 3
10. Have students read only important parts of the chapter 5.03* 6 4.73 5 3.00* 3 2.63 2
11. Study guides 4.96* 5 5.44 6 3.69 4 3.66 4
12. Color code textbooks 5.06* 6 5.40 6 2.86* 2 3.30 3
13. Give shorter reading assignments 5.10* 5 5.46 6 3.14* 3 2.91 3
14. Use easier books when the textbook is too hard 4.48 5 4.61 5 2.63* 2 2.38 2
15. Use books, magazines, newspapers, and other materials
besides the regular textbook 5.11 5 5.30 6 3.51 3 3.50 3
16. Rewrite textbook questions in easier words or provide
page numbers where answers can be found 5.17 6 5.27 6 3.60* 4 3.21 3
Supplement the Textbook
17. Use film/videotape/recordings 5.57 6 5.60 6 4.06 4 4.03 4
18. Use computer programs 4.74* 5 4.33 5 2.21* 1 1.92 1
19. Direct experiences (field trips, etc.) 5.72* 7 5.83 7 3.27* 3 2.75 2
Structure Reading Lessons to Promote Comprehension
20. Conduct preview of the textbook to help locate textbook
learning tools 4.12 4 4.20 4 4.06* 4 3.34 3
21. Conduct surveys of reading assignment to introduce
material 4.25* 4 4.46 5 3.35* 3 3.05 3
22. Discuss major ideas and key points before reading the
assignment 5.16* 5 5.66 6 4.41* 4 4.07 4
23. Provide purposes for reading 4.94* 5 5.15 6 4.10* 4 3.45 3
24. Create interest in reading assignments 5.50* 6 5.68 6 3.32* 3 2.98 3
25. Teach meanings of new words before reading 5.10* 5 5.37 6 4.15* 4 3.51 3 •§
26. Provide questions to guide reading 4.13* 4 4.65 5 3.68 4 3.62 4 s
27. Require students to write summaries or answer questions
about reading
Teach Reading Strategies
28. Teach students ways to keep track of whether or not they
3.33* 3 3.85 4 5.07 7 5.16 7
1
5"

understand the material 5.10* 5 5.41 6 3.43* 3 3.24 3

29. Show students how to "read to learn" by demonstrating
reading strategies 4.76* 5 5.20 6 3.29* 3 2.93 3
30. Teach methods to use when students do not understand
the textbook 5.34* 6 5.65 6 3.58* 4 3.26 3
31. Teach students to use charts, illustrations, pictures,
graphs, etc. 4.86* 5 5.10 5 3.41 3 3.30 3
32. Teach study tricks and special ways to remember textbook
information 5.17* 5 5.45 6 3.67* 4 3.05 3
33. Avoid using textbooks 4.40* 4 4.20 4 3.43 3 3.43 3
* Indicates statistically significant difference between the means of middle and high school students' responses; 1 =low, 7 = high.
494 Journal of Reading Behavior

Table 4
Frequency of Student Comments by Grade Grouping
Comments Middle School High School
Textbook Suggestions
Easier to understand/less confusing 40 38
More interesting 40 37
Not be used as the main resource 28 31
Contain more examples 16 23
More complicated 9 6
Lighter/softback 7 3
Updated 4 6
Contain more pictures 4 4
We should be allowed to highlight books 4 2
Textbooks are fine the way they are 3 1
Have color coded main ideas 2 8
Contain shorter chapters 1 5
Teacher Suggestions
Add flair and excitement to learning 21 22
Include discussions on assignments more, before and after 16 31
More attentive to students' needs, more qualified 15 9
Give less homework/busy work 13 8
More organized, more in control 9 5
Avoid using textbooks 8 8
Come down to the students' level of understanding 7 3
Explain material from their knowledge 7 15
More helpful 6 10
More understanding, more like friends 5 6
Teach learning techniques, study tricks, and basic skills 4 4
Avoid insulting or embarrassing students 4 1
Have smaller classes 4 0
Divide the class into small groups 3 3
Avoid giving quizzes without explaining the lesson 2 4
Miscellaneous Comments
Survey (general) 45 26
School (general) 15 14
Other 38 84
 Text Adaptations—Students 495

18); prereading activities (items 20, 21, 23, and 24), and activities that foster
independence in learning (items 29, 30, and 32).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this investigation was twofold. The primary purpose was to
examine students' preference for textbook adaptations and perceptions of teachers'
use across two grade groupings, middle school and high school. The second pur-
pose of this investigation was to compare students' preferences for textbook adapta-
tions and perceptions of teachers' use across two achievement groupings, higher
achieving students and lower achieving students. Our discussion focuses on these
two purposes and integrates findings with extant literature as well as salient com-
ments from participating students. We also provide suggestions for future research.

Students' Perceptions Across Grade Groupings

In general, the students in this study found all adaptations to be at least some-
what desirable with the lowest rating for middle school students being 3.33 and
for high school students 3.85. Students did not call for an abandonment of text-
books, with item 33 (avoid using textbooks) yielding moderate ratings. Yet, at both
middle and high school levels, differences existed between students' perceptions of
the desirability of textbook adaptations and their perceptions of the frequency of
use of these adaptations in the classroom. Responses to items as well as comments
indicated that students are not getting the instructional support they feel they need
to read and comprehend textbooks. Students remarked, "Some of the questions
you asked us are hardly ever practiced. I think it is affecting our textbook learning,''
and, "Teachers should spend more time explaining the material. Some teachers
give you the page number in the textbook, sit down and read a book, leaving you
on your own, understand or tough luck if you don't." Another student stated, "I
find it most annoying when teachers make us read, and then immediately ask
questions without teaching it. Their job is to teach . . . and to point out things we
did not see in the reading."
A number of students provided a rationale for the discrepancy between prefer-
ence and use, "I think that it will be very difficult for the teacher to do half the
things you suggested in your survey. Not only does the teacher not have the time
but the school board will not provide the money needed to do such things," and,
"The reason why I rated many of the special things that teachers could relate to
reading low is because teachers can't really do them due to the limited time in
class and the large numbers of students." Indeed, these student-identified barriers
Table 5
Means and Medians for Preference and Use of Textbook Adaptation by Achievement Group
Preference Use
High Low High Low
Textbook Adaptation Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
Provide Direct Assistance
1. Teacher read textbook aloud to students 4.48* 5 4.93 6 3.11* 3 3.97 4
2. Students read textbook aloud 4.76 5 4.65 5 4.04* 4 4.84 5
K
3. Explain textbook information thoroughly in lectures 5.20 6 4.72 5 3.87 4 3.95 4
4. Pair students 5.85* 7 5.14 6 2.78 2 3.09 3
5. Work with students individually or in small groups 5.72* 6 4.57 5 2.93 3 2.95 3 •s,
6. Form cooperative learning groups 5.89* 7 5.15 6 3.38 3 3.38 3 <>>.%
S'
Simplify Textbook/Assignments OQa
7. Tape record readings of difficult books 3.73 4 3.74 4 1.64* 1 2.11 1 Co
<*
;s-
8. Use outlines and overheads to point out important a
information 4.75 5 4.50 4 4.14 4 3.86 4
9. Write material for students to read when textbook is too
difficult 4.98 5 4.70 5 2.96 3 3.30 3
10. Have students read only important parts of the chapter 5.22* 6 4.56 5 2.50 2 2.94 3
11. Study guides 5.39* 6 4.74 5 3.53 4 3.77 4
12. Color code textbooks 5.57* 6 4.97 5 2.90 2 3.08 .3
13. Give shorter reading assignments 5.60* 6 5.00 5 2.66* 2 3.08 3
14. Use easier books when the textbook is too hard 4.56 5 4.41 5 2.12* 2 2.63 2
15. Use books, magazines, newspapers, and other materials
besides the regular textbook 5.50* 6 4.89 5 3.25 3 3.71 4
16. Rewrite textbook questions in easier words or provide
page numbers where answers can be found 5.37 6 4.97 6 3.16 3 3.44 4
Supplement the Textbook
17. Use film/videotape/recordings 5.74 6.5 5.31 6 3.85 4 3.97 4
18. Use computer programs 4.78 5 4.35 5 1.84* 1 2.60 2
19. Direct experiences (field trips, etc.) 5.95* 7 5.08 6 2.90 3 3.01 3
Structure Reading Lessons to Promote Comprehension
20. Conduct preview of the textbook to help locate textbook
learning tools 4.19 4 4.42 4 3.37* 3 3.98 4
21. Conduct surveys of reading assignment to introduce
material 4.63* 5 4.07 4 2.83* 3 3.60 4
22. Discuss major ideas and key point before reading the
assignment 5.76* 6 5.05 5 4.10 4 4.09 4
23. Provide purposes for reading 5.22 6 4.98 6 3.44* 3 4.34 4 g
24. Create interest in reading assignments 5.83* 6 5.24 6 2.75* 3 3.37 3 S-
25. Teach meanings of new words before reading 5.53* 6 4.93 5 3.98 4 3.95 4 .§"
26. Provide questions to guide reading 4.68* 5 3.98 4 3.77 4 3.36 3 g
27. Require students to write summaries or answer questions |"
about reading 3.58 4 3.81 4 4.97 5 4.99 5.5 |
Teach Reading Strategies 5
28. Teach students ways to keep track of whether or not they §
understand the material 5.44 6 5.06 5 3.21 3 3.60 3
29. Show students how to "read to learn" by demonstrating
reading strategies 5.33 6 4.97 5 2.79* 3 3.35 3
30. Teach methods to use when students do not understand
the textbook 5.91* 7 5.31 6 3.18* 3 3.77 4
31. Teach students to use charts, illustrations, pictures,
graphs, etc. 5.25 5 4.78 5 3.35 3 3.73 4
32. Teach study tricks and special ways to remember textbook
information 5.66* 6 4.98 6 3.12* 3 3.68 3.5
33. Avoid using textbooks 4.22 4 3.93 4 3.39 3 3.41 3
* Indicates statistically significant difference between the means of middle and high school students' responses; 1 =low, 7 = high.
498 Journal of Reading Behavior

to planning for reading instruction at the secondary level are consistent with those
previously documented in the literature (e.g., Blase, 1985; Hinchman, 1987;
Schumm, Vaughn, & Saumell, 1992).
The disparity between preference and use was most distinct when students
considered items that addressed direct experiences and generating student interest.
This concern was expressed in student comments such as: "I hope your survey
helps people realize the importance of the interesting lesson, pictures, guest speak-
ers, and field trips as a better way to keep students interested in school." One
recommendation from a high school student says it all, "Never take the boring
route." When considering the implementation of various instructional or learning
strategies, issues related to interest activation and motivation cannot be ignored
(See Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991, for a discussion).
The shift between preference and use ratings that existed on item 27 (require
students to write summaries or answer questions about reading) was interesting.
This traditional postreading practice was rated the highest in terms of teacher use,
but the lowest in terms of preference. It may be argued that in the majority of cases
this adaptation is really not an adaptation at all, but really a form of assessment
(Durkin, 1978-79). Students may be aware that they are being tested and thus not
perceive it as a very desirable practice.
When grade grouping differences were examined, high school students re-
ported a stronger preference for a range of textbook adaptations. Fifty-eight percent
of the adaptations from high school students had a median score of 6 or 7, whereas
only 27% of the adaptations from middle school students had a median score of 6
or 7. On the other hand, high school students also reported lower teacher use of
adaptations. Student concern about the infrequent use of adaptations in the upper
grades was presented by one high school student, "It seems in grade school or
elementary school, my teachers were much more helpful with my textbooks. Also,
my textbooks were a little more interesting. But as I got into my higher grades
teachers got a little more lazier and my books got harder. My teachers in high
school don't really discuss any information in my textbooks."
Teacher reports of reduced implementation of instructional adaptations through
the grades confirm these students' perceptions (Schumm & Vaughn, 1992). Inter-
views with high school teachers have revealed that some teachers feel that making
such adaptations is actually wrong (Schumm, Vaughn, Haager, McDowell, Roth-
lein, & Saumell, 1992). These high school teachers see themselves as gatekeepers
to the real world. The majority of high school teachers we have interviewed feel
that instructional adapations that simplify content for students pacify them and do
not prepare them for what they are likely to encounter in postsecondary education
and in the job market (Schumm et al., 1992). This apparent dissonance between
what secondary students want and what secondary teachers think they need, war-
rants further investigation.
 Text Adaptations—Students 499

Student Preferences by Achievement Level

A common assumption might be that textbook adaptations are more appropriate

for lower achieving or learning disabled students and that higher achieving students
may be insulted with measures to simplify their reading assignments. Also, we were
interested in whether high-achieving students might perceive adaptation negatively
because they slowed the pace. However, it appears that higher acheiving students
recognize the merit of some textbook adaptations, in many cases even more so
than lower achieving students. This finding is consistent with previous research
which reported that students of all achievement groups feel they benefit from adap-
tations that promote learning for all students (Vaughn, Schumm, & Kouzekanani, in
press) but that lower achieving students prefer adaptions less than higher achieving
students (Vaughn et al., 1991; Vaughn et al., in press). This may be in part
explained by student interviews which have suggested that low-achieving students
are concerned with "fitting in" and may view adaptations as opportunities for the
teacher to make their low academic status more obvious. Additional research ex-
ploring this issue is certainly needed.
Interestingly, the higher achieving students perceived that adaptations occurred
for them less frequently, when compared with the responses from the lower achiev-
ing students. As we have discussed elsewhere (Vaughn et al., in press), lower
achieving students may view adaptations as presenting more work for them, thus
the frequency of their occurrence is at a more acceptable level than for high achiev-
ing students. The notion of differential instruction that favors higher achieving
students has been documented previously (Gamoran & Berends, 1987; Hargreaves,
1967). Our findings reveal that even higher achieving students do not feel they are
receiving the help they want, as in the following case: "Most of the classes I take
are honors or advanced placements. Thus, the textbooks are on a higher level, even
college level. They're harder to read and understand. Few teachers take the time
to explain them. The assumption is if you are in a high level class, you should be
able to comprehend the material. This is not always the case. Teachers rarely
discuss the textbook. However, we are still tested on textbook information." Lower
achieving students also had comments about teachers' adaptations: "Most teachers
try to help out as much as possible, but are sometimes blind to a few learning
disabilities. I think some of them should take a little more time to explain something
than just do it and think we understand."
The social validation or acceptability of treatment method by students with
special needs indicates that students are more likely to be motivated to learn when
they view instructional practices positively (Reimers, Wacher, & Koeppl, 1987;
Singh & Katz, 1985; Von Brock & Elliott, 1987). The textbook adaptation scale
provides an opportunity for teachers to ascertain the textbook adaptations that are
desirable from a student's perspective and feasible from their perspective. We feel
500 Journal of Reading Behavior

that future research should be conducted in naturalistic settings that allow students
to participate in a specific adaptation and then evaluate the extent to which it is
effective.

Conclusions
In Wood and Muth's (1991) literature review discussing the discrepancy be-
tween prevailing versus preferred instructional practice in the middle grades, the
authors concluded that change is needed; current instructional practice is stuck in
the mire of tradition. Our research provides compelling, but discomforting, evi-
dence that their concern about the lack of implementation of research-based innova-
tions in the classroom is valid. Our research that addresses teachers' perceptions of
instructional adaptations, suggests that teachers believe that adaptations to enhance
student learning are highly desirable, but not feasible given the constraints of the
classroom condition (Schumm & Vaughn, 1991; Schumm, Vaughn, & Saumell,
1992). We have also gathered evidence that class size, pressures to cover content,
and lack of planning time do indeed inhibit teachers from doing what they deem
important (Schumm & Vaughn, 1992; Schumm, Vaughn, & Saumell, 1992). In
light of current economic conditions that have forced federal, state, and local
governments to slash education budgets, it appears that the feasibility issue is
central to the types of textbook adaptations teachers can and will make. Questions
that need to be considered include: What is effective, yet efficient? What promotes
student engagement, yet avoids teacher burn out?
More importantly, this research indicates that students of varying ability and
grade levels want change in content area reading instruction. It was interesting to
us that one of the highest ranked items was item 30 (teach methods to use when
students do not understand the textbook). Apparently students are anxious to learn
how to learn, but do not believe they are provided adequate instruction in doing so.
Students' responsibility for their own learning, although traditionally overlooked
in education (Goodlad, 1984; Gutmann, 1987), is receiving increased attention
(Ericson & Ellett, 1990). If success and failure to learn is partially attributed to
the learner, then educators must be held accountable for facilitating independent
learning.
Obviously this study is global in nature. It does not focus on an individual
teacher nor on a particular instructional adaptation implemented in a classroom.
Certainly future research examining student perceptions of specific textbook adapta-
tions is warranted. The strength of student voices heard in this and related studies
(Vaughn et al., 1991; Vaughn et al., in press) has persuaded us to embark on a
line of research designed to elicit student perceptions.
If learning is truly to be viewed as a collaborative effort between teacher and
student, it is imperative that the voice of students be heard. Content area teachers
could encourage this collabortion by using the STAEI (or a modification) to ascer-
 Text Adaptations—Students 501

tain student strategy preferences as a guide for instructional planning. Also, as

individual strategies are introduced or textbook adaptations made, teachers can
elicit student reactions and recommendations.

REFERENCES

Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 951-983). New
York: Longman.
Alvermann, D. E., & Swafford, J. (1989). Do content area strategies have a research base? Journal of
Reading, 32, 388-394.
Babad, E. (1990). Measuring and changing teachers' differential behavior as perceived by students and
teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 683-690.
Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Students as judges of teachers' verbal and nonverbal
behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 211-234.
Baldwin, R. S. (1985). Children's literature and the reading program. In L. W. Searfoss & J. E.
Readence (Eds.), Helping children learn to read (pp. 393-408). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Barr, R., & Dreeban, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil,
P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 885-910).
New York: Longman.
Bellenger, D. N., Bernhardt, K. L., & Goldstucker, J. L. (1976). Qualitative research in marketing.
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Blase, J. J. (1985). The socialization of teachers: An ethnographic study of factors contributing to the
rationalization of the teacher's instructional perspective. Urban Education, 20, 235-256.
Conley, M. W. (1986). The influence of training on three teachers' comprehension questions during
content area lessons. The Elementary School Journal, 87, 17-27.
Davey, B. (1988). How do classroom teachers use their textbooks? Journal of Reading, 31, 340-345.
Darch, C. B., Carnine, D. W., & Kameenui, E. J. (1986). The role of graphic organizers and social
structure in content area instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 18, 275-295.
Durkin, D. (1978-1979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction.
Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-538.
Ericson, D. P., & Ellett, F. J. (1990). Taking student responsibility seriously. Educational Researcher,
19, 3-10.
Farrell, E., Peguero, G., Lindsey, R., & White, R. (1988). Giving voice to high school students:
Pressure and boredom, ya know what I'm sayin'? American Educational Research Journal, 25,
489-502.
Frymier, J. (1991). Students' preferences for curriculum materials. The High School Journal, 74,
123-129.
Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of
survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57, 415-436.
Garner, E. F., Rudman, H. C., Karlsen, B., & Merwin, J. C. (1982). Stanford achievement test (7th
ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Goodlad, I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (in press). Cognitive strategy instruction: Methodological issues and
guidelines in conducting research. In S. Vaughn & C. Bos (Eds.), Learning disabilities research:
Theory, methodology, assessment and ethics. New York: Springer-Verlag.
502 Journal of Reading Behavior

Gutman, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hargreaves, D. H. (1967). Social relations in secondary school. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hinchman, K. (1987). The textbook and three content-area teachers. Reading Research and Instruction,
26, 247-263.
Johnson, R. E., & Vardain, E. B. (1975). Reading, readability, and social studies. The Reading
Teacher, 26, 483-488.
Konopak, B., Cothern, N., Jampole, E., Mitchell, M., Dean, R., Holomon, L., Everett, M., Weems,
N., & Arceneaux, L. (1990). Reading instruction in science at the transitional grades: Beliefs
versus practice. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analysis from
multiple paradigms. Thirty-ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 129-136).
Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Marshall, H. H., & Weinstein, R. S. (1986). Classroom context of student-perceived differential teacher
treatment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 441-453.
O'Brien, D. G. (1988). Secondary preservice teachers' resistance to content reading instruction: A
proposal for a broader rationale. In J. E. Readence & R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy
research. Thirty-seventh Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 237-244). Chicago:
National Reading Conference.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr,
M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp.
490-511). New York: Longman.
Ratekin, N., Simpson, M. L., Alvermann, D. E., & Dishner, E. K. (1985). Why teachers resist content
reading instruction. Journal of Reading, 28, 432-437.
Reimers, T. W., Wacher, D. P., & Koeppl, G. (1987). Acceptability of behavioral interventions: A
review of the literature. School Psychology Review, 16, 212-227.
Rich, S., & Pressley, M. (1990). Teacher acceptance of reading comprehension strategy instruction.
The Elementary School Journal, 91, 43-64.
Schumm, J. S., & Strickler, K. (1991). Guidelines for adapting content area textbooks: Keeping teachers
and students content. Intervention in School and Clinic, 27, 79-84.
Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1992). Planning for mainstreamed special education students: Percep-
tions of general classroom teachers. Exceptionality, 3, 81-98.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Saumell, L. (1992). Assisting students with difficult textbooks: Teachers'
perceptions, planning, & practices. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1992). Teacher
planning for individual student needs: What can mainstreamed special education students expect?
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Singh, N. N., & Katz, R. C. (1985). On the modification of acceptability ratings for alternative child
treatments. Behavior Modification, 9, 375-386.
Slavin, R. E. (1984). Research methods in education: A practical guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Smith, F. R., & Feathers, K. M. (1983). Teacher and student perceptions of content area reading.
Journal of Reading, 26, 348-354.
Stewart, R. A., & O'Brien, D. G. (1989). Resistance to content area reading: A focus on preservice
teachers. Journal of Reading, 31, 396-400.
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Swafford, J. (1991). A comparison of the effectiveness of content area reading strategies at the elemen-
tary, secondary, and post-secondary levels. In N. D. Padak, T. V. Rasinski, & J. Logan (Eds.),
 Text Adaptations—Students 503

Challenges in reading. Twelfth Yearbook of the College Reading Association (pp. 111-126).
Provo, UT: College Reading Association.
Swafford, J., & Alvermann, D. E. (1989). Postsecondary research base for content reading strategies.
Journal of Reading, 33, 164-169.
Tal, Z., & Babad, E. (1989). The "teacher's pet" phenomenon as viewed by Israeli teachers and
students. Elementary School Journal, 90, 99-110.
Tal, Z., & Babad, E. (1990). The teachers' pet phenomenon: Rate of occurrence, correlates, and
psychological costs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 637-645.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Johnson, F., & Daugherty, T. (1991, October). What do students think
when teachers make adaptations? Paper presented at the meeting of the International Academy
for Research in Learning Disabilities, Cincinnati, OH.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Niarhos, F., & Gordon, J. (in press). Students' perceptions of two
hypothetical teachers' instructional adaptations for low achievers. Elementary School Journal.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Kouzekanani, K. (in press). What do students with learning disabilities
think when their general education teachers make adaptations? Journal of Learning Disabilities.
Von Brock, J. B., & Elliot, S. N. (1987). Influence of treatment effectiveness information on the
acceptability of classroom interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 131-144.
Weinstein, R. S. (1983). Student perceptions of schooling. Elementary School Journal, 83, 287-312.
Weinstein, R. S. (1985). Student mediation of classroom expectancy effects. In J. B. Dusek (Ed.),
Teacher expectancies (pp. 329-350). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weinstein, R. S., Marshall, H. H., Sharp, L., & Botkin, M. (1987). Pygmalion and the student: Age
and classroom differences in children's awareness of teacher expectations. Child Development,
58, 1079-1093.
Wood, K. D., & Muth, K. D. (1991). The case for improved instruction in the middle grades. Journal
of Reading, 35, 84-91.

AUTHOR NOTE

We gratefully acknowledge support for this study from the United States De-
partment of Education, Grant Award No. H02E90014, Research on General Educa-
tion Teacher Planning and Adaptation for Students with Handicaps, to the School
of Education, University of Miami.