Teachers’ Assessment Strategies for Children with Disabilities: A Constructivist Study in Mainstream Primary Schools in Negros Oriental, Philippines



Chapter 4 presents a research that gathered the voices of mainstream classroom teachers in Negros Oriental, Philippines regarding the strategies they use for the assessment of pupils with disabilities. There is limited systematic research on assessment strategies used for pupils with disabilities in the Philippines. A constructivist methodology was adopted, including semi-structured interviews with 3 teachers and classroom observations. Findings revealed that teachers used a variety of strategies, such as tests, observations, portfolios, and groupings. Furthermore, in delivering these strategies, teachers made further adaptations based on individual children’s needs. The authors stress that when differentiating assessment, teachers need to consider numerous complex factors, and they highlight some characteristics of the Philippines context that hinder the adoption of inclusive approaches to assessment of pupils with disabilities.


Assessment Differentiation Pupils with disabilities Teacher voices Philippines 


  1. Baessa, Y. (2008). Research in a developing country. American Psychological Association, 12(2), 2–15.Google Scholar
  2. Black, P., & William, D. (2003). In praise of educational research: Formative assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2003). Celebrating student achievement: Assessment and reporting. Australia: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  4. Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2011). Assessment and reporting: Celebrating student achievement (4th ed.). Australia: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1999). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles (3rd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Carney, S., & Sheppard, V. (2003). Teaching students with visual impairments. Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Learning.Google Scholar
  7. Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Charmaz, K. (2006). Objectivist and constructivist methods of research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (Eds.). (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Designing a qualitative study: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 279–289.Google Scholar
  13. Department of Education. (2012). The Philippine education system. Manila: DepEd.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Education. (2015). Republic of the Philippines: Department of education. Manila: DepEd.Google Scholar
  15. Field, P. A., & Morse, J. M. (1995). Research: Application of qualitative approaches. Kent: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  16. GPRehab. (2013). Plight of children with disabilities in education in Negros Oriental. Negros Oriental: GPRehab.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Wakefield: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.Google Scholar
  18. Handler, S. M., & Fierson, W. M. (2011). Learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision. Pediatrics, 127(3), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howe, C. J., & Tolmie, A. (2003). Group work in primary school science: Discussion, consensus and guidance from experts. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King, K., & Mackey, A. (2007). The bilingual edge: Why, when, and how to teach your child a second language. New York: Collins.Google Scholar
  21. Kosonen, K. (2005). Education in local languages: Policy and practice in Southeast Asia. In First languages first: Community-based literacy programmes for minority language contexts in Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.Google Scholar
  22. Kozulin, A. (2001). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 15–38). Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Lidz, C., & Elliott, J. (Eds.). (2005). Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  25. Ma, J. (2013, June 16). The heart of an inclusive teacher. The Advocate, 22, 6.Google Scholar
  26. Malone, D. L. (2003). Developing curriculum materials for endangered language education: Lessons from the field. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(5), 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. McMiller, T. S. (2010). Assessment as demonstration of real achievement. International Journal on Inclusive Education, 10(1), 115–131.Google Scholar
  29. Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Miles, S., & Singal, N. (2010). Education for all and inclusive education debate: Conflict, contradiction, or opportunity? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 14–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mishler, E. G. (2000). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars. In B. M. Verzuela, J. P. Stewart, R. G. Carillo, & J. G. Berger (Eds.), Acts of inquiry in qualitative research (pp. 119–146). Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review.Google Scholar
  32. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  34. Punch, K. F. (2009). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. SEAMEO & INNOTECH. (2012). K to 12 toolkit. Manila: SEAMEO & INNOTECH. Retrieved form
  36. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stenbacka, C. (2001). Quality research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 351–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor, R. L. (2009). IEP and the assessment of exceptional students. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(11), 238–272.Google Scholar
  39. Tolmie, A., Thomson, J. A., Foot, H. C., Whelan, K., Morrison, S., & McLaren, B. (2005). The effects of adult guidance and peer discussion on the development of children’s representations: Evidence from the training of pedestrian skills. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tolmie, A. K., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., et al. (2010). Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learning and Instruction, 20, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  42. UNESCO. (2015). The Philippine case study. Philippines: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  43. Wininger, R. S. (2005). Using your tests to teach: Formative summative assessment. Teaching Psychology, 32(2), 164–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Woods, P., & Pratt, N. (2006). Qualitative research. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unicef Kenya Country Office (KCO)NairobiKenya
  2. 2.University of RoehamptonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations