inclusion in physical education. a systematic review of litrature

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UTL]On: 13 July 2014, At: 01:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Disability,Development and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

Inclusion in Physical Education: Areview of literatureJing Qi a b & Amy S. Ha aa Sports Science and Physical Education , The Chinese Universityof Hong Kong , Hong Kongb School of Physical Education , Ningxia University , Yinchuan ,ChinaPublished online: 09 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Jing Qi & Amy S. Ha (2012) Inclusion in Physical Education: A review ofliterature, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59:3, 257-281, DOI:10.1080/1034912X.2012.697737

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.697737

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand 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 Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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/terms-and-conditions

Inclusion in Physical Education: A review of literature

Jing Qia,b and Amy S. Haa*

aSports Science and Physical Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong;bSchool of Physical Education, Ningxia University, Yinchuan, China

The purpose of this review was to analyse empirical studies on inclusion in physicaleducation (PE) over the past 20 years and then propose recommendations for futureresearch. A systematic process was used to search the literature for this review. First, atotal of 75 research-based articles from computerised education databases wereincluded in this review. Second, the publication descriptor data were summarised andanalysed according to the geographic distribution, study period, research theme, andresearch method. Results showed that the number of studies on inclusive PE increasedin the past 20 years, and most of these studies were contributed by authors in devel-oped countries. Quantitative methods were the major research method employed inthe reviewed studies. Third, we performed a content analysis on the descriptive dataand identied three recurring themes from the empirical research. These included:stakeholder (e.g., teachers and parents) perspectives of inclusive PE, effective inclu-sive practices, and the impacts of inclusion on students with and without disabilities.Of the 75 studies reviewed, 49 (65%) focused on stakeholder perspectives on inclu-sive PE. The data indicated that stakeholders philosophically support inclusive PE, butnumerous concerns and different opinions exist. Only 12 (16%) studies examined theeffects of different inclusive strategies. The studies suggested that strategies such aspeer tutoring and cooperative learning can provide useful support within inclusive PE.A total of 14 (19%) studies focused on the effect of inclusion on students with andwithout disabilities. The data indicated that inclusion in PE does not affect the learn-ing outcome of students without disabilities when given support (e.g., using parapro-fessionals and adapted PE specialists) or when a solid curriculum is used. However,students with disabilities experienced less motor engagement than their peers withoutdisabilities. The ndings of these studies also indicated that although students withdisabilities can gain benets from social interactions in inclusive PE, social isolationof students with disabilities also exists. In conclusion, this review has enhanced ourknowledge of the type of studies undertaken in the eld of inclusive PE for studentswith disabilities and some of the outcomes for these students.

Keywords: disabilities; inclusion; inclusive education; inclusive physical education;integrated education; mainstreaming; physical education; systematic review

Introduction

The idea of including students with disabilities into a general education classroom hasbecome prevalent in many countries over the past few years. The consensus about theconcept of inclusive education was found at the 48th session of the International Con-ference on Education in November 2008 (United Nations Educational, Scientic andCultural Organization [UNESCO], 2008). The agreement acknowledged that: inclusive

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Disability, Development and EducationVol. 59, No. 3, September 2012, 257281

ISSN 1034-912X print/ISSN 1465-346X online 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.697737http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

education is an ongoing process aimed at offering quality education for all, whilerespecting diversity and the different needs and abilities, characteristics and learningexpectations of the students and communities (UNESCO, 2008, p. 18). It seeks toeliminate all forms of discrimination. Specically, inclusion is a means of increasingparticipation in learning by all students so that their educational needs can be met (Bar-ton, 1998; DePauw & Doll-Tepper, 2000). When inclusive educational practices areimplemented, students with disabilities who attend their neighbourhood schools canreceive educational services with their peers without disabilities in general educationclasses (Hunt & McDonnell, 2007). Increasingly, issues relating to inclusion havebecome the focus of national and international policies on education (Armstrong, 1998).This overall trend has also been substantially accelerated because of international com-mitments to inclusive education (UNESCO, 1994, 2008).

Similar to all curriculum areas, when considering the inclusion of students with dis-abilities, physical education (PE) faces many new kinds of challenges and opportunities.PE or gymnastics (gym or gym class) is a course taken during primary and secondary edu-cation, which is responsible for developing the psychomotor, affective, and cognitivedomains of learning in a play or movement exploration setting (Anderson, 1989; Rink,2009). Within the context of PE, the process of inclusion can be addressed in a number ofways (Fitzgerald, 2006). For example, in the United States, Public Law 108-446 (Individ-uals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004) has provided legal denitions of PE, speci-cally for general PE and regular PE. General PE means that PE services, speciallydesigned if necessary, must be made available to every child with a disability receivingfree and appropriate PE. At the policy level, in England and Wales, the National Curricu-lum established that all students are entitled to a broad and balanced curriculum, includ-ing PE (Department for Education and Employment/Qualications & CurriculumAuthority, 1999). A range of guidelines has also been developed to support inclusive prac-tice in PE (Block, 2007; National Association for Sport and Physical Education, 2004).

As the trend towards inclusion increases, numerous studies have been conducted onthe implementation of inclusive education programmes. Inclusive education research israther broad and has many interrelated questions (Artiles, Kozleski, Dorn, & Christen-sen, 2006). For example, Artiles et al. have organised inclusive education research intotwo categories; namely, research on inclusive education from a whole-school perspec-tive and research on aspects or components of inclusive education, which is generallyclassroom based. Hunt and McDonnell (2007) reviewed selected studies that highlightedkey ndings in four areas: the effectiveness of inclusive and separate educational pro-grammes; the impact of inclusive education on the achievement of peers without dis-abilities; the characteristics of instruction provided to students in general educationclasses; and stakeholder perspectives on inclusive education. Specic to the PE context,there have been two reviews of inclusion in PE. Block and Vogler (1994) found only10 studies that focused specically on including students with disabilities in PE. Thesestudies focused on assessing the appropriateness of inclusion of students with mild dis-abilities (e.g., Karper & Marinek, 1983), and a study involving a preliminary examina-tion of the attitudes of PE teachers towards inclusion (e.g., Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992).Although the initial ndings of Block and Voglers (1994) review on inclusion in PEwere favourable towards inclusion, none of the studies mentioned above provided con-clusive evidence for the efcacy or appropriateness of including all students with dis-abilities into regular programmes. Block and Obrusnikova (2007) conducted a morerecent literature review based on 38 English-language research articles on inclusive PEfrom 1995 to 2005. They organised the selected studies into six focus areas: support;

258 J. Qi and A. S. Ha

Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

effects on peers without disabilities; attitudes and intentions of children without disabili-ties; social interactions; academic learning time-PE (ALT-PE) of students with disabili-ties; and training and attitudes of PE teachers. The ndings of Block and Obrusnikovaindicated that students with disabilities can be successfully included in PE when givenproper support; moreover, such inclusion does not have any negative effects on studentswithout disabilities.

Over time, more research studies have emerged about the process of inclusive PE,and in the past ve years there has been an increase in the amount of research on inclu-sion of students with disabilities in PE. These studies are broader in scope and in theirperspectives than their predecessors. For example, several studies have used a quasi-experimental approach to examine the use of peer tutoring for facilitating inclusion inPE (e.g., Klavina, 2008; Klavina & Block, 2008; Wiskochil, Lieberman, Houston-Wil-son, & Petersen, 2007). A study by Vickerman (2007) examined the perspectives of tea-cher education providers and proposed suggestions on how to train PE teachers for theinclusion of students with disabilities. Seymour, Reid, and Bloom (2009) utilised aqualitative research method to examine the nature and extent of friendships betweenstudents with and without disabilities within inclusive PE settings. In the review byBlock and Obrusnikova (2007), a total 22 of the 75 articles have been published after2005, which was the most recent year included in their study. These studies provided abetter understanding of what is needed to facilitate inclusion within the PE context.However, there is a need to compile, organise, and analyse more recently publishedstudies. There is also a need to analyse the focus areas of these studies in order toexamine the development of research about inclusive PE. Identifying more rened cate-gories of the research areas could improve our understanding of the phenomenon ofinclusion in PE. Block and Obrusnikova described the coding process they used toselect the research focus areas. However, it is important to establish the reliability andvalidity of the coding in these studies as well as those that attempt to identify researchcategories. In the work reported in this article, the analytical framework approach ofcontent analysis (Patton, 2002), a qualitative data analysis method, was used to developa careful interpretation of the research focus areas. In addition, peer debrieng (Cre-swell, 2007) was used to ensure the reliability and validity of the study.

Based on previous research, we compiled a database of research articles related toinclusive PE contexts. This review of literature provided: a more representative cover-age of the eld of inclusive PE than the previous reviews by using a systematic processfor searching; and publication descriptor data for the included articles, identifying thefrequency of occurrence of the coding categories. Rigour was established through peerdebrieng (Creswell, 2007). In short, this review extends the breadth, depth, reliability,and validity of previous reviews.

There is a need to note that many different descriptions about inclusion in PE (e.g.,inclusion of students with disabilities in general PE, inclusion of students with disabilitiesin regular PE, and inclusive PE) existed in previous studies. Inclusive PE or inclusion inPE in this study refers to the inclusion of students with disabilities within the PE curriculaor contexts. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to analyse studies on inclusion inPE over the past 20 years and then propose recommendations for future research.

Method

A systematic process was used to conduct the review. Quantitative and qualitativestudies were included in the review using Petticrew and Roberts (2006) as the basis. The

Inclusion in Physical Education 259

Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

research topic was framed as inclusion in PE contexts. The three steps involved inconducting the review were identifying data sources to be used, establishing the criteriafor assessing the quality of the studies, and presentation and analysis of the ndings.

Identifying the Data Sources

The databases searched in this study included SPORTDiscus, Health Medline, ProQuest,ERIC, Heracles (Sportdoc) and the Web of Science.

Criteria for Assessing the Quality of the Studies

The search keyword strings used were physical education, students with disabilities,integration, inclusion, and mainstreaming, which appeared in the title, abstract, orkeyword elds. The total number of identied articles from the searches of these dat-abases was 310. The bibliographic details and abstracts of all the initial hits wereexported from each database and imported into EndNote X2 software for managing andciting the references. Duplicate references were removed. After removing the duplicates,the count was reduced to 214 articles. Studies were then identied on the basis of arti-cle titles and abstracts. The inclusion criteria included the following: must be an origi-nal study published between January 1990 and December 2009 (literature reviews andcommentaries were excluded); must be published in the English language (non-Englishstudies were excluded); and must be published in journals (books, unpublished papers,doctoral dissertations, and masters degree theses were excluded). The nal number ofarticles in the analysis was 75 (see Table 1).

Data Presentation and Analysis Findings

The data presentation and analysis were organised into two sections. In the rst section,the publication descriptor data of these studies were statistically analysed. Such dataconsisted of the date of the study, the geographic location of the study, the researchmethod, and the research theme. The dates of studies were categorised into the follow-ing: 19901994, 19951999, 20002004, and 20052009. The geographical locationswere summarised into the countries and continents in which the studies were conducted.The number of studies and the research themes in each ve-year period were identiedin order to establish the research foci in the different periods. Additionally, the researchmethods were categorised into quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method.

In the second section, the descriptive data of these studies were subjected to contentanalysis (Patton, 2002). Content analysis was used to take the volume of the materialand reduce it in order to identify categories. An analytical framework approach to con-tent analysis was used in this study. This approach begins by listing the researchersdeduced propositions. The researcher then examines the data in terms of theory-derivedsensitising concepts or applies a theoretical framework developed by someone else(Patton, 2002). This means that after or alongside this deductive phase of analysis, theresearcher looks at the data anew for undiscovered patterns and emergent understand-ings (inductive analysis). In this study, a number of literature reviews relevant toinclusive education research provided the references for identifying the categories(Artiles et al., 2006; Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Block & Vogler, 1994; Hunt &McDonnell, 2007; Lindsay, 2007). Following the analytic induction, an interplayprocedure between the deductive and inductive approaches was used for analysing the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

Table1.

The

75review

edstudiesby

research

approach

andcontentarea.

Research

approach

Stakeholder

perspectives

oninclusivePE

Effectiveinclusive

practices

Impactof

inclusivePE

Inserviceteachers

Preserviceteachers

Teacher

education

providers

Studentswithout

disabilities

Parentsof

students

with

disabilities

Onstudents

without

disabilities

Onstudentswith

disabilities

Quantitative

12:Block

&Rizzo

(1995);Conatser

etal.(2002);

Conatseretal.

(2000);Duchane

&French(1998);

Fejgin,

Talmor,&

Erlich(2005);

Jarvis&

French

(1990);Lieberm

anetal.(2000);

Meegan&

MacPhail(2006);

Obrusnikova

(2008);Rizzo

&Vispoel(1991);

Sideridis&

Chandler(1996);

Tripp

&Rizzo

(2006)

16:Dow

ns&

Williams(1994);

Duchane

etal.

(2008);Folsom-

Meeketal.(1999);

Folsom-M

eeketal.

(2000);Gursel

(2007);Hodge

etal.(2002);

Hodge

&Jansma

(1997/98;1999);

Hutzler

etal.

(2005);Kow

alski

&Rizzo

(1996);

Rizzo

&Kirkendall

(1995);Rizzo

&Vispoel(1992);

Schmidt-Gotzetal.

(1994);Stewart

(1990);Stewart

(1991);Zanandrea

&Rizzo

(1998)

07:

Block

(1995);

Hutzler

&Levi

(2008);Lockhart

etal.(1998);

Loovis&

Loovis

(1997);Panagiotou

etal.(2008);Tripp

etal.(1995);

Verderber

etal.

(2003)

010:Davisetal.

(2007);Houston-

Wilson,Dunn,

van

derMars,&

McC

ubbin(1997);

Klavina

(2008);

Klavina

&Block

(2008);Lieberm

anetal.(2000);

Murata&

Jansma

(1997);Valentini&

Rudisill

(2004);

Vogleretal.(2000);

Ward&

Ayvazo

(2006);Wiskochil

etal.(2007)

3:Block

&Zem

an(1996);

Kodishetal.

(2006);

Obrusnikova

etal.(2003)

3:Kozub

(2002);

Tem

ple&

Walkley

(1999);Vogler

etal.(1992)

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

Table1.

(Contin

ued).

Research

approach

Stakeholder

perspectives

oninclusivePE

Effectiveinclusive

practices

Impactof

inclusivePE

Inserviceteachers

Preserviceteachers

Teacher

education

providers

Studentswithout

disabilities

Parentsof

students

with

disabilities

Onstudents

without

disabilities

Onstudentswith

disabilities

Qualitative

9:Hardin(2005);

Hodge

etal.

(2004);LaM

aster

etal.(1998);

Lienertetal.

(2001);Morley

etal.(2005);Sato

&Hodge

(2009);

Satoetal.(2007);

Smith

(2004);

Smith

&Green

(2004)

01: Vickerm

an(2007)

01:

An&

Goodw

in(2007)

2:Grenier

(2006);

Heikinaro-

Johanssonetal.

(1995)

08:

Blinde

&McC

allister

(1998);Butler&

Hodge

(2004);

Goodw

in(2001);

Goodw

in&

Watkinson

(2000);

Hutzler

etal.

(2002);Place

&Hodge

(2001);

Seymouretal.

(2009);Suomi

etal.(2003)

Mixed

methods

1:Hodge

etal.

(2009)

1:Vickerm

an&

Coates(2009)

01:

Sliningeretal.

(2000)

00

00

Sub-total

4912

14Total

75


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

reviewed studies. The researchers began with the deductive phase of analysis; that is,developing categories based on reviews and data coding according to the categories.Afterwards, the inductive approach was used for open coding and the identication ofcategories. Finally, the data collected from the reviewed studies were described andinterpreted. At the same time, a researcher specialising in inclusive education wasinvited to solicit comments and suggestions for the reasoning behind the categories.Based on the relevant literature and the expert opinion, and by using the analyticalframework approach, three categories of research focus areas were identied. Theywere: stakeholder perspectives on inclusive PE; effective inclusive practices; and theimpacts of inclusion on students with and without disabilities. Table 2 presents the cate-gories of the research, the main goals of the studies that were classied in each cate-gory, and the relevant studies.

While formulating the categories by the use of content analysis, the two authorsindependently analysed all studies. First, each study was assessed according to the dataselection criteria and placed into the relevant category. When differences of opinionsarose, we came to a consensus decision through discussion and reassessment and inaccordance with the contents of the specic studies. We enlisted a peer debriefer, whowas an experienced qualitative researcher, to help us ensure the reliability and validityof the study. Specically, during data collection and analysis, the data, tables, matrices,memos, and the researchers thoughts and analyses were all shared with the peer debrie-fer. The debriefer commented on the logical nature of the researchers interpretations,identifying all possible categories and informing the researchers regarding potentialbias.

Results and Discussion

Descriptive Data on the Publications

The review included 75 studies published from 1990 to 2009. The 75 studies were con-ducted in the following countries: the United States (65%), the United Kingdom (11%),Israel (6%), Canada (6%), Brazil (3%), Japan (3%), Finland (1%), Germany (1%),Australia (1%), Greece (1%), Ireland (1%), and Turkey (1%). The studies came fromcountries located in ve continents, including North America (53 studies, 71%), Europe(12 studies, 16%), Asia (seven studies, 9%), South America (two studies, 3%), andAustralia (one study, 1%). The number of studies on inclusive PE increased with time:9 studies in the period 19901994 (12%), 19 studies in the period 19951999 (25%),

Table 2. Research categories and the main goals of the studies.

Category Main goals of the studies Relevant literature

Stakeholder perspectives oninclusive PE

To examine the perspectives of teachers,parents, students, and administrators oninclusive PE

Artiles et al. (2006);Block & Obrusnikova(2007)

Effective inclusive practices To examine the effects of the differentpractices or strategies that can be used tomeet the needs of students with disabilitieswithin inclusive PE

Block & Vogler(1994); Hunt &McDonnell (2007)

Impacts of inclusion onstudents with andwithout disabilities

To examine the impact of inclusion onstudents with and without disabilitieswithin inclusive PE settings

Lindsay (2007)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

Table3.

The

75review

edstudiesby

countryandyear

ofpublication.

Continent

Country

Publicationyear

19901994(n

=9)

19951999(n

=19)

20002004(n

=22)

20052009(n

=25)

North

America,53

studies(71%

)United

States,49

studies

(65%

)

Jarvis&

French(1990);

Rizzo

&Vispoel(1991);

Rizzo

&Vispoel(1992);

Stewart(1990);Stewart

(1991);Vogleretal.

(1992)

Blinde

&McC

allister(1998);

Block

(1995);Block

&Rizzo

(1995);Block

&Zem

an(1996);

Duchane

&French(1998);

Folsom-M

eeketal.(1999);

Hodge

&Jansma(1997/98;

1999);Houston-W

ilson,

Dunnetal.(1997);Kow

alski

&Rizzo

(1996);LaM

asteretal.

(1998);Lockhartetal.(1998);

Loovis&

Loovis(1997);

Murata&

Jansma(1997);Rizzo

&Kirkendall(1995);Sideridis

&Chandler(1996);Tripp

etal.

(1995)

Butler&

Hodge

(2004);

Conatseretal.(2002);

Conatseretal.(2000);Folsom-

Meeketal.(2000);Hodge

etal.(2004);Hodge

etal.

(2002);Kozub

(2002);

Lieberm

anetal.(2000);

Lieberm

anetal.(2002);

Lienertetal.(2001);

Obrusnikova

etal.(2003);

Place

&Hodge

(2001);

Sliningeretal.(2000);

Verderber

etal.(2003);Vogler

etal.(2000)

Davisetal.(2007);Duchane

etal.(2008);Hardin(2005);

Hodge

etal.(2009);Klavina

(2008);Klavina

&Block

(2008);Kodishetal.(2006);

Obrusnikova

(2008);Tripp

&Rizzo

(2006);Ward&

Ayvazo

(2006);Wiskochiletal.(2007)

Canada,

four

studies

(6%)

Goodw

in(2001);Goodw

in&

Watkinson

(2000)

An&

Goodw

in(2007);

Seymouretal.(2009)

South

America,

twostudies(3%)Brazil,

two

studies

(3%)

Zanandrea

&Rizzo

(1998)

Valentini&

Rudisill

(2004)

Europe,12

studies

(16%

)Finland,

onestudy

(1%)

Heikinaro-Johansson

etal.(1995)

Germany,

onestudy

(1%)

Schmidt-Gotzetal.

(1994)

Ireland,

onestudy

(1%)

Meegan&

MacPhail(2006)

(Contin

ued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

Table3.

(Contin

ued).

Continent

Country

Publicationyear

19901994(n

=9)

19951999(n

=19)

20002004(n

=22)

20052009(n

=25)

United

Kingdom

,eight

studies

(11%

)

Dow

ns&

Williams

(1994)

Smith

(2004);Smith

&Green

(2004);Suomietal.(2003)

Grenier

(2006);Morleyetal.

(2005);Vickerm

an(2007);

Vickerm

an&

Coates(2009)

Greece,

onestudy

(1%)

Panagiotouetal.(2008)

Asia,sevenstudies

(9%)

Israel,

four

studies

(6%)

Hutzler

etal.(2002)

Fejginetal.(2005);Hutzler

&Levi(2008);Hutzler

etal.

(2005)

Japan,

two

studies

(3%)

Sato&

Hodge

(2009);Sato

etal.(2007)

Turkey,

onestudy

(1%)

Gursel(2007)

Australia,one

study(1%)

Australia,

onestudy

(1%)

Tem

ple&

Walkley

(1999)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

22 studies in the period 20002004 (29%), and 23 studies in the period 20052009(34%). Table 3 shows the studies by time period and location.

Most of the studies are contributed by researchers in developed countries (e.g., theUnited States and the United Kingdom). This nding is consistent with the study byArtiles et al. (2006). Public Law 94-142 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act,1975) was the rst to promote inclusive education in the United States (Aufsesser,1991). Various policies for inclusion have been introduced by the UK government overthe last 30 years following the Warnock Report (Department for Education and Science,1978). These practices helped to promote scientic research in this area. The smallnumber of Asian studies may be attributed to the fact that inclusive education can bedened in a variety of ways (e.g., inclusion concerned with disability and special educa-tional needs, inclusion as a response to disciplinary exclusions) (Ainscow, Farrell, &Tweddle, 2000). The different perspectives may have led to different understandingsabout inclusion in different countries. For example, according to Ahuja (2005), the ideaof inclusive education had not even been mentioned in the South and South-East Asianregions in the early 2000s. In addition, China had focused on providing nine-year com-pulsory education for free in rural areas as part of inclusive education (UNESCO,2008). These different initiatives have resulted in few scientic research activities in theeld of inclusive education in Asia.

With regards to research methodology, a quantitative approach (68%) was used inthe majority of studies. Twenty-one studies (28%) used a qualitative approach and threestudies (4%) used a mixed-method approach. The reviewed studies are mostly non-experimental studies that included causal comparative, correlational, and quasi-experi-mental studies. Most of these studies had problems that related to the sample (e.g.,small sample size). There was a dearth of experimental studies using random assign-ment or that were well-controlled investigations with contrasting groups or conditions.No doubt a major reason for this nding is the difculty of doing this type of researchin a school-based setting. The qualitative studies represented different perspectives.However, the approaches were often not clearly described.

Over one-half of the reviewed studies (65%) focused on stakeholder perspectives ofinclusive PE, especially the perspectives and attitudes of inservice and preservice teach-ers. In the educational area, some researchers believe that attitudes and behaviours areclosely related and that attitudes can be useful in predicting behaviour (Tripp & Sherrill,1991). This belief has encouraged researchers to investigate the attitudes held by PEteachers towards inclusion (Conatser, Block, & Lepore, 2000; Duchane & French,1998; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991).

Stakeholder Perspectives on Inclusive Physical Education

Teachers, parents, students, and administrators are the critical stakeholders in the move-ment to create inclusive schools (Hunt & McDonnell, 2007). Within the specic PEcontext, a total of 48 studies investigated stakeholder perspectives on inclusive PE,including inservice and preservice teachers, teacher education providers, students with-out disabilities, and parents of students with disabilities.

Inservice Teachers

PE teachers positive attitudes are important factors in ensuring meaningful learningexperiences of students with disabilities who are included in general PE (Block &


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

Obrusnikova, 2007). A total of 23 studies explored the teachers perspectives of inclu-sive PE. A signicant portion of this research was designed to identify the variablesassociated with the teachers positive and negative attitudes. For example, some of thestudies found that several student-related and teacher-related variables inuenced theattitudes of PE teachers towards teaching students with mild disabilities in contrast tothose with severe disabilities (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Conatser, Block, & Gansneder,2002; Conatser et al., 2000; Duchane & French, 1998; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). More-over, the type of disability inuenced the attitudes of teachers. For instance, teachersheld more favourable attitudes toward teaching students with learning disabilities thanteaching those with emotional and behavioural disorders (Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo &Vispoel, 1991). With regard to teacher-related variables, favourable attitudes were asso-ciated with female teachers (Conatser et al., 2000; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006), thosewho had more experience with students with disabilities (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Rizzo& Vispoel, 1991; Tripp & Rizzo, 2006), those who had more academic preparation(Block & Rizzo, 1995; Klavina, 2008; Tripp & Rizzo, 2006), and those with higherperceived competence (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Conatser et al., 2002; Obrusnikova, 2008;Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Tripp & Rizzo, 2006).

Other studies presented qualitative data on teachers perceptions of inclusive PE(e.g., Hodge, Ammah, Casebolt, Lamaster, & OSullivan, 2004; LaMaster, Gall,Kinchin, & Siedentop, 1998; Lienert, Sherrrill, & Myers, 2001; Morley, Bailey, Tan, &Cooke, 2005; Sato & Hodge, 2009; Sato, Hodge, Murata, & Maeda, 2007; Smith,2004; Smith & Green, 2004). For example, Sato et al. (2007) described the beliefs ofexperienced middle school and high school PE teachers in Tokyo regarding teachingstudents with disabilities. They found that the PE teachers beliefs ranged from favour-able (inuenced by satisfying experiences) and ambivalent (doubted the benets of inte-gration for some students and doubted their own efcacy) to unfavourable (oppositionto the inclusion of students with severe disabilities). Hodge et al. (2004) studied thebehaviours and the beliefs of experienced high school PE teachers in suburban schooldistricts in the United States regarding teaching students with disabilities. They reportedthat teachers were positively disposed to inclusion as an educational philosophy,although they had different outcomes with respect to achieving successful inclusion andencountered challenges while attempting to establish inclusive practice. Althoughresearch on teachers attitudes towards teaching students with disabilities in general PEis beginning to grow, more qualitative research is needed to examine teachers percep-tions and their inuencing factors relevant to effective inclusive practices. In mostcases, the personal and contextual variables constantly interact and inuence teachersattitudes towards teaching students with disabilities within the PE context (Lienertet al., 2001). Future qualitative research should address specic personal and contextualvariables that could explain teachers attitudes and views about teaching students withdisabilities, and then explain their effective inclusive practices.

Numerous studies have identied different variables associated with the views andattitudes of teachers. Signicant concern seems to have been focused on identifying fac-tors contributing to the positive attitude of teachers toward including students with dis-abilities. For example, frequently mentioned potentially facilitating factors includeprofessional preparation, perceived competence, previous teaching experiences, andavailable support from the school. In contrast, potentially inhibiting factors include thelack of inservice training, inadequate preparation, and the type and severity of the dis-abilities of students. Clearly, intervention studies related to changing the attitudes ofteachers are needed.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

Preservice Teachers

Preservice teachers have different educational and experiential backgrounds than thosewho are already in the eld and have reported mixed feelings about teaching studentswith disabilities (Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995). A total of 17 studies addressed the atti-tudes of preservice teachers. Several studies used a non-experimental design to identifythe variables associated with preservice teachers positive and negative attitudes (Downs& Williams, 1994; Duchane, Leung, & Coulter-Kern, 2008; Folsom-Meek, Nearing,Groteluschen, & Krampf, 1999; Hodge & Jansma, 2000; Hutzler, Zach, & Gafni, 2005;Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996; Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995; Schmidt-Gotz, Doll-Tepper, &Lienert, 1994; Stewart, 1991; Zanandrea & Rizzo, 1998). Similar to the results of stud-ies aimed at examining the attitudes of inservice PE teachers, positive attitudes of pre-service PE teachers were found to be associated with female teachers (Downs &Williams, 1994; Duchane et al., 2008; Folsom-Meek et al., 1999; Hutzler et al., 2005),those with higher self-perceptions of their competence (Hodge & Jansma, 2000; Hodge,Tannehill, & Kluge, 2003; Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996; Schmidt-Gotz et al., 1994; Zanan-drea & Rizzo, 1998), those with more years in college or university (Hutzler et al.,2005), and those who majored in PE Teaching Education (Gursel, 2007).

Several studies used a pre-test and post-test design to examine the effects of adaptedphysical education (APE) course work on changing the attitudes of preservice teachers(e.g., Folsom-Meek, Nearing, & Kalakian, 2000; Gursel, 2007; Hodge, Davis, Woodard,& Sherrill, 2002; Hodge & Jansma, 1997/98, 1999; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992; Stewart,1990). For example, in Gursels (2007) study, 47 college students majoring in PE(experimental group) and 34 students from other sports-related departmentsthat is,sports management and training (control group)participated in the study. The authorasked the students to complete the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale, Form O(Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1970) in the rst week of the semester and after attendingthe formal instruction in APE (three hours/per week) in APE. The APE course includedknowledge about disability and inclusive education as well as hands-on experienceswith students with physical disabilities. Results indicated that the APE course had apositive inuence on the attitudes of the preservice PE teachers towards students withdisabilities. This nding was consistent with the results reported in previous studies(e.g., Folsom-Meek et al., 2000; Hodge & Jansma, 1997/98; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992).Specically, several studies examined the effects of practicum experiences of the APEcourse on the attitudes of preservice teachers. Mixed results existed for the type ofpracticum experience. Hodge and Jansma (1999) found that on-campus practicum expe-riences improved the attitudes signicantly more than off-campus practicum experience.This nding was similar to that of Stewart (1990), who suggested that structured practi-cum experiences affected attitudes positively. On-campus sites gave the course instruc-tor more control over the selection of students with disabilities, activities taught, typesof interaction, selection and use of equipment and facilities, and the ratio of participantsto students with disabilities (Hodge & Jansma, 1999). However, this nding was in con-trast to the nding of Hodge et al. (2002), who found that no signicant differenceexisted between the two practicum types. Studies describing the inuence of teachereducation programme on the attitudes of preservice PE teachers suggested that the atti-tudes of preservice teachers about teaching students with disabilities can change uponthe introduction of an APE course. However, it is unclear whether the attitudes of PEteachers can be changed by teaching experiences. Future research should, perhaps,address the effects of structured practicum experiences in inclusive settings on attitudes


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

of preservice teachers towards students with disabilities. Additionally, evidence that cap-tures the views and perceptions of preservice teachers remains sparse and these needincreased attention.

Teacher Education Providers

Vickerman (2007) used a qualitative method to examine the perspectives of teachertraining providers who delivered undergraduate and/or postgraduate secondary PEcourses in England with regards to the training of PE teachers for the inclusion of stu-dents with disabilities. Results showed that teacher educators supported inclusive PE,although there was an inconsistency in the amount of time spent addressing this issueand the nature of curricular content. Vickerman (2007) suggested that while it isimportant that individual teacher trainers adopt their own curricula and prepare PEteachers for including students with disabilities in ways they consider relevant andappropriate, it is also essential to recognise and draw upon good practice and success-ful approaches to deliver these outcomes. Consequently, the author proposed an eight-step framework to explain how the philosophy and practice of inclusion works. Theimplications of proposing a framework were to highlight essential factors and issuesthat need to be addressed when preparing PE teachers for the inclusion of studentswith disabilities.

Students without Disabilities

A total of eight studies addressed the attitudes of students without disabilities. Severalstudies used a non-experimental design to identify the variables associated with positiveand negative attitudes of students without disabilities (Block, 1995; Hutzler & Levi,2008; Lockhart, Frence, & Gench, 1998; Loovis & Loovis, 1997; Murata, Hodge, &Little, 2000; Panagiotou, Evaggelinou, Doulkeridou, Mouratidou, & Koidou, 2008;Slininger, Sherrill, & Jankowski, 2000; Tripp, French, & Sherrill, 1995; Verderber, Riz-zo, & Sherrill, 2003). The positive attitudes were associated with female students(Block, 1995; Panagiotou et al., 2008; Slininger et al., 2000; Tripp et al., 1995; Verder-ber et al., 2003) and with those who had experiences with a family member or closefriend with a disability (Block, 1995), while negative attitudes were associated withthose who had an unstructured previous exposure to students with disabilities (Hutzler& Levi, 2008) and those with higher grade levels (Verderber et al., 2003).

Several studies used a pre-test and post-test design to examine the effects of differ-ent interventions (e.g., contact with peers with disabilities, disability awareness pro-grammes, or empathy training) on changing the attitudes of students. For example,Slininger et al. (2000) used contact theory, which states that: prejudice may be reducedby equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of commongoals (Allport, 1954, p. 281), to examine the effects of structured contact with peerswith disabilities on the attitudes of students without disabilities. However, the resultsshowed that expected attitude changes for the structured class setting did not occur inthis study. Using the same theory, Murata et al. (2000) examined the perspectives ofhigh school students without disabilities in inclusive PE settings using a descriptivequalitative research design. The results showed that the attitudes of students withoutdisabilities changed in a positive direction over time due to frequent, positive interac-tions with their peers with disabilities. The results of this study also address the condi-tions of contact. Murata et al. proposed several positive factors that resulted in positive


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

attitudes of students without disabilities, including PE teachers encouragement of socialinteraction among all students, non-competitive play, and paraprofessional support.Despite the well-documented attitudes of students without disabilities toward their peerswith disabilities, no research has yet examined their actual behaviours in inclusive PEsettings. More naturalistic observations and interviews with students without disabilitiescould yield richer data regarding their perspectives and experiences related to inclusivePE.

Other studies used pre-test and post-test designs to examine the effects of disabilityawareness training on the attitudes of students without disabilities toward their peerswith disabilities. These studies showed mixed results. For example, Loovis and Loovis(1997) found that participation in a disability awareness curriculumwhich consistedof disability simulations such as orientation and mobility when blindfolded, moving ina wheelchair, and communicating with sign languagehad a positive effect on the atti-tudes of students without disabilities. In contrast, Lockhart et al. (1998) found no differ-ence in attitudes among the students without disabilities following cognitive empathy oraffective empathy training. In a recent study, Panagiotou et al. (2008) found that a dis-ability awareness programme (Paralympic School Day) had a positive effect only ongeneral attitudes and not on sport-specic attitudes of students without disabilities. Spe-cically, students without disabilities wanted their peers with disabilities to be in theirPE classes, but they did not want them as teammates. The researchers suggested thatthis happened because of the desire of the children to have capable teammates to helpthem win the game. This may reect the sense of control that the participant studentswithout disabilities developed during the programme. Future studies are recommendedto measure the degree of perceived control as a moderating variable on attitudinalchange. In addition, the results of these studies raised issues about the designs of manyof these disability awareness programmes (Lockhart et al., 1998). More discussion withPE teachers related to the components and implementation of programmes may be help-ful in developing more effective disability awareness programmes.

Parents of Students with Disabilities

An and Goodwin (2007) examined the perspectives of parents of students with disabili-ties on their childrens PE, the mothers roles in the schools, and the importance of theindividual education programme in home and school communication. Results showedthat the mothers valued their childrens participation in PE and provided instrumentalsupport to the teachers and teaching associates. They also valued sport as an avenue fordeveloping sport-specic skills, which in turn enriched the childrens school experience.However, the mothers were concerned about the barriers to their childrens participation,including safety concerns, equipment and wheelchair accessibility, and instructional sup-port. The study lent empirical support for the need for collaboration between home,school, and the sport community for individuals with disabilities. More research isrequired to explore the perspectives of parents of students with and without disabilitiesin order to obtain a better understanding of the experiences of students with disabilitiesin inclusive PE.

Effective Inclusive Practices

Of the studies reviewed, a total of 11 studies focused on effective practices designed tomeet the learning needs of students with disabilities within inclusive PE settings. Six


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

strategies that have empirical support in improving the learning outcomes of studentswith disabilities in inclusive PE were identied: implementing peer tutoring, enlistingthe help of paraprofessionals, the use of physical education specialists, the use of a col-laborative team approach, embedded instruction, and cooperative learning.

Peer Tutoring

Of the reviewed studies, eight studies examined the effects of peer tutoring in inclusivePE settings. All of these studies used a single-subject, delayed multiple-baselineresearch design (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987) and provided evidence for thepositive effects of peer tutoring on improving students motor performance (Houston-Wilson, Lieberman, Horton, & Kasser, 1997; Ward & Ayvazo, 2006), motor engage-ment (Klavina & Block, 2008; Lieberman, Newcomer, McCubbin, & Dalrymple, 1997;Lieberman, Dunn, van der Mars, & McCubbin, 2000; Wiskochil et al., 2007), and inter-action between tutors and tutees (Klavina & Block, 2008).

It should be noted that these eight studies utilised purposive sampling to select thetargeted students with various disabilities. Therefore, it is difcult to generalise theresults to the entire population of students with disabilities. Future studies shouldattempt studies involving random selection, which would allow greater generalisation ofresults (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007). All of the studies that have examined the effectsof peer tutoring have been conducted in the United States. Research in other countriesand other contexts is needed to add diversity (Temple & Lynnes, 2008). Furthermore,only one of the studies examined the effects of peer tutoring on secondary students withdisabilities. Future research on the effects of peer tutoring in secondary school contextsis needed. In addition, the individual background and characteristics of peer tutors (e.g.,gender, previous experience interacting with peers with disabilities, communicationskills, and motor skills) should be examined. Finally, the eight studies all employed aquasi-experimental design. Supplementing ndings with qualitative data from studentsand their teachers about the peer tutoring format could be helpful.

Paraprofessionals

Paraprofessionals (also known as para-educators and teaching assistants) have been apart of the public school system in many countries for over 40 years (Horton, 2001).Their roles and responsibilities may include tutoring, gathering and maintaining, imple-menting behaviour management plans, preparing instructional materials, and collaborat-ing with teachers (Auxter, Pyfer, & Huettig, 2005). The paraprofessional often has themost one-to-one contact with students with disabilities in inclusive programmes, allow-ing unique insights to be provided into the needs and interests of the students (Block,2007). Although paraprofessionals are assumed to be capable of providing much-neededassistance during PE for students with disabilities (Horton, 2001), there was just onestudy (Murata & Jansma, 1997) on the effects of paraprofessionals on inclusive PE.Murata and Jansma used a multi-element design comparing the inuence of trained PEteachers, teacher assistants and peer tutors on the activity and knowledge of studentswith and without disabilities in general PE. The results of this study indicated thatsupport in the form of trained paraprofessionals along with trained peer tutors not onlyaided students with disabilities but prevented their inclusion from disrupting the learn-ing of peers without disabilities. While trained teacher assistants can be a useful supportfor PE teachers in inclusive PE settings, as noted by Murata and Jansma, much more


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

research is needed to provide further evidence of their effectiveness. In addition, afterconducting a survey of paraprofessionals training needs in PE, Davis, Kotecki, Harvey,and Oliver (2007) found that only 16% of the respondents received specic training inPE. This was consistent with LaMaster et al. (1998), who stated that most paraprofes-sionals lacked proper PE training. Therefore, in future studies, differences in the back-grounds of the paraprofessionals, previous trainings, and personal experiences must beconsidered because these may inuence the effects of training.

Adapted Physical Education Professionals

According to Block (2007), an ideal, yet costly form of support in inclusive PE is theuse of an APE professional who has been assigned by a school district to provide APEservices to students with disabilities. Block stated that qualied APE professionals inthe United States usually have a masters degree in APE, extensive practical experienceworking with students with disabilities, and considerable knowledge in disability andPE. Several authors (Block & Zeman, 1996; Vogler, Koranda, & Romance, 2000) haveexamined the effects of the different models of service delivery that rely on APEs.Vogler et al. (2000) conducted an 18-week case study in an attempt to evaluate theeffectiveness of inclusion in PE classes in which an APE specialist provided direct,one-on-one instruction to a student with severe physical disability. The results showedthat both quantitative (the motor engagement of students with disabilities) and qualita-tive analyses (beliefs of students without disabilities and of teachers) provided supportfor the APE service model. Block and Zeman examined the effects of inclusive PE onstudents without disabilities. The participants included three students with moderate tosevere intellectual disability, supported by an APE professional and two paraprofession-als. In this study, the APE professional worked one-on-one with these students with dis-abilities and assisted students without disabilities. In addition, the APE professionalprovided consultative feedback to the PE teachers, other paraprofessionals, and peers interms of identifying ways to accommodate the three students during skill work andgames. Results of this study indicated that support from the APE professional had apositive effect on the task of including students with disabilities within PE classes.More research should address the roles and responsibilities of APE professionals infacilitating inclusive PE. Specically, these proposed studies might explore how APEprofessionals provide support for better inclusion and the effectiveness of this support.The role of APE professionals as major players in a collaborative team approach is dis-cussed in the following section.

Collaborative Team Approach

Rainforth, York, and MacDonald (1992) coined the term collaborative teamwork torefer to the interaction and sharing of information and responsibilities among teammembers. The collaborative model focuses on the sharing of information and coopera-tion between team members to provide students with disabilities with the necessary edu-cational and therapeutic services within functional activities (Craig, Haggart, & Hull,1999). Heikinaro-Johansson, Sherrill, French, and Huuhka (1995) utilised an evaluativecase-study design to examine the effects of the collaborative team approach on facilitat-ing inclusion of students with disabilities. In this study, the APE consultant modelincluded the APE consultant, the classroom teacher, and the paraprofessional in the col-laborative team. The team held meetings to identify and analyse needs related to the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

successful inclusion of students with disabilities. The results showed that classroomteachers, paraprofessionals, and students beneted from the collaborative team approachto facilitating inclusive PE.

Embedded Instruction

Embedded instruction is designed to teach skills to students with disabilities in generaleducation classrooms through systematic instruction during natural opportunities withinor across ongoing activities (Hunt & McDonnell, 2007). Valentini and Rudisill (2004,p. 331) used an inclusive mastery climate intervention, which is an embedded-instruction format, to examine its inuence on the motor skill development of studentswith and without disabilities. A mastery climate intervention is a systematic instruc-tional approach, which uses student-centred instruction to target both the motivationallevel of the student and the process of learning. Essential mastery climate interventionelements require students to select tasks that challenge their ability and enhance theircompetence as well as persist at tasks that are somewhat difcult within climates thatpromote personal standards (Valentini & Rudisill, 2004). The study employed a pre-testpost-test non-equivalent control group design to compare the motor skill perfor-mances between the intervention group (19 with intellectual disability and 31 withoutdisabilities) and the comparison group (17 with intellectual disabilities and 37 withoutdisabilities). The results showed that participants who received the mastery climateintervention demonstrated signicant improvements in their locomotor and object con-trol skills, while the comparison group demonstrated little or no change in motor skillperformance.

Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is dened as, the instructional use of small groups so that stu-dents can work together to maximize their own and each others learning (Johnson,Johnson, & Holubec, 1993, p. 6). Group goals can only be accomplished if individualstudents in the group work together (Grineski, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Gre-nier (2006) described teachers and students behaviours in inclusive PE settings from asocial constructionist perspective. The participant (Sue) in Greniers (2006) study was aprimary school PE teacher who adopted cooperative learning strategies to include a stu-dent with severe cerebral palsy and a visual impairment in her PE programme. She useda small group format to increase the level of interaction through face-to-face engage-ment, positive interdependence, and group processing. The ndings showed that cooper-ative learning supported her beliefs in the development of social skills for students withand without disabilities as well as the efcacy of her inclusion practices. However, thestudents did not always have the capacity to include their peers with disabilities in theactivities despite Sues attempts to place them in supportive groups. This nding drewattention to the importance of context and the organisational factors supporting studentsin their capacity to demonstrate their skills.

Despite the progress made toward developing more effective inclusive practices,additional research on ways to improve the efcacy of instruction provided to studentswith and without disabilities in the inclusive PE settings is clearly needed. Futureresearch should continue to address the effects of various inclusive strategies. For exam-ple, only one study (Grenier, 2006) explored the effects of cooperative learning strate-gies. More evidence obtained through multiple research methodologies is needed.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

The Impacts of Inclusion on Students without and with Disabilities

The Impacts of Inclusion on Students without Disabilities

Three studies used a pre-testpost-test research design to examine the impacts of inclu-sion on students without disabilities and indicated that inclusive PE had no negativeimpacts on improving the motor performance (Block & Zeman, 1996; Obrusnikova,Valkova, & Block, 2003) and motor engagement of students without disabilities(Kodish, Kulinna, Martin, Pangrazi, & Darst, 2006). For example, Kodish et al.compared physical activity time and the number of steps walked by students during PEclasses between two inclusion classes and two non-inclusion classes (two fth-gradeclasses and two sixth-grade classes) using electric pedometers. The results illustrated thatthe inclusion of students with autism did not affect the physical activity of students with-out disabilities. Only three studies examined the impact of including students with intel-lectual disability, physical impairment, and autism on their peers without disabilities.Research examining the impacts of inclusion of students with an array of disabilities(e.g., autism, cerebral palsy) on the learning of students without disabilities is needed.

The Impacts of Inclusion on Students with Disabilities

Learning Outcomes. Three studies compared the learning outcomes of students withdisabilities with their peers without disabilities in inclusive PE settings (Kozub, 2002;Temple & Walkley, 1999; Vogler, van der Mars, Cusimano, & Darst, 1992). The resultsof these studies indicated that students with disabilities showed signicantly less motorengagement than their peers without disabilities. For example, Vogler et al. (1992)examined the effects of teacher experience and expertise on students with and withoutdisabilities in an inclusive PE setting from a behavioural perspective. The authors ran-domly selected 40 students in 20 classes of the less experienced or more experiencedteachers. Each class included one student with a disability and one student without adisability. The results showed that students with disabilities show signicantly lessmotor engagement than their peers without disabilities. The results implied that therewas no reason to assume that simply placing students with disabilities with teacherswith more experience or expertise in PE would be benecial. To date, research has yetto make a comparison between inclusive and separate PE programmes on students withdisabilities. Future studies should examine the outcomes achieved by students from avariety of inclusive PE classrooms and school structures (e.g., different student-to-staffratios, type and quality of instruction). In particular, more efforts are required todevelop curriculum and instructional approaches that can effectively meet the needs ofall students in inclusive PE classes.

Social Interaction. One often-cited benet of inclusion is that students with disabilitiescan gain from social interactions, particularly if such interactions are positive (e.g., sup-portive, cooperative, respectful), frequent, and meaningful, and if equal status relation-ships are encouraged and formed (Sherrill, Heikinaro-Johansson, & Slininger, 1994;Slininger et al., 2000). Eight studies investigated the extent and nature of social interac-tions among students with and without disabilities in inclusive PE programmes(Blinde & McCallister, 1998; Butler & Hodge, 2004; Goodwin, 2001; Goodwin &Watkinson, 2000; Hutzler, Fliess, Chacham, & van den Auweele, 2002; Place & Hodge,2001; Seymour et al., 2009; Suomi, Collier, & Brown, 2003). Both positive andnegative social experiences were described. These studies have all been conducted usingqualitative research methods.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

For example, Goodwin and Watkinson (2000) used a maximum variation strategy(Patton, 2002) to examine the experiences of students with a range of physical disabili-ties in inclusive PE on the basis of the theoretical framework of ecological perceptionand affordance theory (Gibson, 1979). The results showed that students with physicaldisabilities were unhappy (bad day) when they were subjected to social isolation, theircompetence was questioned, and participation was restricted. In contrast, when they hadpositive experiences (a good day) they reported feelings of belonging to a group, beingable to share the benets of the programme, and skilfully participating with classmates.In a recent study, Seymour et al. (2009) examined the nature and extent of the friend-ship between students with and without physical disabilities in relation to inclusive PE.The results showed that friendships between students with and without disabilities candevelop and that the school environment and the PE programme promoted such interac-tions and the formation of relationships.

Although the ndings of the eight studies showed that students with disabilitiescould gain benets from social interactions in inclusive PE, social isolation of studentswith disabilities also existed.

Future research is thus needed to determine the factors that affect the social experi-ences of students and promote social interaction in inclusive PE (e.g., the availability ofmore training or programmes to help build awareness, understanding and cooperationamong students).

Conclusion

This review has provided a summary and a discussion of existing works on inclusivePE. Data from this review indicate that the number of studies on inclusive PE researchincreased during the past 20 years. In terms of their research designs, most of the stud-ies were generally classied as non-experimental studies (causal comparative methodand correlational studies), and approximately one-fth of the studies were conductedusing a qualitative approach. There was no experimental research with random samplingamongst the studies that were reviewed. It is suggested that experimental design qualityand generalisability might be enhanced through studies involving multisite collabora-tions. In addition, it is also necessary to increase the quality of qualitative studies byapplying well-planned approaches or strategies.

Although many of the research studies focused on the attitudes and perceptions ofthe teachers towards inclusion, future studies are still needed to identify the factors con-tributing to the development of positive attitudes towards inclusive PE in inservice andpreservice teachers. Additionally, future studies should explore the effective inclusivepractices in different social and cultural contexts. Reporting the actual behaviours ofinservice teachers in inclusive PE settings may help better understanding and promotingthe implementation of inclusion in PE. Findings of this review showed that peer tutor-ing had been proven to be an effective method to facilitate inclusive PE (e.g., Klavina& Block, 2008; Ward & Ayvazo, 2006). However, supplementing ndings with qualita-tive data from students with disabilities and their teachers about the peer tutoring strat-egy in different cultural and school settings could provide a deeper and morecomprehensive understanding of the strategy. Further, it is also suggested that morestudies could focus on the roles and responsibilities of the paraprofessionals and theAPE specialists in inclusive PE. Finally, future studies that examine the effects of inclu-sion on students with and without disabilities also need to address student attitudes,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

social interactions, and the acquisition of cognitive and motor skill development ininclusive PE settings.

There are a number of limitations of this review of the literature. For example, thekeywords used in this study (namely: inclusion, inclusive education, inclusive physicaleducation, disabilities, and mainstreaming) may have limited the number and range ofstudies identied. Future research might need to consider the inclusion of other words.Nevertheless, this review has enhanced our knowledge of the type of studies undertakenin the eld of inclusive PE for students with disabilities and some of the outcomes forthese students.

Acknowledgements

There was no research funding for this study, and no restrictions have been imposed onfree access to, or publication of, the research data.

References

Ahuja, A. (2005). EFA notional action plans review study: Key ndings. Bangkok: UNESCO.Ainscow, M., Farrell, P., & Tweddle, D. (2000). Developing policies for inclusive education: A

study of the role of local education authorities. International Journal of Inclusive Education,4(3), 211229.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.An, J., & Goodwin, D. L. (2007). Physical education for students with spina bida: Mothers per-

spectives. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24, 3858.Anderson, D. (1989). The discipline and the profession. Foundations of Canadian physical educa-

tion, recreation, and sports studies. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Publishing.Armstrong, D. (1998). Changing faces, changing places: Policy routes to inclusion. In P. Clough

(Ed.), Managing inclusive education: From policy to experience (pp. 3147). London: PaulChapman.

Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Dorn, S., & Christensen, C. (2006). Learning in inclusive educa-tion research: Re-mediating theory and methods with a transformative agenda. Review ofResearch in Education, 30, 65108. doi: 10.3102/0091732X030001065

Aufsesser, P. M. (1991). Mainstreaming and least restrictive environment: How do they differ?Palaestra, 7(2), 3134. Retrieved from http://www.palaestra.com/

Auxter, D., Pyfer, J., & Huettig, C. (2005). Principles and methods of adapted physical educationand recreation (10th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Barton, L. (1998). The politics of special educational needs. London: Falmer.Blinde, E. M., & McCallister, S. G. (1998). Listening to the voices of students with physical dis-

abilities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69, 6468.Block, M. E. (1995). Development and validation of the Childrens Attitudes Toward Integrated

Physical Education-Revised (CAIPE-R) inventory. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12(1),6077.

Block, M. E. (2007). A teachers guide to including students with disabilities in general physicaleducation (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Block, M. E., & Obrusnikova, I. (2007). Inclusion in physical education: A review of the litera-ture from 19952005. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(2), 103124.

Block, M. E., & Rizzo, T. L. (1995). Attitudes and attributes of physical educators associatedwith teaching individuals with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 20(1), 8087.

Block, M. E., & Vogler, E. W. (1994). Inclusion in regular physical education: The research base.Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 65(1), 4044.

Block, M. E., & Zeman, R. (1996). Including students with disabilities in regular physical educa-tion: Effects on nondisabled children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13(1), 3849.

Butler, R. S., & Hodge, S. R. (2004). Social inclusion of students with disabilities in middleschool physical education classes. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 27, 110.Retrieved from http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/RMLEOnline/tabid/101/Default.aspx


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

Conatser, P., Block, M. E., & Gansneder, B. (2002). Aquatic instructors beliefs toward inclusion:The theory of planned behaviour. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19(2), 172187.

Conatser, P., Block, M., & Lepore, M. (2000). Aquatic instructors attitudes toward teaching stu-dents with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17(2), 197207.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behaviour analysis. Columbus,OH: Merrill.

Craig, S. E., Haggart, A. G., & Hull, K. M. (1999). Integrating therapies into the educational set-ting: Strategies for supporting children with severe disabilities. Physical Disabilities: Educa-tion and Related Services, 17, 91110.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research method: Choosing among veapproaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.1016/j.aenj.2008.02.005

Davis, R. W., Kotecki, J. E., Harvey, M. W., & Oliver, A. (2007). Responsibilities andtraining needs of paraeducators in physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(1), 7083.

Department for Education and Employment/Qualications & Curriculum Authority. (1999). Physi-cal education: The national curriculum for England. London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Science. (1978). Special educational needs: Report of the commit-tee of enquiry into the education of handicapped children and young people (The WarnockReport). London: HMSO.

DePauw, K. P., & Doll-Tepper, G. (2000). Toward progressive inclusion and acceptance: Myth orreality? The inclusion debate and bandwagon discourse. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,17(2), 135143.

Downs, P., & Williams, T. (1994). Student attitudes toward integration of people with disabilitiesin activity settings: A European comparison. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11(1),3243.

Duchane, K. A., & French, R. (1998). Attitudes and grading practices of secondary physical edu-cators in regular education settings. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15(4), 370380.

Duchane, K. A., Leung, R. W., & Coulter-Kern, R. (2008). Preservice physical educator attitudetoward teaching students with disabilities. Clinical Kinesiology, 32(3), 1620.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act. (1975). US Public Law 94142. US Code. Vol. 20,secs. 1401 et seq.

Fejgin, N., Talmor, R., & Erlich, L. (2005). Inclusion and burnout in physical education. Euro-pean Physical Education Review, 11(1), 2950. doi: 10.1177/1356336X05049823

Fitzgerald, H. (2006). Disability and physical education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. OSul-livan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 752766). London: Sage. doi:10.4135/978-1-84860-800-9

Folsom-Meek, S. L., Nearing, R. J., Groteluschen, W., & Krampf, H. (1999). Effects of academicmajor, gender, and hands-on experience on attitudes of preservice professionals. AdaptedPhysical Activity Quarterly, 16(4), 389402.

Folsom-Meek, S. L., Nearing, R. J., & Kalakian, L. H. (2000). Effects of an adapted physicaleducation course in changing attitudes. Clinical Kinesiology, 54, 5258.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.

Goodwin, D. L. (2001). The meaning of help in PE: Perceptions of students with physical disabil-ities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18, 289303.

Goodwin, D. L., & Watkinson, E. J. (2000). Inclusive physical education from the perspective ofstudents with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17, 144160.

Grenier, M. (2006). A social constructionist perspective of teaching and learning in inclusivephysical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23, 245260.

Grineski, S. (1996). Cooperative learning in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Gursel, F. (2007). Attitudes of physical education majors in Turkey towards disability are changed

by adaptive physical education training. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104, 166170. doi:10.2466/PMS.104.1.166-170.

Hardin, B. (2005). Physical education teachers reections on preparation for inclusion. PhysicalEducator, 62(1), 4456.

Heikinaro-Johansson, P., Sherrill, C., French, R., & Huuhka, H. (1995). Adapted physical educa-tion consultant service model to facilitate integration. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12,1233.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

Hodge, S. R., Ammah, J. O. A., Casebolt, K. M., LaMaster, K., Hersman, B., Samalot-Rivera,A., et al. (2009). A diversity of voices: Physical education teachers beliefs about inclusionand teaching students with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development andEducation, 56, 401419. doi: 10.1080/10349120903306756

Hodge, S. R., Ammah, J. O. A., Casebolt, K., Lamaster, K., & OSullivan, M. (2004). Highschool general physical education teachers behaviours and beliefs associated with inclusion.Sport Education and Society, 9, 395419. doi: 10.1080/13573320412331302458

Hodge, S. R., Davis, R., Woodard, R., & Sherrill, C. (2002). Comparison of practicum types inchanging preservice teachers attitudes and perceived competence. Adapted Physical ActivityQuarterly, 19, 155171.

Hodge, S. R., & Jansma, P. (1997/98). Attitude change of physical education majors towardteaching students with varied disability types. Clinical Kinesiology, 51(4), 7379.

Hodge, S. R., & Jansma, P. (1999). Effects of contact time and location of practicum experienceson attitudes of physical education majors. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16(1), 4863.

Hodge, S. R., & Jansma, P. (2000). Physical education majors attitudes toward teaching studentswith disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23, 211224. doi: 10.1177/088840640002300304

Hodge, S. R., Tannehill, D., & Kluge, M. A. (2003). Exploring the meaning of practicum experi-ences for PETE students. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 381399.

Horton, M. L. (2001). Utilizing paraprofessionals in the general physical education setting. Teach-ing Elementary Physical Education, 12(6), 2225.

Houston-Wilson, C., Dunn, J. M., van der Mars, H., & McCubbin, J. (1997a). The effect of peertutors on motor performance in integrated physical education classes. Adapted Physical Activ-ity Quarterly, 14, 298313.

Houston-Wilson, C., Lieberman, L., Horton, M., & Kasser, S. (1997b). Peer tutoring: A plan forinstructing students of all abilities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 68(6), 3944.

Hunt, P., & McDonnell, J. (2007). Inclusive education. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner, M. E. Snell,& J. Blacher (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 269291). New York: TheGuilford Press. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2007.00420.x

Hutzler, Y., Fliess, O., Chacham, A., & van den Auweele, Y. (2002). Perspectives of childrenwith physical disabilities on inclusion and empowerment: Supporting and limiting factors.Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 300317.

Hutzler, Y., & Levi, I. (2008). Including children with disability in physical education: Generaland specic attitudes of high-school students. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity,1(2), 2130.

Hutzler, Y., Zach, S., & Gafni, O. (2005). Physical education students attitudes and self-efcacytowards the participation of children with special needs in regular classes. European Journalof Special Needs Education, 20, 30932710.1080/08856250500156038

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.Jarvis, K. C., & French, R. (1990). Attitudes of physical educators toward the integration of hand-

icapped students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 899902.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competi-

tion, and individualization (7th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the

classroom (4th ed.). Edina, MI: Interaction Book Company.Karper, W. B., & Martinek, T. J. (1983). Motor performance and self-concepts of handicapped

and nonhandicapped children in integrated physical education classes. American CorrectiveTherapy Journal, 37(3), 9195.

Klavina, A. (2008). Using peer-mediated instructions for students with severe and multiple dis-abilities in inclusive physical education: A multiple case study. European Journal of AdaptedPhysical Activity, 1, 719.

Klavina, A., & Block, M. E. (2008). The effect of peer tutoring on interaction behaviours ininclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 25, 132158.

Kodish, S., Kulinna, P. H., Martin, J., Pangrazi, R., & Darst, P. (2006). Determinants of physicalactivity in an inclusive setting. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23, 390409.

Kowalski, E. M., & Rizzo, T. L. (1996). Factors inuencing preservice student attitudes towardindividuals with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 180196.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

Kozub, F. M. (2002). Expectations, task persistence, and attributions in children with mentalretardation during integrated physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19,334349.

LaMaster, K., Gall, K., Kinchin, G., & Siedentop, D. (1998). Inclusion practices of effective ele-mentary specialists. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15, 6481.

Lieberman, L. J., Dunn, J. M., van der Mars, H., & McCubbin, J. (2000). Peer tutors effects onactivity levels of deaf students in inclusive elementary physical education. Adapted PhysicalActivity Quarterly, 17, 2039.

Lieberman, L. J., Houston-Wilson, C., & Kozub, F. M. (2002). Perceived barriers to includingstudents with visual impairments in general physical education. Adapted Physical ActivityQuarterly, 19(3), 364377.

Lieberman, L. J., Newcomer, J., McCubbin, J., & Dalrymple, N. (1997). The effects of cross-agedpeer tutors on the academic learning time of students with disabilities in inclusive elementaryphysical education classes. Brazilian International Journal of Adapted Physical EducationResearch, 4, 1532.

Lienert, C., Sherrrill, C., & Myers, B. (2001). Physical educators concerns about integrating chil-dren with disabilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18,117.

Lindsay, G. (2007). Annual review: Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusiveeducation/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 124. doi: 10.1348/000709906X156881

Lockhart, R. C., Frence, R., & Gench, B. (1998). Inuence of empathy training to modify atti-tudes of normal children in physical education toward peers with physical disabilities. Clini-cal Kinesiology, 52(2), 3541.

Loovis, E. M., & Loovis, C. L. (1997). A disability awareness unit in physical education and atti-tudes of elementary school students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 768770.

Meegan, S., & MacPhail, A. (2006). Irish physical educators attitude toward teaching studentswith special educational needs. European Physical Education Review, 12, 7597. doi:10.1177/1356336X06060213

Morley, D., Bailey, R., Tan, J., & Cooke, B. (2005). Inclusive physical education: Teachersviews of including pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities in physical educa-tion. European Physical Education Review, 11(1), 84107. doi: 10.1177/1356336X05049826

Murata, N. M., Hodge, S. R., & Little, J. R. (2000). Students attitudes, experiences, and perspec-tives on their peers with disabilities. Clinical Kinesiology, 54, 5966.

Murata, N. M., & Jansma, P. (1997). Inuence of support personnel on students with and withoutdisabilities in general physical education. Clinical Kinesiology, 51, 3746.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2004). Moving into the future: NationalPhysical Education Standards. A guide to content and assessment (2nd ed.). Reston, VA:Author.

Obrusnikova, I. (2008). Physical educators beliefs about teaching children with disabilities. Per-ceptual and Motor Skills, 106, 637644. doi: 10.2466/PMS.1.6.2.637-644

Obrusnikova, I., Valkova, H., & Block, M. E. (2003). Impact of inclusion in general physical edu-cation on students without disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 230245.

Panagiotou, A. K., Evaggelinou, C., Doulkeridou, A., Mouratidou, K., & Koidou, E. (2008). Atti-tudes of 5th and 6th grade Greek students toward the inclusion of children with disabilities inphysical education classes after a paralympic education program. European Journal ofAdapted Physical Activity, 1(2), 3143.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide.

Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470754887.fmatterPlace, K., & Hodge, S. R. (2001). Social inclusion of students with physical disabilities in

general physical education: A behavioural analysis. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18,389404.

Rainforth, B., York, J., & MacDonald, C. (1992). Collaborative teams for students with severedisabilities: Integrating therapy and educational services. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Rink, J. E. (2009). Teaching physical education for learning (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [b

-on:

Bibli

oteca

do co

nhec

imen

to on

line U

TL] a

t 01:2

3 13 J

uly 20

14

Rizzo, T. L., & Kirkendall, D. R. (1995). Teaching students with mild disabilities: Whataffects attitudes of future physical educators? Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12,205216.

Rizzo, T. L., & Vispoel, W. P. (1991). Physical educators attributes and attitudes toward teachingstudents with handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8, 411.

Rizzo, T. L., & Vispoel, W. P. (1992). Changing attitudes about teaching students with handicaps.Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 9, 5463.

Sato, T., & Hodge, S. R. (2009). Japanese physical educa

inclusion in physical education. a systematic review of litrature

Documents

review ofliterature

review of literaturejing

ningxia university

number of studies

research theme

major research

articletaylor francis

chinese universityof