Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2015, 32, 137-155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2014-0140 © 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Official Journal of IFAPA www.APAQ-Journal.com ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Beliefs of Chinese Physical Educators on Teaching Students With Disabilities in General Physical Education Classes
Lijuan Wang
Jing Qi
Shanghai University of Sport
Beifang University of Nationalities
Lin Wang Shanghai University of Sport This study examined the behavioral beliefs of physical education (PE) teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their general PE (GPE) classes and to identify the factors that contribute to their beliefs. A total of 195 PE teachers from a region in eastern China were surveyed. Results of the Physical Educators’ Attitudes Toward Teaching Individuals With Disabilities-III survey indicate that although some teachers felt that including students with disabilities in GPE classes provides benefit for them, they were concerned about the practical difficulties of teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes, the lack of support, and the possible rejection of students with disabilities by their peers. Moreover, the behavioral beliefs of teachers vary according to the disability conditions of the students. Results show that there is no significant effect of demographic factors on the beliefs of PE teachers. Quality of experience predicts positive beliefs. The study has important implication for teacher training, provision of equipment, and support from teacher assistants. Keywords: PE, adapted physical education, behavioral beliefs
The philosophy behind teaching students with disabilities has significantly changed over the last 2 decades, and several countries, namely, the United States, Ireland, and Japan, have implemented policies to facilitate their teaching in general classes (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Sato & Hodge, 2009). In the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) suggested that students with disabilities be educated with students without disabilities in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate. The law states that students with disabilities must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the general
Lijuan and Lin Wang are with the Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China. Qi is with Beifang University of Nationalities, Yinchuan, China. Address author correspondence to Lijuan Wang at [email protected] 137
138 Wang, Qi, and Wang
physical education (GPE) program. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of students with disabilities receiving physical education (PE) in general classes with their peers without disabilities (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006). Many factors affect the success of teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. One important factor is the behavioral belief of teachers, which is the key to changing their intention to teach students with disabilities (Theodorakis, Bagiatis, & Goudas, 1995). If professionals can understand teacher beliefs and concerns about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes, they can address these issues and focus on changing these beliefs. This can, in turn, lead to more successful professional programs on teaching students with disabilities in general classes (Conatser, Block, & Gansneder, 2002; Kozub & Porretta, 1998). Several studies in North America and Europe used various survey instruments such as the Physical Educators’ Attitude Toward Teaching the Handicapped (Rizzo, 1984, 1988) and the Physical Educators’ Attitudes Toward Teaching Individuals with Disabilities-III (PEATID-III; Rizzo, 1993) to examine behavioral beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their general classes (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). These studies indicate that beliefs range from negative or undecided (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Petkova, Kudlacek, & Nikolova, 2012) to positive (Knoll & Fediuk, 2012; Obrusnikova, 2008). Teacher-related variables may influence behavioral beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. These variables include gender, age, academic degree, years in teaching PE, experience with students with disabilities, quality of experience, perceived competence, and coursework in special education and adapted PE. Some variables such as gender and age have inconsistent relationships with beliefs. Aloia, Knutson, Minner, and Von Seggern (1980) found that women have more positive beliefs than men when teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes, but subsequent studies (Fournidou, Kudlacek, & Evagellinou, 2011; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Petkova et al., 2012; Rizzo, 1985; Rizzo & Wright, 1988) do not concur. Studies show that age is negatively correlated with teaching beliefs and that older teachers are more negative toward teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes (Rizzo, 1985). Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) and Rizzo and Wright (1988) failed to find a significant correlation between age and beliefs. Several studies have examined the effect of academic degree on PE teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. However, no significant relationship was found between an academic degree and beliefs (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Rizzo, 1985). The effect of years of teaching PE on the beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes has been examined in several studies (Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). However, no significant relationship was found between years of teaching PE and the beliefs of PE teachers. Most studies reported that teachers with more experience in teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes have more positive beliefs than teachers with less experience (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Knoll & Fediuk, 2012; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). However, Rizzo (1985) failed to find a significant relationship between teaching experience and positive teaching beliefs.
Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 139
Several studies show that educational preparation is a predictor of beliefs (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1985). Some studies indicate that teachers who completed adapted-PE coursework or special education courses have more positive beliefs (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1985). However, Rizzo and Wright (1988) and Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) found no significant correlation between coursework in special education or adapted PE and beliefs. Quality of experience is an assessment indicator of the perception of PE teachers of teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes and the reflection of their enjoyment in teaching such students. Block and Rizzo (1995) and Obrusnikova (2008) examined the effect of quality of experience on the beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. They found that the beliefs of PE teachers become more positive as the quality of experience in teaching students with disabilities improved. Perceived competence and self-efficacy have been correlated with beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. Researchers suggest that PE teachers with higher level of perceived teaching competence exhibit more positive beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). However, those studies failed to use a validated instrument to measure perceived competence. In addition, Beamer and Yun (2014) reported that PE teachers’ self-efficacy is positively related to their beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. Aside from teacher-related variables, various studies found that student-related variables such as type of disability are linked to teacher behavioral beliefs. Students with learning disabilities are generally viewed more positively than students with emotional and behavioral disorders (Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991).
Teaching Students With Disabilities in Chinese General Classes: Policy and Implementation Teacher behavioral beliefs may differ because of cultural differences in the way persons with disabilities are regarded (Leyser, Kapperman & Keller, 1994; Sharma, Ee, & Desai, 2003). Most studies have focused on the United States and European countries. Much remains unknown about beliefs or concerns of PE teachers in China. Teaching students with disabilities in Chinese general classes, commonly referred to as Suiban Jiudu, has ideological and pragmatic roots. Sweeping reforms in China in the 1980s resulted in tremendous social, political, and economic changes (Deng & Manset, 2000). Consistently, equal rights for individuals with disabilities have become a focus of the Chinese government (Deng & Manset, 2000). Financial constraints may be another important reason behind the initiation of teaching students with disabilities in general schools rather than special schools. According to Deng and Manset, separate education for nearly 5 million children with disabilities in China would require establishing at least 210, 000 new special schools. Thus, enrolling students with disabilities in general schools is a cost-effective approach (McCabe, 2003).
140 Wang, Qi, and Wang
The drafting of several policies has contributed to the progression of teaching students with disabilities in general classes. In China, the Compulsory Education Law was the first official call for teaching students with disabilities in general schools in areas without or that could not afford special schools or programs (National People’s Congress, 1986). The 1990 Law on the Protection of Persons with Disabilities (National People’s Congress, 1990) and the 1994 Regulations on Education for Persons with Disabilities (State Council, 1994) called for compulsory 9-year education for students with disabilities. As a result, the Chinese educational system has seen an increasing number of students with disabilities taught in general education settings. In 1992, 129,400 students with intellectual disability, visual impairment, and hearing impairment were enrolled in general schools (Gu, 1993). By 2011, their enrollment reached 225,200 out of 208,000,000 students in general schools (Ministry of Education of China, 2012). Some studies examined teacher perceptions and practice about teaching students with disabilities in China (e.g., Chen, 2008; Li & Sam, 2011). Research findings indicate that most Chinese school or university teachers agree to teach students with disabilities in their general classes, but they are not confident in teaching them in a general setting (Chen, 2008). Teaching students with disabilities in general classes has many barriers. On one hand, no guidance was provided in the teaching program and syllabus for general teachers. Teachers are not directed by policy on how to teach and assess this group of students (Li & Sam, 2011). On the other hand, special education courses are provided only in few universities, and professional training programs for school teachers are deficient (Wu, 2011). Xiao (2005) reported that the number of teachers with professional knowledge in China could not fulfill the requirement of teaching students with disabilities in general classes in the country. However, no studies on PE teacher beliefs have been conducted. GPE classes in China focus on fitness, health, and cognitive and affective orientation. The aims of PE teachers are to develop motor competencies and promote sports participation, social adaptability, and a healthy and safe lifestyle for students (Ministry of Education of China, 2002). Taking into account these aims, the purposes of this study were (a) to describe the behavioral beliefs of Chinese PE teachers about teaching students with different types of disabilities; (b) to examine demographic differences in the beliefs of Chinese PE teachers in terms of gender, academic degree, teaching level, PE teaching experience, experience teaching students with disabilities, special education courses, and adapted-PE courses; and (c) to identify some teacher-related variables significantly contributing to their beliefs. The current study will provide a foundation of knowledge to develop professional training programs for PE teachers on teaching students with disabilities in China.
Method Participants The participants of the current study were 195 full-time PE teachers from 30 primary, secondary, and high schools from Shanghai in Eastern China. Sampling was conducted in two steps. First, 10 schools from six districts in Shanghai were deliberately selected from 1,521 schools with 7,503 PE teachers. These 10 schools
Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 141
had the highest number of students with disabilities in this region in the past 3 years. All PE teachers (51) in the subject schools, who have substantial experience in teaching students with disabilities, agreed to participate in the study. The remaining 13 out of 19 districts were targeted for the second sampling step. One primary and one secondary school were randomly selected from each district. We contacted the principals of these 26 schools. Six schools declined to participate. The remaining 20 schools, with 144 PE teachers, participated in the study. Some teachers had experience in teaching students with disabilities, although to a lesser degree than the participants from the first step.
Instrumentation Data were collected using the PEATID-III (Rizzo, 1993). This instrument contains three sections, namely, a belief scale to measure teacher beliefs, a demographic survey to collect attribute information, and an open-ended question that explores reasons for beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. The first portion of the PEATID-III consists of 12 statements. A sample statement is “Teaching students labeled ________ in my GPE classes will motivate nondisabled students to learn to perform motor skills.” The six types of disability classifications—emotional and behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, specific learning disability, mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, visual impairment, and hearing impairment—are included in the PEATID-III. Under each statement, the six disability classifications are listed and rated according to a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The participant expresses the extent of his or her agreement with each disabling condition per item. Six items are positively phrased (1, 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12), while six are negatively phrased (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10). Scores for negatively phrased items were reversed to offset any possible respondent mental set and to derive accurate scale means (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). The second portion of the PEATID-III includes 11 selection-type or open-ended items. The following are examples of the attribute questions asked: “Rate the quality of your teaching experience for students with disabilities (No experience/not good/satisfactory/very good)” and “Have you taken any adapted physical education courses? (Yes / No)”. Respondents were asked to fill in the blanks or circle the most appropriate answers. The third section contains one open-ended question: “How do you feel about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes? (positive/neutral/negative) Why?” Respondents were asked to choose the answer, express their opinions, and explain the reason behind their beliefs. The validity and reliability of the PEATID have already been established by Folsom-Meek and Rizzo (2002). The instrument was translated into Chinese and validated before data collection. According to the guideline for adapting self-report measures (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz, 2000), the translation and back-translation of the instrument were undertaken by two research assistants who are fluent in both Chinese and English. Noted differences were negotiated until the translators agreed. To verify the validity of the Chinese version of the instrument, the questionnaire was sent to five experts who all had doctoral degrees, one in special education, two in PE, and two in adapted PE. Three experts found that the Chinese version is valid, but
142 Wang, Qi, and Wang
two experts thought that some statements need revision. Minor modifications were made based on the expert comments. For example, the original types of disabilities included were adjusted to the six disability types in the current study (i.e., emotional and behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, specific learning disability, mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, visual impairment, and hearing impairment) to be more consistent with current law (i.e., State Council, 1994) and professional practice. The background question “What grade levels are you presently teaching?” was omitted because the variable was excluded from the study. Experts also suggested that “perceived competence” be excluded from the study because the question “How competent do you feel teaching students with disabilities?” cannot reflect the teaching competence of teachers without experience in teaching students with disabilities. The revised version was re-sent to the experts, and they all agreed that the instrument is valid. A pilot study was then conducted with 20 PE teachers to determine whether confusing items were still found in the questionnaire. For example, one original statement is “Students labeled ________ will develop a more positive self-concept as a result of learning motor skills in my GPE class with nondisabled peers.” Based on the comments of the participants, “Thinking about oneself” was added to explain “self-concept” The test–retest reliability was checked with 22 other PE teachers for 2 weeks. The Chinese version demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability at .74 for emotional and behavioral disorders, .71 for physical disabilities, .80 for visual impairment, and .78 for hearing impairment. We obtained lower reliability coefficients for learning disabilities (.67) and mild to moderate intellectual disabilities (.69). Most reliability coefficients surpassed the .70 criterion for acceptability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Data Collection The university ethics committee and relevant school authorities approved the study. Data were collected by the researcher and three postgraduate research assistants majoring in adapted PE. The team visited 30 elementary and secondary schools in Shanghai in the middle of the 2011–12 school year. Face-to-face distribution was conducted to enable researchers to explain and clarify the aim of the study. Before data collection, the research assistants were informed about the research purpose and design and were trained to clarify questionnaire items that might confuse participants. The process and skills in data collection were also explained to them. Before their arrival at each school, the head of the PE teaching group was contacted. The invitation to participate in the study had already been given during weekly meeting of each school. All PE teachers who participated in the study signed an informed-consent form approved by the institutional review board. The teachers were assured that participation was voluntary and confidentiality was guaranteed. The questionnaires were distributed immediately after the weekly meeting at each school. The research purpose and several terms in the questionnaire were explained. Participants were given instructions and directed to complete the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were collected in groups. The survey required 15–25 minutes to complete and was collected immediately on completion. Out of the 273 contacted teachers, 211 returned the survey, which yielded a 77.3% return rate.
Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 143
After screening, 16 surveys were eliminated because of missing data. The final sample is 195 participants.
Data Analysis Descriptive statistics included the means and standard deviation of the overall belief score and the six disability-specific belief scores. Mean score per disability was based on the sum of the item ratings of the disability divided by the number of items on the scale. One-way within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) examined the differences in teacher beliefs based on disability type. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed with the teacher beliefs as dependent variables and demographic data as independent variables to examine the latter’s main effects on teaching beliefs. For significant MANOVAs, univariate follow-ups were used to determine where significant differences occurred. Pearson’s product–moment correlations examined relationships between teacher beliefs and selected teacherrelated variables. Relations among the variables were also examined. A series of standard multiple-regression analyses specified the variables contributing significantly to positive beliefs. The scores were separately entered into the regression analysis as dependent variables, and the teacher-related variables such as gender, academic degree, teaching levels, years of teaching PE, experience in teaching students with disabilities, course work in adapted PE, course work in special education, and perceived quality of teaching experience of PE teachers served as independent variables. Responses for the open-ended question were inductively analyzed (Patton, 2002) and coded for the principal researcher to identify the themes. Data management and analysis followed the following steps: (a) Raw data themes were identified per participant. They included the summary of the passage and a number of key words, phrases, or sentences in the response that conveyed a specific concept or idea. (b) Using inductive content analysis, common themes, or patterns shaped by cross-case raw-data analysis, were identified. These common themes emerged as first-order themes (e.g., practical challenges, offering equal opportunities, and lack of support). (c) The first-order themes were included under two general dimensions, namely, benefits of inclusion and teacher concern, which corresponded to major categories on teacher comments about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. (d) Summaries of first-order themes and general dimensions of participants were combined to form a dichotomous thematic structure. Pseudonyms are used throughout the article to protect the privacy of all participants. The percentages of frequencies of each theme relative to the total number of respondents to the openended question were calculated. Trustworthiness was established by applying two strategies. Peer debriefing (Creswell, 2007) was used when the principal researcher met with an experienced qualitative researcher. Throughout data analysis, data, charts, memos, and the researcher’s thoughts and analyses were shared with the peer debriefer, whose role was to comment on the logical nature of the researcher’s interpretation, identification of all possible categories, and potential researcher bias. A final analyst triangulation (Patton, 2002) tested the reliability of the data analysis. After the themes were determined, two research assistants knowledgeable in adapted PE
144 Wang, Qi, and Wang
examined the data and checked the subthemes. Intercoder reliability had an average of .82, which was higher than the .8 intercoder reliability criterion (Weber, 1990). A discussion ensued until complete agreement was reached by the researcher and research assistants. Pseudonyms were used throughout the study to protect the privacy of all participants.
Results Participant Characteristics The mean age of the 195 PE teachers was 33 years (SD = 6.71, range = 22–53). The participants comprised 124 (63%) men and 71 (36%) women. A total of 142 (72%) participants had completed a 4-year undergraduate program with a bachelor degree. A small group, 37 (19%), had completed a 3-year college program with a junior college degree, and 16 (8%) had completed both a 4-year undergraduate program and a 3-year postgraduate program with a master’s degree. In terms of teaching level, 69 participants (35.4%) taught in primary schools with students age 7–12, followed by those in secondary schools with students age 13–15 (71, 36%), and high schools with students age 16–18 (55, 28%). In terms of teaching experience in PE, 119 (61%) had less than 10 years, 57 (29%) had 10–20 years, and 19 (9%) had over 20 years. A total of 100 (51%) had taught students with disabilities for 1–7 years, whereas 95 (49%) had no experience. Only 47 (24%) had taken one or more undergraduate, graduate, or continuous training courses in adapted PE, whereas 148 (76%) had not taken such courses. Moreover, only 31 (16%) had taken special education, whereas 164 (84%) had not. When asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale the quality of their teaching experience with students with disabilities in GPE classes (how they liked the experience), 95 (49%) had no experience and 53 (27%) rated their experience as satisfactory, 15 (8%) as very good, and 32 (16%) as not good.
Behavioral Beliefs of Teachers About Teaching Students With Disabilities in Their GPE Classes A neutral response to the PEATID-III is 3.0 (Block & Rizzo, 1995). The average of teacher beliefs about students with physical disabilities (M = 3.01, SD = 0.51) was neutral. ANOVA was used to examine whether there were significant differences between beliefs of teachers about teaching students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, visual impairment, hearing impairment, specific learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, and the neutral beliefs (the belief of teachers about teaching students with physical disabilities). Results indicated significant differences between belief about students with physical disabilities and mild-moderate intellectual disabilities, F(1, 195) = 43.13, p < .01, η2 = .18; visual impairment, F(1, 195) = 33.56, p < .01, η2 = .15; hearing impairment, F(1, 195) = 33.77, p < .01, η2 = .15; and specific learning disabilities, F(1, 195) = 19.51, p < .01, η2 = .09. Beliefs about students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities (M = 3.26, SD = 0.50), visual impairment (M = 3.18, SD = 0.46), hearing impairment (M = 3.21, SD = 0.48), and specific learning disabilities (M = 3.15, SD = 0.46) were
Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 145
positive. However, teachers held negative beliefs toward students with emotional and behavioral disorders (M = 2.79, SD = 0.57), with a significant difference from beliefs about students with physical disabilities, F(1, 195) = 51.90, p < .01, η2 = .21. Moreover, ANOVA results showed significant differences in teacher beliefs toward teaching students with six disabling conditions, F(5, 195) = 23.96, p < .01, η2 = .39. The effect size is generally considered medium (Cohen, 1992). Subsequent Tukey post hoc comparisons revealed a significant difference among all variables except the relationship between specific learning disabilities and vision impairment, F(1, 195) = 1.84, p > .05, η2 = .01; between hearing impairment and mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, F(1, 195) = 3.01, p > .05, η2 = .02; and between hearing impairment and vision impairment, F(1, 195) = 1.06, p > .05, η2 = .01.
Demographic Differences in the Beliefs of PE teachers Table 1 presents the mean scores, standard deviations, and F value of beliefs across demographic characteristics. MANOVA results indicated no significant differences in beliefs in terms of gender, F(1, 195) = 0.53, p > .05, η2 = .02; academic degree, F(2, 195) = 2.09, p > .05, η2 = .04; teaching level, F(2, 195) = 0.69, p > .05, η2 = .03; PE teaching experience, F(2, 195) = 0.72, p > .05, η2 = .02; and special education courses, F(1, 195) = 0.95, p > .05, η2 = .03]. With regard to the experience teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes, 144 participants came from schools with little experience or exposure to students with disabilities. To avoid bias, the experienced group (51 teachers) was excluded and the difference in the beliefs of the teachers was examined. The findings showed no significant differences in beliefs in terms of experience teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes, F(1, 144) = 0.41, p > .05, η2 = .02. The only significant difference was found in beliefs in terms of adapted-PE courses, F(1, 195) = 3.55, p < .01, η2 = .10. The follow-up univariate test results indicated that the beliefs toward students with emotional and behavioral disorders contributed to this significant difference, F(1, 195) = 5.22, p < .05, η2 = .03. PE teachers who had taken adapted-PE courses had significantly higher beliefs toward students with emotional and behavioral disorders than those who had not taken adapted-PE courses (Table 1).
Relationship Between Selected Teacher-Related Variables and Beliefs The analysis results of correlations between some ordinal and interval variables such as academic degree, teaching levels, PE teaching experience, quality of experience teaching students with disabilities, and overall beliefs indicated there are no significant correlations except for that between quality of teaching experience and overall beliefs (r = .29, p < .01). A series of standard multiple-regression analyses identified and assessed the collective and separate contributions of all teacher-related variables. Table 2 summarizes these results. Quality of experience is the only variable that significantly contributed to the prediction of positive beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. This variable explained 8% variance. The variable solely significantly contributed to the prediction of positive beliefs about teaching students with physical disabilities, specific learning disabilities,
146
2.76 (0.57)
female
2.97 (0.55) 2.75 (0.54)
bachelor’s degree
master’s degree
2.79 (0.59) 2.77 (0.63)
secondary school
high school 2.82 (0.58) 2.76 (0.61) 2.79 (0.39)
20
Years of teaching physical education
2.83 (0.50)
primary school
Teaching level
2.72 (0.77)
junior college degree
Academic degree
2.82 (0.57)
male
Gender
EBD
3.02 (0.35)
3.02 (0.49)
3.00 (0.53)
3.00 (0.57)
2.97 (0.51)
3.05 (0.46)
3.24 (0.53)
2.99 (0.47)
2.61 (0.69)
2.97 (0.53)
3.03 (0.49)
PD
3.17 (0.39)
3.19 (0.47)
3.13 (0.47)
3.18 (0.51)
3.08 (0.49)
3.19 (0.39)
3.34 (0.46)
3.15 (0.43)
2.73 (0.69)
3.16 (0.49)
3.15 (0.45)
SLD
3.12 (0.41)
3.32 (0.53)
3.25 (0.49)
3.26 (0.53)
3.20 (0.49)
3.32 (0.49)
3.45 (0.47)
3.25 (0.47)
3.09 (0.75)
3.27 (0.52)
3.25 (0.49)
MMID
Type of Disability
3.14 (0.36)
3.19 (0.49)
3.19 (0.46)
3.22 (0.51)
3.15 (0.46)
3.19 (0.43)
3.38 (0.42)
3.18 (0.44)
3.00 (0.73)
3.16 (0.48)
3.19 (0.45)
VI
3.13 (0.48)
3.27 (0.54)
3.19 (0.45)
3.28 (0.46)
3.16 (0.52)
3.21 (0.45)
3.38 (0.41)
3.21 (0.48)
2.94 (0.58)
3.24 (0.47)
3.19 (0.48)
HI
Table 1 Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching Students With Disabilities Across Demographic Differences (N = 195), M (SD)
(continued)
0.72
0.69
2.09
0.53
F
147
2.86 (0.62)
no
2.79 (0.57)
no
2.75 (0.58)
no
2.99 (0.53)
3.05 (0.43)
3.00 (0.52)
3.14 (0.29)
3.09 (0.48)
2.99 (0.49)
PD
3.16 (0.47)
3.14 (0.44)
3.15 (0.46)
3.21 (0.50)
3.22 (0.44)
3.18 (0.42)
SLD
3.26 (0.52)
3.24 (0.45)
3.25 (0.49)
3.40 (0.59)
3.33 (0.46)
3.26 (0.52)
MMID
Type of Disability
3.18 (0.49)
3.21 (0.37)
3.18 (0.47)
3.35 (0.30)
3.23 (0.42)
3.14 (0.47)
VI
3.24 (0.49)
3.12 (0.44)
3.21 (0.47)
3.32 (0.56)
3.26 (0.47)
3.21 (0.47)
HI
3.55**
0.95
0.41
F
Note. EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders; PD = physical disability; SLD = specific learning disability; MMID = mild to moderate intellectual disabilities; VI = visual impairment; HI = hearing impairment. **p < .01.
2.96 (0.51)
yes
Adapted physical education courses
2.97 (0.61)
yes
Special education courses
2.78 (0.53)
EBD
yes
Experience teaching students with disabilities
Table 1 (continued)
148
0.10 –0.08
Adapted physical education course work
0.09
quality of experience
Beliefs about teaching students with hearing impairment
quality of experience
Beliefs about teaching students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities
quality of experience
0.11
–0.19
Experience teaching students with disabilities
Beliefs about teaching students with vision impairment
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
B
quality of experience
Beliefs about teaching students with emotional and behavior disorders
quality of experience
Beliefs about teaching students with specific learning disabilities
quality of experience
Beliefs about teaching students with physical disabilities
quality of experience
Overall belief
Variable
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
SE
Table 2 Standard Multiple-Regression Analysis for Predicting the Beliefs (N = 195)
–2.22
2.78
2.39
3.18
–1.98
4.25
3.49
3.33
4.09
t
.03
.01
.02
.002
.04
Official Journal of IFAPA www.APAQ-Journal.com ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Beliefs of Chinese Physical Educators on Teaching Students With Disabilities in General Physical Education Classes
Lijuan Wang
Jing Qi
Shanghai University of Sport
Beifang University of Nationalities
Lin Wang Shanghai University of Sport This study examined the behavioral beliefs of physical education (PE) teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their general PE (GPE) classes and to identify the factors that contribute to their beliefs. A total of 195 PE teachers from a region in eastern China were surveyed. Results of the Physical Educators’ Attitudes Toward Teaching Individuals With Disabilities-III survey indicate that although some teachers felt that including students with disabilities in GPE classes provides benefit for them, they were concerned about the practical difficulties of teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes, the lack of support, and the possible rejection of students with disabilities by their peers. Moreover, the behavioral beliefs of teachers vary according to the disability conditions of the students. Results show that there is no significant effect of demographic factors on the beliefs of PE teachers. Quality of experience predicts positive beliefs. The study has important implication for teacher training, provision of equipment, and support from teacher assistants. Keywords: PE, adapted physical education, behavioral beliefs
The philosophy behind teaching students with disabilities has significantly changed over the last 2 decades, and several countries, namely, the United States, Ireland, and Japan, have implemented policies to facilitate their teaching in general classes (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Sato & Hodge, 2009). In the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) suggested that students with disabilities be educated with students without disabilities in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate. The law states that students with disabilities must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the general
Lijuan and Lin Wang are with the Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China. Qi is with Beifang University of Nationalities, Yinchuan, China. Address author correspondence to Lijuan Wang at [email protected] 137
138 Wang, Qi, and Wang
physical education (GPE) program. As a result, there has been an increase in the number of students with disabilities receiving physical education (PE) in general classes with their peers without disabilities (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006). Many factors affect the success of teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. One important factor is the behavioral belief of teachers, which is the key to changing their intention to teach students with disabilities (Theodorakis, Bagiatis, & Goudas, 1995). If professionals can understand teacher beliefs and concerns about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes, they can address these issues and focus on changing these beliefs. This can, in turn, lead to more successful professional programs on teaching students with disabilities in general classes (Conatser, Block, & Gansneder, 2002; Kozub & Porretta, 1998). Several studies in North America and Europe used various survey instruments such as the Physical Educators’ Attitude Toward Teaching the Handicapped (Rizzo, 1984, 1988) and the Physical Educators’ Attitudes Toward Teaching Individuals with Disabilities-III (PEATID-III; Rizzo, 1993) to examine behavioral beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their general classes (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). These studies indicate that beliefs range from negative or undecided (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Petkova, Kudlacek, & Nikolova, 2012) to positive (Knoll & Fediuk, 2012; Obrusnikova, 2008). Teacher-related variables may influence behavioral beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. These variables include gender, age, academic degree, years in teaching PE, experience with students with disabilities, quality of experience, perceived competence, and coursework in special education and adapted PE. Some variables such as gender and age have inconsistent relationships with beliefs. Aloia, Knutson, Minner, and Von Seggern (1980) found that women have more positive beliefs than men when teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes, but subsequent studies (Fournidou, Kudlacek, & Evagellinou, 2011; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Petkova et al., 2012; Rizzo, 1985; Rizzo & Wright, 1988) do not concur. Studies show that age is negatively correlated with teaching beliefs and that older teachers are more negative toward teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes (Rizzo, 1985). Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) and Rizzo and Wright (1988) failed to find a significant correlation between age and beliefs. Several studies have examined the effect of academic degree on PE teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. However, no significant relationship was found between an academic degree and beliefs (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Rizzo, 1985). The effect of years of teaching PE on the beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes has been examined in several studies (Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). However, no significant relationship was found between years of teaching PE and the beliefs of PE teachers. Most studies reported that teachers with more experience in teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes have more positive beliefs than teachers with less experience (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Knoll & Fediuk, 2012; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). However, Rizzo (1985) failed to find a significant relationship between teaching experience and positive teaching beliefs.
Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 139
Several studies show that educational preparation is a predictor of beliefs (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1985). Some studies indicate that teachers who completed adapted-PE coursework or special education courses have more positive beliefs (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1985). However, Rizzo and Wright (1988) and Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) found no significant correlation between coursework in special education or adapted PE and beliefs. Quality of experience is an assessment indicator of the perception of PE teachers of teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes and the reflection of their enjoyment in teaching such students. Block and Rizzo (1995) and Obrusnikova (2008) examined the effect of quality of experience on the beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. They found that the beliefs of PE teachers become more positive as the quality of experience in teaching students with disabilities improved. Perceived competence and self-efficacy have been correlated with beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. Researchers suggest that PE teachers with higher level of perceived teaching competence exhibit more positive beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). However, those studies failed to use a validated instrument to measure perceived competence. In addition, Beamer and Yun (2014) reported that PE teachers’ self-efficacy is positively related to their beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. Aside from teacher-related variables, various studies found that student-related variables such as type of disability are linked to teacher behavioral beliefs. Students with learning disabilities are generally viewed more positively than students with emotional and behavioral disorders (Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991).
Teaching Students With Disabilities in Chinese General Classes: Policy and Implementation Teacher behavioral beliefs may differ because of cultural differences in the way persons with disabilities are regarded (Leyser, Kapperman & Keller, 1994; Sharma, Ee, & Desai, 2003). Most studies have focused on the United States and European countries. Much remains unknown about beliefs or concerns of PE teachers in China. Teaching students with disabilities in Chinese general classes, commonly referred to as Suiban Jiudu, has ideological and pragmatic roots. Sweeping reforms in China in the 1980s resulted in tremendous social, political, and economic changes (Deng & Manset, 2000). Consistently, equal rights for individuals with disabilities have become a focus of the Chinese government (Deng & Manset, 2000). Financial constraints may be another important reason behind the initiation of teaching students with disabilities in general schools rather than special schools. According to Deng and Manset, separate education for nearly 5 million children with disabilities in China would require establishing at least 210, 000 new special schools. Thus, enrolling students with disabilities in general schools is a cost-effective approach (McCabe, 2003).
140 Wang, Qi, and Wang
The drafting of several policies has contributed to the progression of teaching students with disabilities in general classes. In China, the Compulsory Education Law was the first official call for teaching students with disabilities in general schools in areas without or that could not afford special schools or programs (National People’s Congress, 1986). The 1990 Law on the Protection of Persons with Disabilities (National People’s Congress, 1990) and the 1994 Regulations on Education for Persons with Disabilities (State Council, 1994) called for compulsory 9-year education for students with disabilities. As a result, the Chinese educational system has seen an increasing number of students with disabilities taught in general education settings. In 1992, 129,400 students with intellectual disability, visual impairment, and hearing impairment were enrolled in general schools (Gu, 1993). By 2011, their enrollment reached 225,200 out of 208,000,000 students in general schools (Ministry of Education of China, 2012). Some studies examined teacher perceptions and practice about teaching students with disabilities in China (e.g., Chen, 2008; Li & Sam, 2011). Research findings indicate that most Chinese school or university teachers agree to teach students with disabilities in their general classes, but they are not confident in teaching them in a general setting (Chen, 2008). Teaching students with disabilities in general classes has many barriers. On one hand, no guidance was provided in the teaching program and syllabus for general teachers. Teachers are not directed by policy on how to teach and assess this group of students (Li & Sam, 2011). On the other hand, special education courses are provided only in few universities, and professional training programs for school teachers are deficient (Wu, 2011). Xiao (2005) reported that the number of teachers with professional knowledge in China could not fulfill the requirement of teaching students with disabilities in general classes in the country. However, no studies on PE teacher beliefs have been conducted. GPE classes in China focus on fitness, health, and cognitive and affective orientation. The aims of PE teachers are to develop motor competencies and promote sports participation, social adaptability, and a healthy and safe lifestyle for students (Ministry of Education of China, 2002). Taking into account these aims, the purposes of this study were (a) to describe the behavioral beliefs of Chinese PE teachers about teaching students with different types of disabilities; (b) to examine demographic differences in the beliefs of Chinese PE teachers in terms of gender, academic degree, teaching level, PE teaching experience, experience teaching students with disabilities, special education courses, and adapted-PE courses; and (c) to identify some teacher-related variables significantly contributing to their beliefs. The current study will provide a foundation of knowledge to develop professional training programs for PE teachers on teaching students with disabilities in China.
Method Participants The participants of the current study were 195 full-time PE teachers from 30 primary, secondary, and high schools from Shanghai in Eastern China. Sampling was conducted in two steps. First, 10 schools from six districts in Shanghai were deliberately selected from 1,521 schools with 7,503 PE teachers. These 10 schools
Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 141
had the highest number of students with disabilities in this region in the past 3 years. All PE teachers (51) in the subject schools, who have substantial experience in teaching students with disabilities, agreed to participate in the study. The remaining 13 out of 19 districts were targeted for the second sampling step. One primary and one secondary school were randomly selected from each district. We contacted the principals of these 26 schools. Six schools declined to participate. The remaining 20 schools, with 144 PE teachers, participated in the study. Some teachers had experience in teaching students with disabilities, although to a lesser degree than the participants from the first step.
Instrumentation Data were collected using the PEATID-III (Rizzo, 1993). This instrument contains three sections, namely, a belief scale to measure teacher beliefs, a demographic survey to collect attribute information, and an open-ended question that explores reasons for beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. The first portion of the PEATID-III consists of 12 statements. A sample statement is “Teaching students labeled ________ in my GPE classes will motivate nondisabled students to learn to perform motor skills.” The six types of disability classifications—emotional and behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, specific learning disability, mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, visual impairment, and hearing impairment—are included in the PEATID-III. Under each statement, the six disability classifications are listed and rated according to a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The participant expresses the extent of his or her agreement with each disabling condition per item. Six items are positively phrased (1, 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12), while six are negatively phrased (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10). Scores for negatively phrased items were reversed to offset any possible respondent mental set and to derive accurate scale means (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). The second portion of the PEATID-III includes 11 selection-type or open-ended items. The following are examples of the attribute questions asked: “Rate the quality of your teaching experience for students with disabilities (No experience/not good/satisfactory/very good)” and “Have you taken any adapted physical education courses? (Yes / No)”. Respondents were asked to fill in the blanks or circle the most appropriate answers. The third section contains one open-ended question: “How do you feel about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes? (positive/neutral/negative) Why?” Respondents were asked to choose the answer, express their opinions, and explain the reason behind their beliefs. The validity and reliability of the PEATID have already been established by Folsom-Meek and Rizzo (2002). The instrument was translated into Chinese and validated before data collection. According to the guideline for adapting self-report measures (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz, 2000), the translation and back-translation of the instrument were undertaken by two research assistants who are fluent in both Chinese and English. Noted differences were negotiated until the translators agreed. To verify the validity of the Chinese version of the instrument, the questionnaire was sent to five experts who all had doctoral degrees, one in special education, two in PE, and two in adapted PE. Three experts found that the Chinese version is valid, but
142 Wang, Qi, and Wang
two experts thought that some statements need revision. Minor modifications were made based on the expert comments. For example, the original types of disabilities included were adjusted to the six disability types in the current study (i.e., emotional and behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, specific learning disability, mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, visual impairment, and hearing impairment) to be more consistent with current law (i.e., State Council, 1994) and professional practice. The background question “What grade levels are you presently teaching?” was omitted because the variable was excluded from the study. Experts also suggested that “perceived competence” be excluded from the study because the question “How competent do you feel teaching students with disabilities?” cannot reflect the teaching competence of teachers without experience in teaching students with disabilities. The revised version was re-sent to the experts, and they all agreed that the instrument is valid. A pilot study was then conducted with 20 PE teachers to determine whether confusing items were still found in the questionnaire. For example, one original statement is “Students labeled ________ will develop a more positive self-concept as a result of learning motor skills in my GPE class with nondisabled peers.” Based on the comments of the participants, “Thinking about oneself” was added to explain “self-concept” The test–retest reliability was checked with 22 other PE teachers for 2 weeks. The Chinese version demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability at .74 for emotional and behavioral disorders, .71 for physical disabilities, .80 for visual impairment, and .78 for hearing impairment. We obtained lower reliability coefficients for learning disabilities (.67) and mild to moderate intellectual disabilities (.69). Most reliability coefficients surpassed the .70 criterion for acceptability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Data Collection The university ethics committee and relevant school authorities approved the study. Data were collected by the researcher and three postgraduate research assistants majoring in adapted PE. The team visited 30 elementary and secondary schools in Shanghai in the middle of the 2011–12 school year. Face-to-face distribution was conducted to enable researchers to explain and clarify the aim of the study. Before data collection, the research assistants were informed about the research purpose and design and were trained to clarify questionnaire items that might confuse participants. The process and skills in data collection were also explained to them. Before their arrival at each school, the head of the PE teaching group was contacted. The invitation to participate in the study had already been given during weekly meeting of each school. All PE teachers who participated in the study signed an informed-consent form approved by the institutional review board. The teachers were assured that participation was voluntary and confidentiality was guaranteed. The questionnaires were distributed immediately after the weekly meeting at each school. The research purpose and several terms in the questionnaire were explained. Participants were given instructions and directed to complete the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were collected in groups. The survey required 15–25 minutes to complete and was collected immediately on completion. Out of the 273 contacted teachers, 211 returned the survey, which yielded a 77.3% return rate.
Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 143
After screening, 16 surveys were eliminated because of missing data. The final sample is 195 participants.
Data Analysis Descriptive statistics included the means and standard deviation of the overall belief score and the six disability-specific belief scores. Mean score per disability was based on the sum of the item ratings of the disability divided by the number of items on the scale. One-way within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) examined the differences in teacher beliefs based on disability type. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed with the teacher beliefs as dependent variables and demographic data as independent variables to examine the latter’s main effects on teaching beliefs. For significant MANOVAs, univariate follow-ups were used to determine where significant differences occurred. Pearson’s product–moment correlations examined relationships between teacher beliefs and selected teacherrelated variables. Relations among the variables were also examined. A series of standard multiple-regression analyses specified the variables contributing significantly to positive beliefs. The scores were separately entered into the regression analysis as dependent variables, and the teacher-related variables such as gender, academic degree, teaching levels, years of teaching PE, experience in teaching students with disabilities, course work in adapted PE, course work in special education, and perceived quality of teaching experience of PE teachers served as independent variables. Responses for the open-ended question were inductively analyzed (Patton, 2002) and coded for the principal researcher to identify the themes. Data management and analysis followed the following steps: (a) Raw data themes were identified per participant. They included the summary of the passage and a number of key words, phrases, or sentences in the response that conveyed a specific concept or idea. (b) Using inductive content analysis, common themes, or patterns shaped by cross-case raw-data analysis, were identified. These common themes emerged as first-order themes (e.g., practical challenges, offering equal opportunities, and lack of support). (c) The first-order themes were included under two general dimensions, namely, benefits of inclusion and teacher concern, which corresponded to major categories on teacher comments about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. (d) Summaries of first-order themes and general dimensions of participants were combined to form a dichotomous thematic structure. Pseudonyms are used throughout the article to protect the privacy of all participants. The percentages of frequencies of each theme relative to the total number of respondents to the openended question were calculated. Trustworthiness was established by applying two strategies. Peer debriefing (Creswell, 2007) was used when the principal researcher met with an experienced qualitative researcher. Throughout data analysis, data, charts, memos, and the researcher’s thoughts and analyses were shared with the peer debriefer, whose role was to comment on the logical nature of the researcher’s interpretation, identification of all possible categories, and potential researcher bias. A final analyst triangulation (Patton, 2002) tested the reliability of the data analysis. After the themes were determined, two research assistants knowledgeable in adapted PE
144 Wang, Qi, and Wang
examined the data and checked the subthemes. Intercoder reliability had an average of .82, which was higher than the .8 intercoder reliability criterion (Weber, 1990). A discussion ensued until complete agreement was reached by the researcher and research assistants. Pseudonyms were used throughout the study to protect the privacy of all participants.
Results Participant Characteristics The mean age of the 195 PE teachers was 33 years (SD = 6.71, range = 22–53). The participants comprised 124 (63%) men and 71 (36%) women. A total of 142 (72%) participants had completed a 4-year undergraduate program with a bachelor degree. A small group, 37 (19%), had completed a 3-year college program with a junior college degree, and 16 (8%) had completed both a 4-year undergraduate program and a 3-year postgraduate program with a master’s degree. In terms of teaching level, 69 participants (35.4%) taught in primary schools with students age 7–12, followed by those in secondary schools with students age 13–15 (71, 36%), and high schools with students age 16–18 (55, 28%). In terms of teaching experience in PE, 119 (61%) had less than 10 years, 57 (29%) had 10–20 years, and 19 (9%) had over 20 years. A total of 100 (51%) had taught students with disabilities for 1–7 years, whereas 95 (49%) had no experience. Only 47 (24%) had taken one or more undergraduate, graduate, or continuous training courses in adapted PE, whereas 148 (76%) had not taken such courses. Moreover, only 31 (16%) had taken special education, whereas 164 (84%) had not. When asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale the quality of their teaching experience with students with disabilities in GPE classes (how they liked the experience), 95 (49%) had no experience and 53 (27%) rated their experience as satisfactory, 15 (8%) as very good, and 32 (16%) as not good.
Behavioral Beliefs of Teachers About Teaching Students With Disabilities in Their GPE Classes A neutral response to the PEATID-III is 3.0 (Block & Rizzo, 1995). The average of teacher beliefs about students with physical disabilities (M = 3.01, SD = 0.51) was neutral. ANOVA was used to examine whether there were significant differences between beliefs of teachers about teaching students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, visual impairment, hearing impairment, specific learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, and the neutral beliefs (the belief of teachers about teaching students with physical disabilities). Results indicated significant differences between belief about students with physical disabilities and mild-moderate intellectual disabilities, F(1, 195) = 43.13, p < .01, η2 = .18; visual impairment, F(1, 195) = 33.56, p < .01, η2 = .15; hearing impairment, F(1, 195) = 33.77, p < .01, η2 = .15; and specific learning disabilities, F(1, 195) = 19.51, p < .01, η2 = .09. Beliefs about students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities (M = 3.26, SD = 0.50), visual impairment (M = 3.18, SD = 0.46), hearing impairment (M = 3.21, SD = 0.48), and specific learning disabilities (M = 3.15, SD = 0.46) were
Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 145
positive. However, teachers held negative beliefs toward students with emotional and behavioral disorders (M = 2.79, SD = 0.57), with a significant difference from beliefs about students with physical disabilities, F(1, 195) = 51.90, p < .01, η2 = .21. Moreover, ANOVA results showed significant differences in teacher beliefs toward teaching students with six disabling conditions, F(5, 195) = 23.96, p < .01, η2 = .39. The effect size is generally considered medium (Cohen, 1992). Subsequent Tukey post hoc comparisons revealed a significant difference among all variables except the relationship between specific learning disabilities and vision impairment, F(1, 195) = 1.84, p > .05, η2 = .01; between hearing impairment and mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, F(1, 195) = 3.01, p > .05, η2 = .02; and between hearing impairment and vision impairment, F(1, 195) = 1.06, p > .05, η2 = .01.
Demographic Differences in the Beliefs of PE teachers Table 1 presents the mean scores, standard deviations, and F value of beliefs across demographic characteristics. MANOVA results indicated no significant differences in beliefs in terms of gender, F(1, 195) = 0.53, p > .05, η2 = .02; academic degree, F(2, 195) = 2.09, p > .05, η2 = .04; teaching level, F(2, 195) = 0.69, p > .05, η2 = .03; PE teaching experience, F(2, 195) = 0.72, p > .05, η2 = .02; and special education courses, F(1, 195) = 0.95, p > .05, η2 = .03]. With regard to the experience teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes, 144 participants came from schools with little experience or exposure to students with disabilities. To avoid bias, the experienced group (51 teachers) was excluded and the difference in the beliefs of the teachers was examined. The findings showed no significant differences in beliefs in terms of experience teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes, F(1, 144) = 0.41, p > .05, η2 = .02. The only significant difference was found in beliefs in terms of adapted-PE courses, F(1, 195) = 3.55, p < .01, η2 = .10. The follow-up univariate test results indicated that the beliefs toward students with emotional and behavioral disorders contributed to this significant difference, F(1, 195) = 5.22, p < .05, η2 = .03. PE teachers who had taken adapted-PE courses had significantly higher beliefs toward students with emotional and behavioral disorders than those who had not taken adapted-PE courses (Table 1).
Relationship Between Selected Teacher-Related Variables and Beliefs The analysis results of correlations between some ordinal and interval variables such as academic degree, teaching levels, PE teaching experience, quality of experience teaching students with disabilities, and overall beliefs indicated there are no significant correlations except for that between quality of teaching experience and overall beliefs (r = .29, p < .01). A series of standard multiple-regression analyses identified and assessed the collective and separate contributions of all teacher-related variables. Table 2 summarizes these results. Quality of experience is the only variable that significantly contributed to the prediction of positive beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. This variable explained 8% variance. The variable solely significantly contributed to the prediction of positive beliefs about teaching students with physical disabilities, specific learning disabilities,
146
2.76 (0.57)
female
2.97 (0.55) 2.75 (0.54)
bachelor’s degree
master’s degree
2.79 (0.59) 2.77 (0.63)
secondary school
high school 2.82 (0.58) 2.76 (0.61) 2.79 (0.39)
20
Years of teaching physical education
2.83 (0.50)
primary school
Teaching level
2.72 (0.77)
junior college degree
Academic degree
2.82 (0.57)
male
Gender
EBD
3.02 (0.35)
3.02 (0.49)
3.00 (0.53)
3.00 (0.57)
2.97 (0.51)
3.05 (0.46)
3.24 (0.53)
2.99 (0.47)
2.61 (0.69)
2.97 (0.53)
3.03 (0.49)
PD
3.17 (0.39)
3.19 (0.47)
3.13 (0.47)
3.18 (0.51)
3.08 (0.49)
3.19 (0.39)
3.34 (0.46)
3.15 (0.43)
2.73 (0.69)
3.16 (0.49)
3.15 (0.45)
SLD
3.12 (0.41)
3.32 (0.53)
3.25 (0.49)
3.26 (0.53)
3.20 (0.49)
3.32 (0.49)
3.45 (0.47)
3.25 (0.47)
3.09 (0.75)
3.27 (0.52)
3.25 (0.49)
MMID
Type of Disability
3.14 (0.36)
3.19 (0.49)
3.19 (0.46)
3.22 (0.51)
3.15 (0.46)
3.19 (0.43)
3.38 (0.42)
3.18 (0.44)
3.00 (0.73)
3.16 (0.48)
3.19 (0.45)
VI
3.13 (0.48)
3.27 (0.54)
3.19 (0.45)
3.28 (0.46)
3.16 (0.52)
3.21 (0.45)
3.38 (0.41)
3.21 (0.48)
2.94 (0.58)
3.24 (0.47)
3.19 (0.48)
HI
Table 1 Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching Students With Disabilities Across Demographic Differences (N = 195), M (SD)
(continued)
0.72
0.69
2.09
0.53
F
147
2.86 (0.62)
no
2.79 (0.57)
no
2.75 (0.58)
no
2.99 (0.53)
3.05 (0.43)
3.00 (0.52)
3.14 (0.29)
3.09 (0.48)
2.99 (0.49)
PD
3.16 (0.47)
3.14 (0.44)
3.15 (0.46)
3.21 (0.50)
3.22 (0.44)
3.18 (0.42)
SLD
3.26 (0.52)
3.24 (0.45)
3.25 (0.49)
3.40 (0.59)
3.33 (0.46)
3.26 (0.52)
MMID
Type of Disability
3.18 (0.49)
3.21 (0.37)
3.18 (0.47)
3.35 (0.30)
3.23 (0.42)
3.14 (0.47)
VI
3.24 (0.49)
3.12 (0.44)
3.21 (0.47)
3.32 (0.56)
3.26 (0.47)
3.21 (0.47)
HI
3.55**
0.95
0.41
F
Note. EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders; PD = physical disability; SLD = specific learning disability; MMID = mild to moderate intellectual disabilities; VI = visual impairment; HI = hearing impairment. **p < .01.
2.96 (0.51)
yes
Adapted physical education courses
2.97 (0.61)
yes
Special education courses
2.78 (0.53)
EBD
yes
Experience teaching students with disabilities
Table 1 (continued)
148
0.10 –0.08
Adapted physical education course work
0.09
quality of experience
Beliefs about teaching students with hearing impairment
quality of experience
Beliefs about teaching students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities
quality of experience
0.11
–0.19
Experience teaching students with disabilities
Beliefs about teaching students with vision impairment
0.18
0.13
0.13
0.13
B
quality of experience
Beliefs about teaching students with emotional and behavior disorders
quality of experience
Beliefs about teaching students with specific learning disabilities
quality of experience
Beliefs about teaching students with physical disabilities
quality of experience
Overall belief
Variable
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
SE
Table 2 Standard Multiple-Regression Analysis for Predicting the Beliefs (N = 195)
–2.22
2.78
2.39
3.18
–1.98
4.25
3.49
3.33
4.09
t
.03
.01
.02
.002
.04
