The academic literature is replete with various and sometimes conflicting views of what inclusive education refers to. However, at the heart of the concept is a common desire for students to learn together in rich environments that address the strengths and needs of all. What these environments look like in practice has been a matter of some discussion. One definition that retains its integrity regardless of context has been proposed by Mittler (Reference Mittler2013) and others who argue that inclusion is the act of identifying and removing barriers to participation. Mittler's definition is consistent with the views of Shaddock, MacDonald, Hook, Giorcelli, and Arthur-Kelly (Reference Shaddock, MacDonald, Hook, Giorcelli and Arthur-Kelly2009), who contended that inclusive education is not a disability issue but rather a whole-school issue. According to Shaddock et al.,
Inclusion implies that if participation becomes an issue for any student, whether arising from disability, gender, behaviour, poverty, culture, refugee status or any other reason, then the desirable approach is not to establish special programs for the newly identified individual or group need, but to expand mainstream thinking, structures and practices so that all students are accommodated. ( Shaddock et al., Reference Shaddock, MacDonald, Hook, Giorcelli and Arthur-Kelly2009, as cited in Loreman, Forlin, Chambers, Sharma, & Deppeler, Reference Loreman, Forlin, Chambers, Sharma, Deppeler and Forlin2014, p. 8)
This was the perspective adopted in this study. However, participants were not provided with a definition of inclusion in the first instance but were instead asked to relate their own understanding of the concept.
This study took place in Alberta, Canada, a context in which inclusive education is frequently discussed and enshrined in policy, promotional materials from school jurisdictions, and discourse, but which has had varied success when it comes to practice and system-wide commitment to the approach. Loreman (Reference Loreman2009, Reference Loreman and Jones2014) has made the argument that although inclusive education is well understood in Alberta, conscious efforts have been made to retain the status quo of segregation for some students, and a strong commitment to inclusive practice is yet to be realised. This is not out of step with many international school jurisdictions where politically correct verbiage and policy documents exist, although the reality on the ground is anything but inclusive (see, e.g., Slee, Reference Slee2011, and Slee & Allan, Reference Slee and Allan2001, for an examination of the disconnect between policy and practice). Because services to children in Alberta are provided along a continuum ranging from full segregation to almost barrier-free inclusion, and because most teachers now work in environments with a diverse student population, it is worthwhile to ascertain the views of preservice teachers as they learn their way into the profession.
In Loreman's (Reference Loreman and Jones2014) previous study, it was concluded that the sample of preservice teachers held views that could lead to the exclusion of some groups of children, particularly those with behaviour difficulties or severe disabilities. It was argued that such views resulted from having to adopt certain opinions and attitudes in order to fit in with the predominant culture of educational exclusion in Edmonton, the capital city of Alberta. Although we would like to see this predominant culture disappear, it remains an educational issue that requires more attention from all stakeholders, from policymakers to educators in the field. Loreman's study was aimed at general elementary school-level classroom teaching. There is some evidence to suggest that preservice teachers find the teaching of physical education particularly intimidating and difficult (Hand, Reference Hand2014; MacPhail, Tannehill, & Goc Karp, Reference MacPhail, Tannehill and Goc Karp2013). Griggs and Medcalf (Reference Griggs, Medcalf and Forlin2015) argued that
natural variances in cognitive and physical abilities are at their most visible when participating in physical education, and thus the very visible requirement for differentiation is magnified by the performative nature of the outcomes which define the perceived success of any individual task accomplishment. (p. 123)
They further added that the ‘potential for physical education to “include,” and the ease to which it is possible for it to “exclude,” is testimony to the common variance in affinity towards the subject’ (p. 125). With additional variables such as movement, noise, use of large pieces of equipment (Fishburne, Reference Fishburne2005; Gleddie, Hickson, & Bradford, Reference Gleddie, Hickson and Bradford2018), to name a few, teaching physical education can provide teachers with several issues not present in the classroom setting, which begs the question, does the additional consideration of catering to diverse populations in a subject area in which preservice teachers already have reservations have any impact? Hence, as an initial step in addressing this query, we have asked, what views do preservice teachers in Alberta hold about inclusive physical education?
In Alberta, the current elementary school physical education curriculum (Alberta Learning, 2000) is structured around four general outcomes (e.g., activity, benefits health) and five dimensions of activities (e.g., games, individual activities, alternative environment activities). It is recommended that teachers of physical education provide students with developmentally appropriate and safe activities while promoting maximum participation for all in their fundamental movement skill and physical literacy development (Physical and Health Education Canada [PHE Canada], http://www.phecanada.ca; Whitehead, Reference Whitehead2007, Reference Whitehead2010). The aim of K–12 physical education programming is to enable students to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to lead an active, healthy lifestyle (Alberta Education, 2018; Alberta Learning, 2000). Further, Alberta Education's (2018) vision for education focuses on students and their abilities to achieve their individual potential, creating a positive future for themselves, as well as enhancing their quality of life. In a concerted effort, it is essential for the teachers, school, families, and the overall community to help students develop their physical literacy (Gleddie et al., Reference Gleddie, Hickson and Bradford2018; PHE Canada [http://www.phecanada.ca]; Whitehead, Reference Whitehead2007, Reference Whitehead2010). To expand upon physical literacy, Gleddie et al. (Reference Gleddie, Hickson and Bradford2018) stated,
The philosophy and concept of physical literacy has gained a lot of momentum in education, sport, recreation, and the home – and for good reason! Margaret Whitehead (2013), a leading philosopher behind the concept offers this definition: ‘Physical literacy can be described as the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life.’ (p. 12)
Typically, elementary schools in Alberta do not have physical education specialists, but rather rely on generalist-trained teachers to meet the demands of this curricular area. Because teachers are commonly generalist trained, their level of experience and expertise in the area of physical education is, for the most part, not considered to be high (Constantinides, Montalvo, & Silverman, Reference Constantinides, Montalvo and Silverman2013; Gleddie et al., Reference Gleddie, Hickson and Bradford2018; Jenkinson & Benson, Reference Jenkinson and Benson2010). Although Lu and De Lisio (Reference Lu and De Lisio2009) contended that generalist-trained school teachers can be excellent physical educators — which we believe to be true — such teachers have often stated concerns with the lack of training, minimal levels of knowledge towards planning for developmentally appropriate lessons, along with other deficiencies concerning the delivery of quality physical education programming (Morgan & Hansen, Reference Morgan and Hansen2008). When a generalist-trained teacher is asked to teach physical education, it may be deemed that a mediocre program is an achievement, and that a successful lesson is when students are simply busy, happy, and good (Hickson & Fishburne, Reference Hickson and Fishburne2005; Placek, Reference Placek, Templin and Olson1983).
For this study, we chose to probe the views of generalist-trained preservice elementary school teachers in four main areas. Each area is important in its own right and has been formed around the basis of the prior work of one of us (Loreman, Reference Loreman and Jones2014) with reference to preservice teacher education and inclusion. The first area relates to preservice teacher understandings of inclusive physical education. If these understandings differ from generally accepted usages of the term, it would be informative to discover why this is the case, how such understandings have been developed, and how they might affect practice. Second, we wanted to know how preservice teachers feel about their own teaching efficacy with respect to inclusive physical education. Positive teaching self-efficacy perceptions are important, as they impact the learning contexts teachers create and the pedagogical decisions they make (Bandura, Reference Bandura1997). Some educators have reported feeling anxious about implementing an inclusive educational approach, and this may be attributed to low perceptions of teaching self-efficacy (Macmillan & Meyer, Reference Macmillan and Meyer2006). Third, as attitudes are one of the most significant determinants of inclusive practice (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, Reference Avramidis, Bayliss and Burden2000; Treder, Morse, & Ferron, Reference Treder, Morse and Ferron2000), we were interested in discerning what attitudes toward diversity and inclusion might be in the context of physical education. Finally, although it may be regarded as a subset of attitudes, we were interested in discovering the concerns that these preservice teachers had about inclusive physical education. In doing so, it might be possible to alleviate these concerns or to provide additional areas of training in specifically identified concern areas in teacher education programs. Therefore, our objective, in this study, was to better discern and comprehend Alberta preservice teacher understandings, feelings of self-efficacy, attitudes, and concerns with respect to inclusive physical education.
Method
Sample
After receiving approval from Concordia University of Edmonton's Research Ethics Board, we followed the method outlined in Loreman (Reference Loreman and Jones2014), which was conducted in a similar context (i.e., in the same teacher education program) and examined preservice teacher views on inclusive education. Qualitative data from 37 preservice teachers engaged in a 2-year elementary education after-degree program at Concordia University of Edmonton were analysed (18 [48.6%] were in Year 1 of the program, with the remaining 19 [51.4%] being in Year 2). In order to be admitted to the program, all participants had completed at least a bachelor-level degree, typically in arts or science, and often with undergraduate-level education courses through an education minor. Of this group, there were eight (21.6%) male respondents, which is roughly proportional to the number of male students in the program (female, n = 29 [78.4%]). The majority of preservice teachers in the program were Anglo-Canadian females in their early 20s, as was the case in 2014 (Loreman, Reference Loreman and Jones2014). Although each student in the program was invited to participate in the study via email, 37 students (representing 26% of the student body) voluntarily participated by completing an online survey (see Instrument). By reading an online introductory letter and clicking ‘I Consent’ in order to move onto the response section, participants were advised that completion of the survey meant that consent was provided.
Instrument
Four questions were devised, specifically for this study, to elicit preservice teacher views on inclusive physical education without leading them to particular answers or singling out specific groups of students for attention. These questions covered the four identified areas of interest including understandings, feelings of self-efficacy, attitudes, and concerns with respect to inclusive physical education. The questions, provided via an online survey, were as follows:
1. What does inclusive physical education mean to you?
2. In what circumstances would some students be unable to participate in elementary school physical education classes?
3. In terms of teaching inclusive physical education, what, if any, concerns do you have?
4. With reference to teaching the five dimensions in the Alberta physical education curriculum (i.e., dance, games, gymnastics, individual activities, alternative environment activities), how would you describe your current level of preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment?
Analysis
Survey responses were coded according to established qualitative data coding and analysis techniques (Feldman, Reference Feldman1995; Miles & Huberman, Reference Miles and Huberman1994; Saldaña, Reference Saldaña2011). Beginning with using the NVivo 11 program, we stored the data and had NVivo 11 perform an initial analysis to help identify common terms and statements. Following this initial analysis, we worked simultaneously employing a coding categorisation process (i.e., open coding). Both procedures resulted in the emerging themes (discussed in the Results and Discussion section) being identified (see Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4).
Themes Derived From Question One.
Themes Derived From Question Two.
Themes Derived From Question Three.
Themes Derived From Question Four.
Findings and Discussion
The findings and a discussion stemming from the written responses pertaining to each of the four research questions are summarised in the subsequent sections. For each of the questions, a concept map illustrates the themes that emerged along with the number of references attributed to the theme.
Question 1. What does inclusive physical education mean to you?
Inclusive physical education means that all students, regardless of skill level or ability, are able to participate in physical education class. (Respondent)
Four themes received a substantial amount of attention in the participant responses (i.e., every child, participation, ability diversity, removing barriers). Other emerging themes could be discerned but did not receive enough attention to warrant discussion here. These were improved skills (four references) and social justice (three references).
Every child
This theme comprised 29 references (78% of respondents), with participant responses indicating a belief that every child within a school environment should have the opportunity to engage in physical education learning. For example, it was noted that inclusive physical education means ‘ensuring that every student can participate in every activity (if in a modified way) and that even those students with special needs will improve their physical abilities’, and another respondent contended that ‘inclusive implies that all students . . . [are present and able to engage in the lesson] . . . in some way’. This was a commonly held belief among the respondents, with one noting, ‘every child, every day, no exceptions’.
Likewise, another respondent noted that inclusive physical education ‘means that physical education provides access for every individual, regardless of culture, race, and physical appearance, to participate in health and physical learning’. It is clear from Question 1 responses that, in the views of the preservice teachers, inclusive physical education is to include every child; there should theoretically be no exceptions for exclusion. Interesting contradictions to this point of view occur in subsequent questions and will be discussed later in this paper.
Participation
With 24 references (65% of respondents) contributing to this theme, inclusive physical education was referred to as a learning environment where participation is important for all. For instance, one respondent contended that inclusive physical education, ‘ensures all students can actively participate in class, no matter his or her ability or skill level’; and another wrote that ‘every student has the chance to participate to the best of his or her ability’. These responses were representative of the views of many preservice teachers.
In addition to attributing to the two themes mentioned previously, it is clear that simply being present in the learning environment is not enough to refer to inclusive physical education; every child must participate. In support of Hickson and Fishburne's (Reference Hickson and Fishburne2005) position that simply having students being busy, happy, and good does not equate to a physical education learning environment, a respondent stated that in inclusive physical education there must be ‘a positive experience’ leading to healthy, active life choices. It is therefore clear that although a student with a special need may be present in the physical education setting, respondents perceive inclusive physical education as meeting student learning for all, not just students without special needs.
Ability diversity
With 22 references (59% of respondents) contributing to this theme, it was clear that the participants believed inclusive physical education referred to dealing with learning environments that include a wide range of ability diversity. Ability diversity (e.g., learners with physical disabilities, learners without disabilities) was evident when participants were asked to respond to Question 1; only three responses mentioned other types of diversity (e.g., race, gender, religion). For example, a respondent contended that inclusive physical education means ‘having students of varied abilities within the same classroom. Students who are physically disabled as well as students who are physically gifted will be found in the same class’. Likewise, another respondent mentioned that inclusive physical education is when ‘all students have a fair opportunity to learn just as their peers’. In regard to ability diversity, it is somewhat problematic that inclusive education is almost solely characterised as a disability issue, as ‘disabilities’ were referred to consistently throughout the data. This is perhaps understandable given the strong links made between concepts of inclusive education and disability both in preservice teacher preparation programs and in the wider educational community and school systems (see Loreman, Reference Loreman and Jones2014, Reference Loreman2016).
From the majority of respondents (i.e., 59%) who demonstrated a belief that inclusive physical education refers to a learning environment that includes students with a range of abilities, it was apparent that they believed that differentiation would be required. A respondent noted that inclusive physical education involves a learning environment made up of ‘all students, regardless of ability and background’. According to Griggs and Medcalf (Reference Griggs, Medcalf and Forlin2015), differentiation is a necessity within an inclusive physical education learning environment. Through the respondents’ statements to Question 1, it becomes even more clear that the learning environment, which is perceived to involve responding to students with a range of abilities (e.g., disabilities), requires some level of differentiation to meet the varied learning needs.
Removing barriers
With nine references (24% of respondents) contributing to this theme, participants referred to inclusive physical education as being a learning environment that includes the removal of barriers for all to learn. For example, a respondent contended that inclusive physical education refers to a learning environment in which ‘lessons are constructed so there is a variety of ways students can demonstrate understanding and mastery of skill’; and another wrote, ‘inclusive physical education is the removal of barriers to learning such that all students can participate fully in the physical education programming’.
Although there was some overlap among the four themes that emerged for Question 1, it became clear as we analysed the data that a common language taught within the education program was evident. Terms such as least restrictive environment, removal of barriers, inclusive for all, along with an array of other inclusive language terms, were present within the responses. This suggests that the education program is having an impact on student understanding about inclusive physical education, although it is of course possible that some participants were aware of this language prior to entering the program.
Specific to Question 1, inclusive physical education was referred to as a learning environment that includes an array of abilities, which should not lead to a teacher's choice of exclusion (but to differentiation), and within this all-inclusive learning environment, participation (and, further, true active engagement and learning) must occur through the removal of barriers. As Question 1 responses were analysed, we saw a genuine care toward every child and that inclusive physical education must provide learning experiences for all while differentiating for a variety of learning needs. Respondents clearly argued for full inclusion in Question 1. Although there were a minimal number of responses mentioning other types of diversity (e.g., race, culture, gender, religion), we would be remiss to not acknowledge this finding. Hence, we must note that, for some respondents, inclusive physical education went beyond physical ability.
Question 2. In what circumstances would some students be unable to participate in elementary school physical education classes?
There are no circumstances where a child shouldn't be able to participate. It's our job as teachers to accommodate every child every day. (Respondent)
Five themes emerged from participant responses. Although other themes emerged throughout the data, these five themes were chosen as they had enough references worthy of discussion (i.e., disabilities, differentiation, never, risk to self/others, parental request). Other emerging themes could be discerned but did not receive enough attention to warrant discussion here. These were lack of school support (two responses), unwilling (two responses), and no response (one response).
Disabilities
With 13 references (35% of respondents) contributing to this theme, participants seemed to think there are circumstances when students are unable to participate in physical education due to the presence of various disabilities. For example, one respondent wrote that students unable to participate in physical education are ‘those who are severely physically impaired’ and that ‘students with almost no control over their body may be unable to participate in some/many of the activities’.
From the 35% of respondents who demonstrated a belief that disabilities are a reason students may be unable to participate in physical education, it was apparent that they were of the opinion that a child with a disability could be given a ‘free pass’ from participating in physical education, such as ‘if they are confined to a wheelchair’, as noted by one respondent, or ‘maybe in some events that involve climbing for those that have difficulty with movements’, as another noted.
Mentioned previously, as attitudes represent one of the most significant determinants of inclusive practice (Avramidis et al., Reference Avramidis, Bayliss and Burden2000; Treder et al., Reference Treder, Morse and Ferron2000), it is important to note the rationale provided by the respondents that because a child has a disability, this child is unable to participate. Hence, it is important to continue to help teachers develop beliefs toward inclusive practices for all students in physical education. Additionally, the terminology employed in this example demonstrates a lack of knowledge concerning ‘wheelchair users’ — the term more in keeping with a social model of a disability — as opposed to ‘confined to a wheelchair’ (i.e., individual model term).
Differentiation
This theme comprised 11 references (30% of respondents), with participants sharing their perceptions towards the potential difficulties of differentiating for students’ learning needs in physical education. For example, a respondent listed supplies and equipment use as an issue by stating, ‘I personally have never seen gymnastics equipment that could be used for someone who needs wheelchair access’. Likewise, a respondent wrote,
possibly some alternative environment activities that do not cater to all people. For example, in high school physical education we went to the velodrome and biked. If a student was bound to a wheelchair and didn't have the use of his/her legs, I don't see this activity being possible. Though for elementary age kids, it could be something like going skiing/snowboarding that they wouldn't be able to/feel comfortable taking part in. I believe it would be the role of the teacher to choose activities where all students are able to participate.
The example provided here is particularly interesting and demonstrates to some extent inexperience with differentiation or universal design for learning. It would appear to us that a cycling lesson at a velodrome might not offer insurmountable challenges for a wheelchair user given the increasing availability and visibility of arm-driven recumbent bicycles that might fairly obviously be applied in this instance. Similar to a previous statement, the words ‘bound to a wheelchair’ (i.e., individual model term) demonstrate a lack of knowledge concerning wheelchair users (i.e., social model term).
With 30% of respondents referring to differentiation, evidently, this theme demonstrates that the respondents perceive differentiation to be required for successful inclusive physical education. For example, a respondent wrote, ‘As a teacher, it is our job to have all students participating and learning during every physical education class. Knowing our students and their activity limitations is essential to creating that comfortable and open environment’. Hence, if teachers are not willing to differentiate, inclusive physical education will not meet its intended needs. Because differentiation is a necessity within an inclusive physical education learning environment (Griggs & Medcalf, Reference Griggs, Medcalf and Forlin2015), it is a good sign, at the least, that the respondents understand that differentiation is required for inclusive physical education. It is therefore an important step for preservice teacher programming to teach ways to differentiate for inclusive physical education.
Never
With 11 references (30% of respondents) contributing to this theme, a significant portion of participants seemed to believe that there are no circumstances in which a student should be excluded from physical education. For example, a respondent stated, ‘if students have a physical disability, they may need a modified activity, though not excluded’, and ‘I don't think there is a circumstance where students would be completely unable to participate in physical education classes’. Similarly, another respondent contended, ‘I think as a teacher you can find many ways to involve all children, whether they're physically or mentally set back, in physical education’.
It appears to be the case that roughly an equal number of respondents hold attitudes in favour of students with special needs participating in inclusive physical education as those who, as previously discussed, perceive disability to be a potential reason for exclusion. This is an important finding and shows that these respondents have either gained more awareness of inclusive physical education in the education program and/or experienced successful inclusion during their years as students. For example, a respondent contended there are no
times when a student is unable to participate in a physical education class. Even if a student with a physical disability is unable to participate IN THE SAME WAY as other students, doesn't mean that they can't participate in some way.
Risk to self/others
With seven references (19% of respondents) contributing to this theme, students who pose a risk to themselves and/or others are perceived to be candidates for physical education exclusion. For example, a respondent wrote, ‘some students may be prone to violence, and in their circumstances, it might be best to exempt them from activities’; and another respondent noted that exclusion could occur, ‘if it was medically unsafe for them to perform an activity’.
It is essential for teachers of physical education to maintain a safe learning environment and to plan learning activities that consider the safety guidelines for physical activity in schools (Alberta Centre for Injury Control & Research [ACICR], 2013). According to ACICR (2013), the intent of the safety guidelines is ‘to focus teacher attention on safe instructional practices in order to minimize inherent risk’ (p. 1). Hence, a distinction must be made between teachers who create a safe learning environment by planning for safety, and those who exclude students because it is believed they may not contribute to a safe learning environment. For example, a respondent contended, ‘In a circumstance where a child is violent or could be a danger to themselves or their peers, I feel it would be okay to limit that child's involvement or decrease the hazard in that space’. With this being said, and for all those educators who believe risk in physical education ends with ‘disability’, we must point out an important statement from ACICR:
All activities, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the action, have an inherent level of risk. Variable factors such as cognitive ability and developmental maturity, skill level, previous experience of the students and teacher, weather conditions, facilities, and available equipment may all affect the level of risk of any activity. (p. 1)
And so, although becoming more familiar with ways to create safe learning environments would serve teacher education programming well, helping preservice teachers develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to not exclude any students while promoting a safe learning environment must become the default — a safe learning environment that includes all students.
Parental request
This theme comprised six references (16% of respondents), with participants perceiving parental requests to be a reason for physical education exclusion. For example, a respondent wrote that students should be unable to participate in physical education when ‘their parents request’ and another respondent contended when ‘parents pose restriction on the activity students receive in school’. Likewise, a respondent stated, ‘if their family prefers they don't do certain activities (e.g., religious connotations around yoga)’.
It is apparent that from Question 2 responses, a circumstance when students would be unable to participate in physical education is when there is a parental request due to various reasons (e.g., medical, religious). This provides an interesting window into the importance these preservice teachers ascribe to physical education. We think it is unlikely that these same respondents would consider it to be acceptable for a child to be exempted from another curricular area, such as science, on the request of a parent, perhaps, for example, because the religious beliefs of that family do not entertain the idea of evolution. In this instance, it might be expected that a teacher would differentiate and further enhance the lessons in order to meet the needs of all learners while still working to attain the objectives of the curriculum. The importance of learning outcomes in science parallels those of physical education, and all other subjects too. Hence, it is essential for teachers of physical education to not only communicate effectively with parents to explain the importance of physical education such as the development of physical literacy — the motivation, confidence, competence, knowledge, and understanding to move in a wide variety of physical activities in multiple environments that benefit the healthy development of the whole person (PHE Canada [http://www.phecanada.ca]; Whitehead, Reference Whitehead2010) — but also to differentiate lessons in this area so that all learners can participate. And, according to Gleddie et al. (Reference Gleddie, Hickson and Bradford2018), ‘physical education is designed as part of public education so that all can move forward on their individual journeys of physical literacy’ (p. 56). Hence, every student must be exposed to Alberta's five curricular dimensions in physical education (Alberta Education, 2018; Alberta Learning, 2000) while being provided with opportunities to develop their physical literacy.
Although there was some overlap among the five themes that emerged for Question 2, it is evident that the respondents perceive inclusive physical education to be a reality. Circumstances that could exclude students from physical education include disabilities, the need for differentiation, potential risks, and parental requests. As Question 2 responses were analysed, it became clear that respondents do understand that teacher attitudes impact inclusive physical education. Clearly, there is a common perception that certain circumstances exist when students are unable to participate in physical education; this points to the importance of helping our preservice teachers in developing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to extinguish these circumstances from their minds as they enter the teaching profession.
It is evident that respondents understand that inclusive physical education requires differentiation and a safe learning environment (e.g., risk management), and communication with parents about the importance of meeting curricular needs (e.g., developing fundamental movement skills through yoga-type activities [not taught for religious purposes]). Hence, the education program is helping the respondents understand the importance of teaching for all, which does require positive teacher attitudes.
Question 3. In terms of teaching inclusive physical education, what, if any, concerns do you have?
I am most concerned about providing an equally useful, engaging, and physically active education to all of my students. (Respondent)
Three themes emerged from participant responses. Although other themes emerged throughout the data, these three themes were retained as they had enough references to make them worthy of discussion (i.e., to differentiate, lack of resources, safety). Other themes (and number of references) not to be discussed here were time for individual student attention (three responses), time for planning (two responses), and finding an alternative (one response).
To differentiate
This theme comprised 28 references (78% of respondents), with participants pointing to the concern of not having enough knowledge on the teaching of inclusive physical education, and, in particular, about not being able to differentiate. For example, a respondent wrote, ‘I am concerned about having a lack of ideas and/or materials’, and another respondent was worried about ‘not having enough experience to modify my activities to create the least restrictive learning environment for my students. I worry about pushing my students past their ability, or not challenging them enough’. Likewise, a respondent contended that a concern is not knowing ‘how to modify activities for the students that need it, or that those students will feel left out no matter if they are still doing an activity similar to that being done by their classmates’.
Although the respondents demonstrated in their responses to Question 2 that differentiation is required, it is their overall confidence in this area that concerns them. This leads to the necessity of helping them increase their knowledge of differentiation. For example, respondent comments such as ‘my only concerns are having students in my class with permanent physical disabilities’ require discussion and reflection in teacher education programs as to what this means for inclusive teaching and learning.
It is evident that these respondents are concerned with their overall lack of knowledge toward the teaching of inclusive physical education, specifically the idea of differentiating for all learners. With this understanding, it is important that our preservice teacher education programming continues to discover ways to help our future teachers enhance their knowledge base toward inclusive physical education requirements such as differentiation, student needs, and so on.
Lack of resources
With 12 references (33% of respondents) contributing to this theme, lack of resources was perceived to be a concern for the teaching of inclusive physical education. For example, a respondent was concerned about
knowing that whatever you need might not be in the budget. Getting new equipment that is specially made or taking a bus that has a wheelchair operation is more expensive and knowing what I know about budgets . . . especially for physical education . . . are tight already.
Another respondent argued that ‘there are countless disorders, disabilities, and ranges of capabilities, not having the resources to or knowledge of how to make adaptations so that all children can participate in every physical education class makes teaching fully inclusive education seem overwhelming’.
From the 33% of respondents who perceive a lack of resources to be a concern for the teaching of inclusive physical education, it was apparent that they believe that this concern is out of their control and that it is a school issue. For instance, when considering the comment about budgets, the respondent has obviously come to believe the ‘schools are so poor’ news lines; the response demonstrates a lack of knowledge about school budgets other than what the respondent has been told by others. As another example of misinformation about practice in schools, a respondent remarked ‘that I would need extra assistance that would be unavailable. Educational assistants tend to be in classes for core subjects, but could be very helpful in a physical education setting for students with disabilities’. It is not the case that educational assistants are only available for what are commonly referred to as the classroom-based ‘core subjects’ (i.e., science, mathematics, social studies, and language arts), although it is likely that this is the practice that this respondent observed while on practicum. In actual fact, a teacher may use time with an educational assistant, presupposing one is actually required, in any way that is most beneficial to all students in a particular class. Teachers may choose to use their time with an educational assistant during physical education classes just as easily as in any other subject area.
Safety
With five references (14% of respondents) contributing to this theme, safety was perceived to be a concern for some participants. For example, a respondent wrote, ‘one of them [student] getting seriously hurt is a major concern’. It will continue to be important in the education program to teach the safety guidelines for physical activity (ACICR, 2013), and to discuss ways that safety can help impact inclusive physical education in a positive manner. This will help with the respondents who contended, ‘I have no idea how to determine capabilities for a safe environment’.
Although there was some overlap among the three themes that emerged for Question 3, it is clear that the respondents have concerns regarding inclusive physical education. Themes such as differentiation, lack of resources, and safety are signs that the respondents perceive the teaching of inclusive physical education as not being seamless. In addition to understanding that teacher effort is required, the concerns are manageable from an education program position. Helping preservice teachers develop more awareness toward universal design for learning, differentiating, and managing their resources will help strengthen their teaching skills for inclusive physical education.
Question 4. With reference to teaching the five dimensions in Alberta's physical education curriculum (i.e., dance, games, gymnastics, individual activities, alternative environment activities), how would you describe your current level of preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment?
I would describe my preparedness as bring it on. (Respondent)
Four themes emerged from participant responses. Although other themes emerged throughout the data, these four themes were chosen because they had enough references to make them worthy of discussion (i.e., not confident, confident overall, varied depending on dimension, alternative environment activities). One theme (and number of references) not to be discussed here was good with theory, not enough practice (two references).
Not confident
With 14 references (38% of respondents) contributing to this theme, some participants responded by stating that their perceived level of preparedness was on the low side. For example, a respondent wrote,
It honestly depends on the students. I am able and willing to plan around a student who has a broken wrist, or a student who is on the autism spectrum. But if there are many students in my classes with varying disabilities and varying degrees of said disabilities, I would feel very uncomfortable and unsure of how to plan to both involve those particular students and also the other students with no disabilities.
From the 38% of respondents who are not confident with inclusive physical education, it is apparent that some respondents have some work ahead of them to develop a deeper understanding of this type of learning environment. A respondent stated,
I feel nervous when it comes to teaching in an inclusive setting for physical education. I only taught physical education in my first practicum and had to adjust to behaviour needs but not to students with physical needs. It isn't something I have had direct experience with, hence the nerves.
It should be noted that the percentage of respondents who are confident versus not confident was roughly equal in number.
Confident overall
With 13 references (35% of respondents) contributing to this theme, overall confidence emerged. For example, a respondent wrote, ‘Other than the details of specific situations, I feel confident in teaching an inclusive physical education program’; and another contended, ‘I feel about 95% prepared. I do have one extreme physical disability in my class and I am teaching physical education. I believe that my passion for inclusive education overrides any fear or angst I have though’. This is an interesting use of language that once again points to the pervasiveness of the individual model of disability (Oliver, Reference Oliver2013), where the words ‘extreme physical disability’ are substituted for ‘child’.
From the 35% of respondents who possess confidence in teaching inclusive physical education, it is clear that they perceive their knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be sufficient enough for an inclusive physical education learning environment. A respondent stated,
I feel that in this program I have learned a lot. Especially how to include everyone. Physical education is an area that I was never good at in school, I hated it because I wasn't an athlete. Now I feel good about it, but still feel worried and scared.
Varied depending on dimension
This theme comprised nine references (24% of respondents), with participants pointing to various dimensions as being integral to their levels of teaching confidence. For example, a respondent stated, ‘The idea of teaching football or hockey itself is daunting to me. I feel ready to teach in an inclusive environment, but I still don't feel ready to teach some sports’; and another wrote, ‘Gymnastics and dance would be especially difficult dimensions to plan and implement activities for students with disabilities’.
From the 24% of respondents who shared a lack of knowledge in one or more of the dimensions, it is apparent that some respondents perceive the delivery of all five dimensions to be an obstacle for inclusive physical education as they believed that differentiation and collaboration would be essential. For example, a respondent wrote, ‘I am quite prepared for three of the five. I am concerned about two but know there are plenty of people I can turn to for assistance’.
Alternative environment activities
This theme comprised six references (16% of respondents), with participants pointing to the dimension of alternative environment activities as a concern in their teaching of inclusive physical education. For example, a respondent wrote that alternative environment activities, ‘could provide challenges in that it's an unfamiliar setting, new obstacles will arise, special travelling needs might be needed, extra supervision for taking some students into more public places?’ and another asserted that ‘alternative environment activities present an additional challenge in the sense that the alternative environments may not be equipped to support the diverse learning needs of students’.
From the 16% of respondents who perceive the teaching of alternative environment activities to be a concern for inclusive physical education, it is clear that additional information surrounding this dimension is required within the education program. Developing more confidence within this dimension will serve our future teachers well. A respondent stated,
I am a bit concerned about teaching alternative environment activities. For example, if the class is going swimming but one student is a paraplegic, how would you include them in the activity without making them feel excluded in some way?
Providing the preservice teachers with opportunities to observe and experience ways to include all students during alternative environment activities is essential. For example, showing how a student with special needs can participate in a physical education lesson at the velodrome (as mentioned previously) will provide some much-needed information and clarity for future teachers.
Although there was some overlap among the four themes that emerged for Question 4, it is clear that teaching all of Alberta's five dimensions are of concern for the respondents. This is an interesting finding, as it is good to hear that the respondents are aware of the five dimensions and the importance of providing breadth and variety in physical education programming (Fishburne, Reference Fishburne2005; Gleddie et al., Reference Gleddie, Hickson and Bradford2018).
However, a thought-provoking finding was that the teaching of alternative environment activities seemed to be the most common dimension leading to low levels of confidence. Question 4 findings may serve education programs with some rich information surrounding the five dimensions in relation to inclusive physical education.
Limitations
There were some limitations in this study. First, participants were from one Canadian university. The university was not randomly selected. The lack of randomisation (i.e., sampling procedure) prohibits generalisation of the findings beyond the study's respondents.
A second limitation includes our inability to acknowledge and/or measure all potential demographic variables and relationships that may have affected the study. Additionally, because the respondents were either in Year 1 or 2 of the education program, this may have had an impact on their responses due to varying levels of teacher education, personal teaching experiences, and overall understanding of inclusive physical education.
A third limitation relates to the inability to observe the preservice teachers delivering inclusive physical education lessons, which could reveal true levels of confidence, knowledge, and commitment toward inclusion.
Areas for Future Research
As we conducted this study, we uncovered future areas for investigation. These included further comparative work internal to the sample based on demographic variables, and possibly with other external samples from other teacher preparation programs. Further, this study could act as the starting point of longitudinal research to discern whether changes to the education program impacts views on inclusive physical education.
In addition to the qualitative procedures employed in this study, a quantitative study (or mixed methods study) could add to the present knowledge base on inclusive physical education. For example, a quantitative analysis of the impact of teaching experience ‘time’ could provide some important information about the education program, as it has been noted that, in some circumstances, preservice teachers can go through an entire practicum without teaching one minute of physical education.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In this study, we asked preservice teachers four questions about inclusive physical education: what it means, who should possibly be excluded from physical education, what concerns exist, and levels of preparedness to teach inclusive physical education. In doing so, we strove to develop deeper levels of knowledge related to the study's primary purpose of exploring various aspects of Canadian preservice elementary school teacher views about inclusive physical education.
It is a noteworthy feature of this study that at no point in the explanatory letter or the questions asked was the term ‘disability’ used. Instead, the term ‘inclusive physical education’ was mostly interpreted by the respondents as referring to the inclusion of students with disabilities. This is doubtless in part due to disability being used as a reference point in discussions about inclusive education throughout their teacher education program, but the perspectives offered when the respondents elaborated on issues of exclusion also reflect societal views of disability. Many of the responses problematised disability, with some reflecting fears with reference to risk, safety, and/or health. These fears are frequently voiced in the public discourse on disability, heavily influenced by the individual model (Oliver, Reference Oliver2013) where disability is presented as a broken state in need of fixing. The author of the Loreman (Reference Loreman and Jones2014) study, upon which the methodology of this study is based, used a similar sample and concluded that preservice teachers tended to adopt views consistent with the predominantly exclusive views relating to students with disabilities evident in the study's region. Although the tendency to want to exclude is far less evident in this study, it is clear that such views continue to be influential with specific reference to physical education. It would seem that there is a need in the teacher education program of which these preservice teachers are a part to further highlight other aspects of the inclusion/exclusion dialogue, such as gender, culture, religion, poverty, sexual orientation, and other areas of diversity.
There is, however, much to be positive about in these results. The responses tended to focus on the practical, voicing support for including all learners in physical education even as some reservations were expressed regarding current levels of teaching preparedness (alternatively, some seemed rather overconfident in their abilities). Graduates of teacher education programs do not leave, we hope, fully formed, and such attitudes are a positive sign as they move into a learning profession and enhance their practice. Further, there is evidence that the teacher education program of which these preservice teachers are a part is having an impact. Phrases and terms were scattered throughout the responses that were directly referential of topics discussed in the courses that form the teacher education program.
This study provides a basis for further investigative work in the area of inclusive physical education, along with continuing to inform conversations about how best to present content on inclusive education, and specifically inclusive physical education, in the teacher education program at Concordia University of Edmonton. By advancing the understanding of preservice teacher views on inclusive physical education and teacher education programming, this study can play a critical role in the development of a longitudinal mixed methods study, perhaps expanding into other universities, to further build on the knowledge of these topic areas.
