A Systematic Review Inclusion of Physical Education

Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2017, 34, 311 -337
https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2016-0017
© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. REVIEWS
Inclusion of Children With Disabilities

in Physical Education: A Systematic
Review of Literature From 2009 to 2015
Terese Wilhelmsen and Marit Sørensen
Norwegian School of Sport Sciences
This systematic review examines research published from 2009 to 2015 on inclu-
sion of children with disabilities in physical education according to the PRISMA
guidelines. We have used a stakeholder approach as a framework for organizing
and discussing the results. The searches yielded 535 studies, of which 112 were
included. The systematic review outlines which stakeholder perspectives received
the most attention, the main themes and findings, the methodological trends that
governed the research contribution, and the country of data collection. The main
findings indicated that perspectives of pre- and in-service teachers and studies of
attitudes still dominate the research contributions. The strengths and limitations
of the research conducted to date highlight that several other perspectives need
to be discussed. Especially important is seeking information from children with
disabilities themselves. Other barriers and facilitators perceived by those actively
involved in the inclusion process need to be sought.
Keywords: inclusive education, disability, special educational needs, integration
Twenty years have passed since the Salamanca Statement on special needs
education was introduced. The statement argued the importance of education
systems that enable schools to include all learners in their local communities (Ain-
scow, 2005). During the last two decades, the inclusion of pupils with disabilities
in physical education (PE) has become an increasingly productive research field
(Qi & Ha, 2012a). Previous literature reviews have focused on attitudes (Hutzler,
2003), research with children (Coates & Vickerman, 2008; 2013), and both research
on European perspectives (O’Brien, Kudláček, & Howe, 2009) and the world in
general (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Qi & Ha, 2012a). Nevertheless, an updated
systematic review is needed to summarize new research within the field.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO, 2009) defined inclusion as a “process of addressing and responding to
Wilhelmsen and Sørensen are with the Dept. of Coaching and Psychology, Norwegian School of
Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway. Please address author correspondence to Terese Wilhelmsen at terese.
wilhelmsen@nih.no
311
312 Wilhelmsen and Sørensen
the diversity of needs of all children, youth and adults through increasing participa-
tion in learning, culture and communities, and reducing and eliminating exclusion
within and from education” (p. 8). UNESCO’s broad definition emphasizes the
responsibility of educational systems to implement changes and modifications of
content, approaches, structures, and strategies to accommodate all children. Inclu-
sion can be understood as both a process and a goal, whereby inclusion becomes
“a never-ending search to find better ways of responding to diversity” (Ainscow,
2005, p. 118) aiming for equity, social justice, and opportunity for all. Consistent
with Goodwin, Watkinson, and Fitzpatrick (2003, p. 193), we define inclusive PE
as giving all children the opportunity to participate in general PE with their peers,
Downloaded by UCONN Homer Babbidge Lbry on 07/23/17, Volume 34, Article Number 3
with the supplementary aid and support services as needed to take full advantage
of the curriculum.
A variety of stakeholders have been identified as important in research related
to inclusion in PE. A broad definition of stakeholders is “persons or groups that
have, or claim, ownership, rights, or interests in a corporation and its activities”
(Clarkson, 1995, p. 106). For the purpose of this research, we adopted the concept
of stakeholder as organizations, networks, and private individuals that have an
interest in the local educational institutions and their activities, and in which the
activities are the PE classes. There are several possible stakeholders in PE, ranging
from macrostructures such as state governments to more local stakeholders such as
pupils and their families and teachers. The success of inclusion in education is to a
large degree dependent on the collaboration of the different stakeholders (UNESCO,
2009). Each stakeholder has his or her own interests and claims in educational
practices, and these can often compete with the interests of other stakeholders. We
therefore adopted a stakeholder approach to the review.
A stakeholder approach allowed us to explore questions such as which groups
of stakeholders and themes are perceived as salient and requiring attention, and
which are not. Stakeholder salience relates to the perceived power of stakehold-
ers to influence processes, the legitimacy of the relationship of stakeholders, and
the urgency of the stakeholder’s claim as described by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood
(1997). It is reasonable to assume that researchers attempt to generate knowledge
from those involved in PE who will provide important knowledge for future
practice. Through their choices of research themes, research questions, and the
samples investigated, researchers decide whose voice should be listened to, and
what topics are considered important. This systematic review goes beyond iden-
tifying the stakeholder groups that are the focus of the research; it also explores
the issues of how and where knowledge about inclusive PE is generated. Thus, in
this article salience relates to the weight and space given to the perspectives of the
different stakeholders, methodological approaches, geographical distribution of
research, and the main themes highlighted in contemporary research on inclusion
of children with disabilities in PE.
We recognize that certain research traditions have different preferences in
terminology (Peers, Spencer-Cavaliere, & Eales, 2014). This is also reflected in
the studies included in this review. Following the guidelines of the American Psy-
chological Association, we use people-first terminology and respectful language
that does not define people by their impairments. In accordance with Shakespeare
(2006), we argue that while terminology is important, it is not as important as
underlying values of the terms used. We rely on an interactional approach, which
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Inclusion in Physical Education 313
emphasizes disability as “the outcome of the interaction between individual and

the contextual factors—which includes impairment, personality, individual atti-
tudes, environment, policy, and culture” (Shakespeare, 2006, p. 58). It is not only
the nature of impairments, as often emphasized within a medical model, nor only
the social context and extent of barriers, as emphasized within a social model that
dictates individuals’ experience of disadvantage. The interactional approach allows
for consideration of often neglected aspects of disability such as personal attitudes
and motivation (Shakespeare, 2006). We believe this to be pertinent, considering
that people with similar impairments in similar contexts might experience the
situation very differently.
Following from the most recent literature review exploring the research
contributions on inclusive PE (Qi & Ha, 2012a), the purpose of this paper was to
compile, organize, and analyze the body of literature on inclusion of children with
disabilities in PE from January 2009 to December 2015. The research question
guiding this review was which stakeholder’s perspectives, main themes, method-
ological trends, and countries of data collection are salient in research on inclusion
of children with disabilities in PE.
Method
Eligibility Criteria, Information Sources, and Selection
Process
This review is based on a structured search of literature following the PRISMA
guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & the PRISMA Group, 2009). To
be included in this review, the research had to be (a) an original empirical study
(literature reviews, abstracts, commentaries, and articles on developing/validating
new instruments were excluded) (b) containing descriptions of method, (c) pub-
lished in English or Scandinavian languages (Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian),
(d) focused on inclusion of children with disabilities in general and adapted PE or
school-based sport (articles focusing exclusively on physical activity or recreational
activities were excluded), (e) published in peer-reviewed journals from January
2009 to December 2015, and (f) not described in previous research reviews. There
is an overlap in the time period with the review by Qi and Ha (2012a) to include
four studies from 2009 not previously reviewed.
The search string used was [(inclus* OR integration OR mainstream* OR
adapt*) AND (disability OR “special needs”) AND (“physical education” OR
“school sport” OR “school based sport”)]. School-based sport was included to
allow review of articles that focused on PE-related sport activities or programs
in schools (e.g., Liu, Kudláček, & Jesina, 2010). Thus, all articles chosen had a
focus on inclusion of children with disabilities in physical education, but some
articles also included other school-based physical activity arenas such as recess
(e.g., Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). No articles related to both PE and
children with disabilities in the Scandinavian languages were identified. One
reason for this might be that the majority of peer-reviewed Scandinavian articles
are published in English.
The index systems searched were Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and Psy-
cINFO. An additional search was conducted in ORIA, which includes index systems
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

such as PubMed. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly and the Journal of Inclusive
Education were manually searched for eligible articles not included in the index
system search, which resulted in the inclusion of two articles. Based on the search
criteria, 535 articles were identified.
Following the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009), the selection process
was as follows: first, duplicates were deleted (n = 112 articles excluded), and then,
based on the selection criteria, the first and second authors independently included
or excluded articles sequentially. Figure 1 shows a flowchart of the selection process.
Screening articles for suitability based on title and abstract resulted in the
exclusion of 249 articles that did not satisfy the criteria—(a) through (f)—aforemen-
tioned. All articles about which there was uncertainty as to whether they fulfilled
the research criteria were included in the next step. Next, we fully screened the
remaining174 articles, of which 74 articles were excluded. The selection process
was followed by a discussion of discrepancies between the two authors (six articles)
and final agreement on which of the articles to include or exclude (one article was
excluded). The selection based on full-text screening resulted in the inclusion of
100 articles. An additional ten articles were identified by a manual search of the
Figure 1 — Flowchart of study selection.
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

reference lists of all included articles, and two extra articles were included based
on feedback from reviewers in the reviewing process. Finally, 112 articles were
included in the analysis.
Data Representation and Analysis

The results are presented as a descriptive synthesis of the 112 articles included.
The main analysis was categorization of the articles based on stakeholder per-
spectives, methodological approach, country of data collection, as well as iden-
tification of the main themes. Categorization of stakeholder perspectives relates
to the participant groups in the studies. The majority of the articles focused on a
single group of stakeholders (e.g., children with disabilities or in-service teach-
ers). Where multiple stakeholder perspectives were explored, such as teachers
and pupils or pupils with and without disabilities, separate multiple stakeholder
perspectives headings were generated. Countries of data collection reflected
the nation-states where the research took place. In this review, methodological
approaches were categorized as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method (both
quantitative and qualitative methods).
The criteria used to assess the studies aim to be paradigmatically sensitive
and build on previous work (see Hutzler, 2003; Zitomer & Goodwin, 2014).
One point, if present, or 0 point, if absent, was assigned to each of the following
criteria1: coherenceIab, reflexivityIa, clear research questions and/or hypothesisIIab,
description of sampling proceduresIIab, participantsIIab, data collectionIIab, ethical
considerationsIab, credibilityIa, validityIIb, reliabilityIIb, scale descriptionIIb, response
rateIIb, effect-sizeIIb, and statistical analysisIIb. Based on the assigned points, we
calculated a percentage score. Fifty percent or less were considered low scores,
51–75% medium scores, and 76–100% high scores. A brief overview of the assess-
ment is presented in the results.
The manual coding of stakeholder perspectives, methodological approaches,
and countries of data collection were further analyzed in IBM SPSS Statistics 21,
using simple uni- and bivariate frequencies to explore how inclusion of children
with disabilities in PE was framed in the contemporary research literature. This
was followed by a cross-case thematic analysis identifying interrelated themes
discussed across stakeholder perspectives (Patton, 2002). We present an extensive
list of themes as an overview of the issues discussed. Recognizing the reductionism
in the development of main theme categories, we found it necessary to describe the
main themes in more detail in the results. Stakeholder perspectives organize the
results with greater attention to studies scoring high in the quality assessment. The
themes are discussed under each stakeholder perspective. Note that not all themes
were relevant for all stakeholder perspectives.
Results
Table 1 depicts the 112 reviewed articles categorized by stakeholder perspectives,
main themes, methodological approach, and country of data collection.
As indicated by Table 1, the educator perspectives were the most prominent
(56%: n = 63), of which 54 articles explored perspectives of in- or preservice
teachers. The majority of these articles focused on adapted PE (APE) or PE
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

316
Table 1 The 112 Studies Categorized by Stakeholder Perspectives, Main Themes, Methodological Approach, Country
of Research, and Authors (N = Number of Studies)
Stakeholder Country of data
perspectives Main themes Approach collection Authors
Educators’ perspectives
In-service teachers Attitudes (12) QL (14) Canada (1), An & Meaney, 2015; Beamer & Yun, 2014; Casebolt & Hodge,
N = 35 Collaboration, roles, and QN (20) China (2), 2010; Combs, Elliot, & Whipple, 2010; Crawford, 2011; Dorđić,
responsibilities (2) Cyprus (1), Tubić, & Protić, 2014; Doulkeridou, Evaggelinou, Mouritdou,
Czech Republic Koidou, Panagiotou, & Kudlacek, 2011; Fournidou, Kudláček,
Different teaching strate- MIX (1) (1), Greece (1), & Evagellinou, 2011; Grenier, 2011; Haycock, & Smith, 2010a;
gies and learning condi- Hong Kong (3), Haycock, & Smith, 2010b; Haycock, & Smith, 2011a; Haycock,
tions (1) Ireland (1), South & Smith, 2011b; Healy, Block, & Judge, 2014; Hersman, &
Experiences and percep- Korea (1), Roma- Hodge, 2010; Jeong,& Block, 2011; Jerlinder, Danermark, Gill,
tions of inclusion (7) nia (1), Serbia 2010; Ješinová, Spurná, Kudláček, & Sklenaříková, 2014; Ko
(1), Sweden & Boswell, 2013; Lavay, Guthrie, & Henderson, 2014; Li &
Experience with disabil- (1), Turkey (1), Chen, 2011; Li, Chen, & Zhang, 2010; Maher, 2010a; Obrus-
ity sports (1)
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

United Kingdom nikova, & Kelly, 2009; Özer, Nalbant, Aglamis, Baran, Kaya,
Online education (1) (5), United States Samut, Aktop, & Hutzler, 2013; Petracovschi, 2012; Qi & Ha,
(15). 2012b; Rybová, & Kudláček, 2013; Samalot-Rivera & Porretta,
Perspectives on national
2009; Simpson, & Mandich, 2012; Taliaferro, & Harris, 2014;
curriculum and policy (2)
Umhoefer, Vargas, & Beyer, 2015; Wang, Qi & Wang, 2015;
Self-efficacy (2) Wang, Wang, & Wen, 2015; Zhang, 2011.
State of affairs and provi-
sion of APE and inclu-
sive PE (7)
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
Educators’ perspectives
Preservice teachers Attitudes (5) QL (8) Australia (2), Baghurst, 2012; Coates, 2012; Di Nardo, Kudláček, Tafuri,
N = 17 Disability simulation (3) QN (8) Canada (2), Ire- & Sklenarìková, 2014; Hodge & Elliott, 2013; Jovanović,
land (1), Italy Kudláček, Block, & Djordjević, 2014; Leo & Goodwin, 2013;
Initial teacher training MIX (1) (1), Several (1), Martin & Kudláček, 2010; Miller, 2012; Oh, Rizzo, So, Chung,
(5), Serbia (1), United Park, & Lei, 2010; Pedersen, Cooley, & Hernandez, 2014; Roper
Self-efficacy (3) Kingdom (1), & Santiago, 2014; Rust & Sinelnikov, 2010; Sato, Hodge, Case-
United States (8) bolt, & Samalot-Rivera, 2015; Taliaferro, Hammond, Wyant,
State of affairs and provi- 2015; Tindall, MacDonald, Carroll, & Moody, 2015; Wilkinson,
sion of APE and inclu- Harvey, Bloom, Joober, & Grizenko, 2013; Woodruff & Sinel-
sive PE (1), nikov 2015.
Pre- and in-service Attitudes (2) QN (2) Brazil (1), Bul- Mauerberg-deCastro, Paiva, Figueiredo, da Costa, de Castro, &
teachers garia (1) Campbell, 2013; Petkova, Kudláček, & Nikolova, 2012.
N=2
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Teacher educators Initial teacher training QL (2) Ireland (1), Sev- Crawford, O’Reilly, & Flanagan, 2012; Dowling, Fitzgerald,
N=4 (4) QN (2) eral (1), United & Flintoff, 2015; Lavay, Henderson, French, & Guthrie, 2012;
States (2) Piletic & Davis, 2010.
SEN coordinators & Collaboration, roles and QL (1) United Kingdom Bryan, McCubbin & Mars, 2013; Maher, 2013; Maher, 2014;
LSAs responsibilities (3) (4), United States Maher & Macbeth, 2014; Vickerman & Blundell, 2012.
N=5 Experiences and percep- QN (3) (1)
tions of inclusion (1)
Perspectives on national MIX (1)
(continued)
317
318
Table 1 (continued)
Children’s perspectives
Children with dis- Experiences and percep- QL (5) Canada (1), Ire- Berktaş, Yanardag, Yilmaz, Aras, Konukman, & Boyaci, 2014;
abilities tions of inclusion (6) land (1), Nether- Coates, & Vickerman, 2010; Fitzgerald, & Stride, 2012; Healy,
N=7 Physical Fitness (1) QN (1) lands (1), Turkey Msetfi, & Gallagher, 2013; Medcalf, Marshall, Hardman, &
(1), United King- Visser, 2011; Spencer-Cavaliere, & Watkinson, 2010; van
MIX (1) dom (3) Amsterdam, Knoppers, Jongmans, 2015.
Children without Acceptance (2) QL (2) Czech Republic André, Deneuve, & Louvet, 2011; André, Louvet, & Deneuve,
disabilities Attitudes (8) QN (11) (2), France (2), 2011; Arampatzi, Mouratidou, Evaggelinou, Koidou, & Bark-
N = 13 Greece (2), Ire- oukis, 2011; Bebetsos, Derri, Zafeiriadis & Kyrgiridis, 2013;
Experience with disabil- land (1), Portugal Campos, Ferreira, & Block, 2014; Evans, Bright, & Brown,
ity sports (2) (1), Spain (1), 2015; Lieberman, Haibach, & Wagner, 2014; Liu, Kudláček &
Skill acquisition (1) United Kingdom Jesina, 2010; McKay, Block, & Park, 2015; Obrusnikova, &
(1), United States Dillon, 2012; Reina, Lopez, Jimenez, Garcia-Calvo, & Hutzler,
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

(3) 2011; Tindall, 2013; Xafopoulos, Kudláček & Evaggelinou,
2009.
Combined children Disability in textbooks QN (11) Israel (1), Kenya Baran, Aktop, Özer, Nalbant, Aglamis, Barak, & Hutzler, 2013;
with and without (1) (1), Spain (2), Bodnar & Prystupa, 2014; Bodnar, & Prystupa, 2015; Frantz,
disabilities Physical Fitness and Taiwan (3), Phillips, Matheri, & Kibet, 2011; Hutzler, & Margalit, 2009;
N = 11 physical activity level (9) Turkey (1), Lavega, Planas, & Ruiz, 2014; Pan, Liu, Chung, & Hsu, 2015;
Ukraine (2), Pan, Tsai, & Hsieh, 2011b; Pan, Tsai, Chu, & Hsieh, 2011a;
Teaching strategies (1) United States (1) Stanish, et al., 2015; Táboas-Pais, & Rey-Cao, 2012.
(continued)
Table 1 (continued)
Other perspectives
Parents Parental involvement (4) QL (3) United States (4) An & Hodge, 2013; Chaapel, Columna, Lytle, & Bailey, 2012;
N=4 QN (1) Lieberman, Haibach, & Schedlin, 2012; Perkins, Columna,
Lieberman, & Bailey, 2013.
Multiple adults Built environment (1) QL (3) Canada (1), Bredahl, 2013; Elliott, McCollum, Colquitt, & Pritchard, 2013;
N=6 Norway (1), Sev- Fitzgerald, 2012; Park, Koh, & Block, 2014; Rizzo, 2013; Roult,
Experiences and percep- QN (1)
eral (1), United Carbonneau, Chan, Belley-Ranger, & Duquette, 2014.
tions of inclusion (4)
Kingdom (1),
Perspectives on national MIX (2) United States (2),
Children and adults Experiences and percep- QL (3) Latvia (1), Asbjørnslett, Helseth, & Engelsrud, 2013; Grenier, Collins,
N=7 tions of inclusion (2) Norway (2), Wright, & Kearns, 2014; Jin, & Yun, 2013; Klavina, Jerlinder,
South Africa Kristen, Hammar, & Soulie, 2014; Klavina & Rodionova, 2015;
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

State of affairs and provi- QN (3)
sion of APE and inclu- (1), South Korea Svendby, & Dowling, 2013; Wegner & Struthers, 2011
sive PE (1) (1), Sweden (1),
United States (1)
Teaching strategies (4) MIX (1)
Physical educational Perspectives on national QL (1) United Kingdom Maher, 2010a
policy curriculum and policy (1) (1)
N=1
Notes. QL = qualitative approach, QN = quantitative approach, MIX = mixed-method approach.
319
in- and preservice teachers. The exception was eight in-service teacher articles that
included participants with other educational backgrounds (e.g., health personnel,
primary elementary teachers) and three preservice teacher articles that included
kinesiology students and students from other educational programs. Only nine
articles focused on special educational needs (SEN) coordinators, learning support
assistants (LSA), or PE teacher educators in initial teacher training institutions.
Twenty-eight percent (n = 31) of the articles focused on perspectives on children
(of which seven articles focused on children with disabilities, thirteen articles on
children without disabilities, and eleven included both), seven articles with both
children and adults, six articles with multiple adults, four articles with parents,
and one article focused on policy.

As to methodological approaches, 56% (n = 63) of the articles employed a
quantitative approach. Cross-sectional survey design was the most prominent (67%:
n = 42), of which a considerable proportion relied on convenience sampling. Based
on the quality assessment of the articles, 10 quantitative articles were assigned
high scores, 32 articles medium scores, and 20 articles low scores. Thirty-eight
percent (n = 42) of the articles employed a qualitative approach. Interviewing was
the most prominent way of collecting data (52% of the qualitative articles, n = 23).
Twenty-three qualitative articles were assigned high scores, 14 medium scores,
and five articles low scores. Furthermore, 6% (n = 7) of the articles employed a
mixed-method approach, of which one article was assigned high quality scores,
two medium, and four low scores.
The majority of the research originated from Europe (43%: n = 48, of which
16 articles were from the United Kingdom) and North America (38%, of which 37
articles were from the United States and five from Canada). This was not surprising
given that our review was limited to articles published in English or Scandinavian
languages. Thirteen percent (n = 14) of the publications were from Asia, and there
were few articles from Africa (n = 2), Oceania (n = 2), and South America (n = 1),
and only three studies were carried out in more than one country.
The most frequent theme was by far research on stakeholders’ acceptance and
attitudes toward inclusion of children with disabilities (28%: n = 31). Thereafter,
with decreasing percentages,
• experiences and perceptions on inclusion in PE of various stakeholders (18%:
n = 20);
• initial teacher training and disability simulation (10%: n = 11);
• skill acquisition, mental health, physical fitness and activity (10%: n = 11);
• state of affairs of APE and inclusive PE (7%: n = 8);
• different teaching strategies in PE and learning conditions (5%: n = 6);
• collaboration, roles, and responsibilities within the teacher team (4%: n = 5);
• governmental policy and national curriculum (4%: n = 5);
• self-efficacy and perceived preparedness to teach (4%: n = 5);
• parental involvement (4%: n = 4);
• experience with disability sport (3%: n = 3); and
• online education, photos in PE books, and the built environment in schools
(3%: n = 3).
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

In- and Preservice PE Teachers

Attitudes. Twenty-one studies focused on in- and preservice teachers’ beliefs
and attitudes toward inclusion of children with disabilities in PE. The studies were
based on the theory of reasoned action (TrA) or the theory of planned behavior
(TpB), which aim to predict and explain human behavior in specific contexts
(Ajzen, 1991). While the variety of attitudinal measures used complicates attempts
to synthesize the findings, some patterns can be observed. Attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioral control were found to explain the variance in PE
teachers’ intentions to include children with disabilities. PE teachers’ beliefs were
not found to directly relate to self-reported teacher behavior. However, intentions

significantly predicted self-reported teacher behavior (Jeong & Block, 2011). No
differences between female or male in-service teachers were observed in terms of
PE teachers’ intentions to include (Fournidou, Kudláček, & Evaggelinou, 2011),
in their beliefs (Wang, Qi, & Wang, 2015), or in their attitudes toward pupils with
physical (Doulkeridou et al., 2011; Jerlinder et al., 2010; Petkova, Kudláček, &
Nikolova, 2012) or intellectual disabilities (Özer et al., 2013). Similar results were
found among preservice teachers (Di Nardo et al., 2014; Hodge & Elliott, 2013).
Research with preservice teachers also indicated no differences in attitudes toward
inclusion of children with disabilities in terms of ethnicity (Hodge & Elliott, 2013),
groups of subject majors, student year groups (Di Nardo et al., 2014; Martin &
Kudláček, 2010), or between pre- or in-service teachers (Petkova et al., 2012).
The lack of differences in student year group has been explained by the argument
that more teaching experience results in more realistic expectations (Martin &
Kudláček, 2010). Alternative explanations might be that the initial teacher training
programs do not prepare preservice teachers adequately for inclusive PE, or that
the first-year students already hold such positive attitudes toward inclusion that it
leaves little room for improvement.
Mixed results were found when considering the importance of previous edu-
cational APE and teaching experience. Four studies indicated a positive association
between previous APE or SEN training, teaching experience, attitudes, intentions
to include, and self-reported behavior to include (Beamer & Yun, 2014; Hodge &
Elliott, 2013; Oh et al., 2010; Pedersen, Cooley, & Hernandez, 2014). However,
Wang et al. (2015a) found no association between previous educational APE, teach-
ing experience, and behavioral beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in
general PE. Other individual characteristics emphasized in the literature were age,
previous acquaintance with people with intellectual disabilities (Özer et al., 2013),
quality of training (Wang et al., 2015a), and other personal resources such as stress
and time limitations (Jerlinder et al., 2010).
Among environmental factors, no significant differences in attitudes toward
inclusion in PE were found between teachers in urban and rural schools (Dorđić,
Tubić, & Protić, 2014). Meanwhile, perceived support from management has been
found to be important (Jerlinder et al., 2010). The only pupil-related variable
shown to influence in-service teachers’ attitudes was the type of impairments of
the pupils. PE teachers were more inclined to teach children with specific learn-
ing disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and visual and hearing impairments than
they did children with physical disabilities or emotional and behavioral disorders
(Wang et al., 2015a).
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Two studies looked at the effects of an APE program on pre- and in-service
teachers and health personnel’s attitudes toward inclusion of pupils with dis-
abilities in PE (Mauerberg-deCastro et al., 2013; Tindall, Macdonald, Carroll,
& Moody, 2015). While a longitudinal qualitative study reported that positive
changes in attitudes among preservice teachers diminished anxieties and increased
confidence (Tindall et al., 2015), a pre- and postmeasure APE intervention found
no effect on the participant’s attitudes, beliefs, or self-efficacy (Mauerberg-
deCastro et al., 2013). Qualitative studies reported variations in in-service
teachers’ acceptance of inclusion. Important factors reported by the in-service
teachers were previous training in APE; perceived knowledge; in-service train-
ing possibilities; and assistance from peers, administration, and pupils without
disability (Casebolt & Hodge, 2010; Combs, Elliott, & Whipple, 2010; Hersman
& Hodge, 2010; Qi & Ha, 2012b).
In-Service Teachers’ Experiences and Perceptions of Inclusion in PE. The
qualitative studies with in-service PE teachers illuminated complexities and para-
doxes of inclusion in PE. Barriers reported were size of class, time constrains,
inadequate guidelines in national curriculum, lack of APE training and professional
development, fear for pupils’ safety, possible negative impact on peers, the perceived
impact of type and severity of impairment, and the demeanor of pupils (Haycock
& Smith, 2010a; 2010b; 2011a; Hersman & Hodge, 2010; Ko & Boswell, 2013).
Facilitating factors were peer acceptance, teachers’ external or internal motivation
for inclusion, teaching social skills (Samalot-Rivera & Porretta, 2009), collabora-
tion with LSAs (Haycock & Smith, 2011b), parents (An & Meaney, 2015), other
teachers, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists (Grenier, 2011; Simpson
& Mandich, 2012).
Self-Efficacy and Perceived Preparedness to Teach. A cross-sectional study
comparing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy to teach pupils with disabilities in
PE at three different Serbian universities indicated no differences between male
and female participants in the overall sample (Jovanović, Kudláček, Block, &
Djordjević, 2014). Total scores indicated that the preservice teachers reported
higher self-efficacy in terms of teaching pupils with physical and intellectual
disabilities, compared with pupils with visual disabilities. Moreover, research on
the impact of APE practicums on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes
reported mixed findings. A study by Taliaferro, Hammond, and Wyant (2015)
employed a repeated-measures design to explore the effect of two on-campus
APE courses and practicums on preservice PE teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
toward the inclusion of children with specific disabilities. The study revealed a
significant improvement of self-efficacy from the 1st (before practicum) to the
8th week (halfway through the practicum) and from the 1st to the 15th week
(end of the practicum). Another intervention study based on self-efficacy theory
yielded no significant results (Taliaferro & Harris, 2014). In addition, an non-
theoretical cross-sectional study exploring preservice PE teachers’ preparedness
to teach pupils with SEN indicated that despite students’ positive perceptions
about inclusion, students reported the training received to be ineffective (Coates,
2012). One study also explored the differences in self-efficacy to include children
with disabilities in PE among general PE teachers who received three different
APE services delivery approaches (Umhoefer, Vargas, & Beyer, 2015). The
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

results indicated a trend of higher efficacy scores as the APE support increased,
in which teachers who received the collaborative approach reported the highest
efficacy, compared with the teachers who received the consultation approach or
the itinerant approach.
Initial Teacher Training and Disability Simulation. Eight studies explored pre-
service teachers’ experiences with different experiential learning tools; specifically,
PE service learning (Miller, 2012; Roper & Santiago, 2014; Rust & Sinelnikov,
2010; Sato, Hodge, Casebolt, & Samalot-Rivera, 2015; Wilkinson, Harvey, Bloom,
Joober, & Grizenko, 2013; Woodruff & Sinelnikov, 2015) and disability simulation
(Baghurst, 2014; Leo & Goodwin, 2013). Several benefits of experiential learning
tools were described, such as the development of new disability awareness and a
perceptual shift from focus on oneself to pupil participation and learning, positive
effect on attitudes, reduced anxiety, increased professional confidence and incli-
nation to continue teaching, and awareness of a range of teaching and learning
strategies. Negative experiences such as difficulties in meeting both therapeutic and
educational expectations in their teaching; concerns about safety; the experience
of discomfort; and preservice teachers’ constructions of disability as undesirable,
limiting, and even “frightening” were also identified (Leo & Goodwin, 2013; Sato
et al., 2015). The importance of facilitating student reflection in experiential learn-
ing was stressed in several studies (Leo & Goodwin, 2013; Miller, 2012; Roper &
Santiago, 2014) so that possible anxiety and stereotypical preconceptions, attitudes,
and expectations could be explored and reconstructed rather than maintained or
even reinforced.
The State of Affairs of Adapted and Inclusive PE. Seven studies employed
a nontheoretical cross-sectional survey design exploring the provision of APE
subjects (Crawford, 2011; Lavay, Guthrie, & Henderson, 2014; Obrusnikova &
Kelly, 2009), the extent of inclusion of pupils with disabilities in PE (Li, Chen, &
Zhang, 2010; Rybová & Kudláček, 2013), job dissatisfaction among APE specialists
(Ješinová, Spurná, Kudláček, & Sklenaříková, 2014), and teacher planning (Li &
Chen, 2011) in schools. These studies pointed to large differences in the provision
of in-service teacher’s APE (Crawford, 2011; Rybová & Kudláček, 2013) and
behavioral management studies (Lavay, Guthrie, & Henderson, 2014), support (Li
et al., 2010; Obrusnikova & Kelly, 2009), and curriculum guidance (Li & Chen,
2011). The results indicated that many APE specialists had considered or actively
searched for other work opportunities outside APE (Ješinová et al. 2014), and that
many in-service PE teachers did not feel adequately prepared to teach children
with disabilities in PE (Rybová & Kudláček, 2013) and wanted further training
(Crawford, 2011; Li et al., 2010). In addition, a study employing marked-based
and prevalence-based need models for APE teachers in public schools in the United
States indicated that the number of pupils who required APE services in the public
schools were higher than the number of APE teacher positions funded by the state
(Zhang, 2011).
Different Teaching Strategies and Learning Conditions. A study observing PE
teachers’ teaching practices for pupils with disabilities indicated that four of five
teachers interacted more verbally than physically with children with disabilities,
compared with children without disabilities (Wang, Wang, & Wen, 2015b).
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Online Teaching. Only one article explored certified APE teachers’ experience
with online teacher development programs (Healy, Block, & Judge, 2014). The
advantages mentioned were flexibility, increased learning opportunities (such as
increased access to experts, exposure to educational media, and increased choice
of courses), and the opportunity to join a community of learners. Disadvantages
reported were lack of social interaction, lack of practical experience, and specific
technological issues.
Physical Education Teacher Educators

Initial Teacher Training. The importance of initial teacher training has been
emphasized in several studies on pre- and in-service teachers, yet only four studies
considered the PE teacher educators’ perspective. A study exploring APE courses
in initial teacher training in undergraduate programs in the United States identified
three themes emphasized in the programs: disabilities, instructional, and motiva-
tional strategies; modifications, physical fitness, motor skills, and motor develop-
ment of students with disabilities; and writing and implementation of individual
education plans (Piletic & Davis, 2010). Another exploratory study indicated that
PE teacher educators spent relatively little teaching time on the topic of behavior
management (Lavay, Henderson, French, & Guthrie, 2012). Crawford et al. (2012)
found large variations in time allocated to APE studies and practicum between the
four institutions studied. The PE teacher educators reported varying degrees of
satisfaction in terms of their students being properly prepared to include children
with disabilities in PE. Challenges mentioned were time and resources allocated
to inclusive educational teaching throughout the degree program, and lack of a
clear inclusive framework in the national PE curriculum. In addition, Dowling et
al. (2015) illuminated the struggle and vulnerability of PE teacher educators as
they engage in social justice in their teaching when having to resist conservative
cultural narratives at their institutions.
Special Educational Needs (SEN) Coordinators and Learning

Support Assistants (LSA)
Collaboration, Roles, and Responsibilities. The use of LSAs (also referred to
as para-educators) has increased in PE as a supportive service delivery option for
individual pupils, the whole class, and in-service teachers (Bryan, McCubbin, & van
der Mars, 2013; Maher, 2014). Four studies used a cross-sectional survey design
with additional open questions or follow-up interviews to explore the perspectives
on inclusion of pupils with SEN in PE of LSAs and SEN coordinators (Maher,
2013; 2014; Maher & Macbeth, 2014; Vickerman & Blundell, 2012). The studies
illuminated the limitations in inclusive PE policy and allocation of SEN resources;
LSA and SEN coordinators’ training; restrictions in PE-specific guidelines in the
statement of SEN; that the majority of the SEN coordinators (52%) and LSAs (71%)
believed they were not adequately prepared for inclusive PE; and that the majority
of the LSAs reported limited opportunity to take part in PE planning.
The roles of LSAs from a teacher’s (Haycock & Smith, 2011b) and multiple
stakeholder’s perspective (Bryan et al., 2013) pointed out the often ambiguous
role of LSAs in PE. PE teachers reported the presence of LSAs to be a positive
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

contribution by allowing the teachers to focus on the main group of pupils (Haycock
& Smith, 2011b). Challenges mentioned were unspecified roles and responsibili-
ties; lack of appreciation; and lack of PE-specific training, communication, and
collaboration (Bryan et al., 2013; Maher, 2010a). Observations of PE sessions also
indicated that the “hovering” of LSAs might negatively influence peer interaction
and cover up individual pupil’s needs from the PE teacher (Bryan et al., 2013).
Children With Disabilities

Experiences and Perceptions on Inclusion in PE. Five studies explored chil-
dren’s experiences with PE (Coates & Vickerman, 2010; Fitzgerald & Stride, 2012;
Healy, Msetfi, & Gallagher, 2013; Medcalf et al., 2011), while one article also
included other school-based physical activity (Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson,
2010). The children stressed the importance of gaining access to the playing field,
feeling like a legitimate participant in the activities, having friends, and feeling sup-
ported (Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). Children reported negative feelings
when confronted with unfair competitive disadvantage, when having fear of injury,
or when they experienced bullying (Coates & Vickerman, 2010; Healy et al., 2013).
On the other hand, research with boys with social, emotional, and behavioral dif-
ficulties reported PE as an arena were the boys felt they could favorably compare
themselves to peers (Medcalf et al., 2011). The boys also experienced a sense of
physical freedom that they did not experience in other subjects.
Several studies with children with disabilities problematized PE, disability,
and “normality” using constructivist (Asbjørnslett, Helseth, & Engelsrud, 2013)
and critical perspectives (Svendby & Dowling, 2012; van Amsterdam, Knoppers,
& Jongmans, 2015). These studies analyzed children’s experience with disability
labels and abled ideals of normality and the hegemonic “truths” in PE. One study
also explored the (lack of) representation of children with disabilities in PE text-
books (Táboas-Pais & Rey-Cao, 2012).
Children Without Disabilities

Attitudes. Ten of the thirteen studies with children without disabilities explored
their attitudes toward or awareness of children with disabilities in PE, using either
a cross-sectional survey or an experimental design. A study on attitudes of children
without disabilities toward inclusion in PE indicated that pupils’ attitudes were
related to self-reported and modified behavior (Bebetsos et al., 2013). Behavioral
beliefs, normative beliefs, control beliefs, social responsibility, social intimacy, and
task involvement have also been found to correlate with pupils’ intention to play
with a hypothetical peer with a physical disability in PE (Obrusnikova & Dillon,
2012). In addition, one study compared pupils’ attitudes toward pupils with SEN
in schools with and without pupils with SEN. Pupils attending schools without
children with SEN had more positive attitudes toward disability than their peers
in inclusive school settings (Arampatzi et al., 2011). It should be noted that the
inclusive schools were in an early phase of implementation (i.e., seven months into
the inclusive program). Awareness interventions using video-based and theoretical
lectures as well as participatory simulation in disability sports have shown mixed
results on attitudes. Three awareness intervention studies indicated a positive
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

treatment effect on attitudes toward inclusion in PE among children without dis-

abilities (Campos, Ferreira, & Block, 2014; McKay, Block, & Park, 2015; Reina et
al., 2011). However, two awareness intervention studies indicated no effect or only
limited effect on some of the measures (Liu et al., 2010; Xafopoulos, Kudláček,
& Evaggelinou, 2009).
Experience With Disability Sport. Several qualitative studies also explored the
experiences of children without disabilities as they took part in disability sports.
These studies indicated that taking part in disability sport programs helped children,
at least in the short term, to question their habitual assumption about capabilities of
people with disabilities, to focus on similarities between themselves and athletes
with disabilities rather than on differences, and to promote involvement in dis-

ability sport (Evans, Bright, & Brown, 2015; Grenier et al., 2014; Tindall, 2013).
Different Teaching Strategies in PE and Learning Conditions. Four studies
explored different learning conditions, such as the difference between cooperative or
individual learning conditions (André, Deneuve, & Louvet, 2011), teacher-directed
or peer-tutored learning conditions (Klavina et al., 2014; Klavina & Rodionova,
2015), and differences in levels of risk taking (André, Louvet, & Deneuve, 2013).
These studies indicated that cooperative learning conditions and higher levels
of risk taking positively influenced pupils’ acceptance of pupils with learning
disabilities. Similarly, a study testing how the use of modified equipment would
affect the gross motor skill performance of sighted children indicated that the use
of modified equipment, compared with nonmodified equipment, did not interfere
with performance of sighted children (Lieberman, Haibach, & Wagner, 2014).
Finally, a multilevel analysis exploring different frameworks to predict physical
activity levels of pupils in inclusive PE indicated that an ecology framework was
most efficient in explaining the effects of teaching behavior, by simultaneously
taking into consideration pupils’ intentions, gender, disability, lesson content,
instructional model, and class location (Jin & Yun, 2013).
Children With and Without Disabilities Together

Skill Acquisition, Physical Fitness, and Activity. All eleven studies exploring
perspectives of both children with and without disabilities employed a quantitative
approach. Four studies exploring performance and fitness outcomes of inclusive PE
programs indicated a positive influence on both fitness and skill acquisition among
children with disabilities but mixed results among children without disabilities
(Baran et al., 2013; Bodnar & Prystupa, 2014; Bodnar & Prystupa, 2015; Hutzler
& Margalit, 2009). Five studies compared physical activity levels among children
and youth with and without disabilities in and out of school settings. Results
indicated that pupils with disabilities had less self-determined motivation toward
PE participation (Pan, Tsai, Chu, et al., 2011a), were significantly less physically
active than their peers without disabilities (Frantz et al., 2011; Pan, Tsai, Chu, et
al., 2011a; Pan, Tsai, & Hsieh, 2011b) and enjoyed PE less than their peers (Stanish
et al., 2015). In addition, Pan, Liu, Chung, & Hsu (2015) used accelerometer data
to compare the physical activity levels of children with and without intellectual
disability under four conditions (recess and inclusive, segregated, and general PE).
The results indicated that children were equally active in PE. However, in recess,
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

the children in segregated PE placements were less active than children with
intellectual disability in inclusive PE placements (Pan et al., 2015). These studies
support that inclusive PE environments can promote greater participation in other
school arenas for pupils with disabilities. Notably, one study also considered both
children and adult perspectives on the key role of built environmental factors as
barriers or facilitators for physical activity at school (Roult et al., 2014).
Parents
Parental Involvement. Four studies focused on the perspectives of parents on
their child’s PE provision (An & Hodge, 2013; Chaapel, Columna, Lytle, & Bailey,
2012; Lieberman, Haibach, & Schedlin, 2012; Perkins, Columna, Lieberman, &
Bailey, 2013), while two studies included both children’s and parents’ perspectives
(Svendby & Dowling, 2012; Asbjørnslett et al., 2013). These studies indicated that
parental satisfaction was influenced by the ongoing and frequent communication
and collaboration with PE and APE teachers, the attributes of the PE teacher, their
child’s PE placement, the provision of support staff, and appropriate modifications
for their child (Chaapel et al., 2012; Lieberman et al., 2012; Perkins et al., 2013).
Several studies also reported an undeveloped partnership and communication
between parents and the PE teachers (An & Hodge, 2013; Chaapel et al., 2012;
Perkins et al., 2013; Svendby & Dowling, 2013).
Multiple Adult Perspectives

Experiences and Perceptions on Inclusion in PE. Several studies took into
consideration perspectives of multiple adult stakeholders about inclusion in PE. In an
attempt to identify the main issues in APE based on APE professionals’ perspectives,
Rizzo (2013) identified the top ten issues. These were effective teaching behaviors,
inclusion, assessment, collaboration, transition, response to intervention, certifica-
tion, leadership, behavioral management, and evidence-based teaching. Another
study explored the identification and prioritization of factors believed to contribute
to inclusion in PE among 23 adapted and general PE teachers, and one professor.
The five main factors were additional in-service training, positive attitudes, sup-
port, modification, and peer tutoring (Park, Koh, & Block, 2014). In addition, a
study by Fitzgerald (2012) used three selected drawings and commentaries from
young people with disabilities as the foundation for task-sheets to be answered by
professors and APE and PE teachers. This study identified inconsistent and con-
tradictory responses to the drawings in terms of the educators’ interpretation of the
adaptation of the activity setting, empathy toward the pupils, and the importance of
pupils’ enjoyment in PE. One study with adults with disabilities identified PE as
the arena where the adults had faced the largest percentage of negative experience
with physical activity (Bredahl, 2013).
Physical Educational Policy

Governmental Policy and National Curriculum. Only one study analyzed the
national PE curriculum, political aim, and ideologies using a macroperspective
(Maher, 2010b). Another study explored how the use of governmental education
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

grants positively influenced inclusive physical education (Elliott et al., 2013).

Several studies pointed out the lack of a clear inclusive framework and tensions
in the national curriculum of PE as possible barriers to inclusion (Haycock &
Smith, 2010a; 2010b; Maher, 2010b; Svendby & Dowling, 2013). For example,
the increased promotion of performance-based measures of children’s achievement
was considered incongruent with inclusive education and promotion of diverse
abilities (Svendby & Dowling, 2013; Coates, 2012). Unforeseen outcomes of the
national curriculum were decreased opportunities to participate in PE and increased
segregated teaching, expectations that children with disabilities fit into already exist-
ing curricula or receive a more narrow PE curriculum than their peers, increased
dependency on SEN coordinators and LSAs, and inflated grades (Haycock & Smith,
2010b; 2011a; Maher, 2010b). Several teachers also reported competitive team sport
as prevalent in the national PE curriculum and that the related assessment criteria
were inadequate and inappropriate for assessing the achievement of children with
disabilities (Haycock & Smith, 2010a; Maher, 2010a).
Discussion
Framed by a stakeholder approach, this systematic literature review mapped out the
stakeholder perspectives, main themes, methodological approaches, and countries
of data collection in the literature published from 2009 to 2015.
The majority of the studies recognized the vital role of teachers as managers
of the educational environment. The saliency of teacher perspectives is apparent in
the large percentage of research publications focused on in- and preservice teachers.
We observed that research on inclusion in PE have increasingly recognized children
with and without disabilities as salient stakeholders, compared with previous reviews
on the topic (Coates & Vickerman, 2010; 2013, Hutzler, 2003; Qi & Ha, 2012a).
Nonetheless, only a small number of the studies actually took into consideration
children’s own voices, interests, and claims, which might differ quite a bit from
adult perspectives on inclusion. Of the 112 studies, only six explored the experi-
ences of PE participation of children with disabilities, and only two studies reported
the experiences of children without disabilities. Thus, the individual experiences
of children still constitute a marginal portion of our knowledge about inclusion in
PE. As previously outlined by Hutzler (2003), more inductive research is needed
with children with and without disabilities.
A limited number of studies focused on parental perspectives, and only a few
studies considered the perspectives of school administrators and teacher-training
providers. This is the case in spite of studies having identified parents and school
administrators as important stakeholders who significantly contribute to inclusion
in PE (An & Meaney, 2015; Maher, 2014).
Several concerns in the contemporary research in this area echo concerns
presented one decade ago (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Hutzler, 2003). In-service
teachers’ attitudes have consistently been emphasized as an important factor for
successful inclusion of children with disabilities. This is still an important focus in
the literature (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Hutzler, 2003; O’Brien et al., 2009),
in particular in the research on perspectives of in- and preservice teachers and
children without disabilities. We find the persistent importance given to this topic
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

intriguing for several reasons. First, the results are conflicting (e.g., the mixed results
of previous educational APE and teaching experience on attitudes) and attempts to
influence and change attitudes have not resulted in consistent, positive behavioral
outcomes. Second, we still have little knowledge about the gap between stakehold-
ers’ attitudes/intentions to include children with disabilities and their actual behav-
ior in PE. Finally, there is a need for more focus on other barriers and facilitators
emphasized as important by stakeholders, such as pedagogical strategies employed
in PE, quality of initial teacher training, as well as practical and environmental
factors such as time, resources, administrative support, and collaboration between
parents, teachers, and other professionals. Thus, we encourage researchers to move
on to generate more knowledge about the contextual and social mechanisms that
seem to be the barriers encountered by the stakeholders.
The distribution of studies based on countries of data collection was consistent
with a previous review (Qi & Ha, 2012a). Notwithstanding the bias of publica-
tions in the English language, the majority of research on inclusion of children
with disabilities in PE was produced in the United Kingdom and the United States.
These findings, combined with the lack of peer-reviewed articles in Scandinavian
languages, may be related to larger power structures in the global and national
publishing game, such as ranking of impact factor, quality assessment of journals,
and national research assessments and incentives. Though we observed more studies
conducted in Asia, compared with the literature review by Qi & Ha (2012a), we
still know very little of the barriers and facilitators of inclusive PE beyond Europe
and North America. Nonetheless, the variety in country of data collection and the
accumulative number of studies published on the topic indicates an increasing
globalization of the ideology of inclusive PE.
As to methodological approaches, we observed an increased use of quali-
tative studies in the research contributions (Qi & Ha, 2012a), while the use of
mixed-method research is still marginal in the literature. The increased interest in
qualitative research might indicate a legitimation of alternative voices and sensibili-
ties in a field that traditionally has been governed by experiments and hypothesis
testing. Based on the selected quality criteria, the majority of quantitative articles
were assigned a moderate score, while the majority of the qualitative articles were
assigned a high score. Establishing and applying quality criteria between and within
different paradigms and subsequently various ontological and epistemological
assumptions is controversial (Zitomer & Goodwin, 2014). Given that we used dif-
ferent evaluation criteria for the different designs, we cannot make inferences as to
whether the qualitative studies and quantitative studies were of a different quality.
As a main goal of many systematic literature reviews is to assess the quality of
research within a specific field, as also emphasized by Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, we argue that how we assess quality in research between and within
different paradigms needs more focus.
This review has its share of limitations, including the inevitable challenges that
researchers face when conducting a systematic review of research from a variety of
contexts, designs, and perspectives. Notably, the heterogeneity of methodological
approaches, measurement, and the definition of inclusion in PE and its implica-
tion for related data synthesis are some areas presenting challenges. In addition,
the structures, organization, and practices in PE vary considerably between the
sites of research presented in this review. Taking these constraints into account,
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

the descriptive synthesis of contemporary research provides a good overview of

the stakeholders’ perspectives, overall themes, methodological trends, and the
geographical locality of research emphasized in the literature.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study found that the educator perspectives dominated the research
contributions, while other stakeholder perspectives, such as children with disabili-
ties and their parents, received minor attention in the extant literature reviewed.
The majority of studies were quantitative, but there were more qualitative studies
than in the literature review by Qi & Ha, (2012a). The majority of knowledge was
developed in North America and Europe. Attitudes and intentions were prominent
themes in the literature. However, there is a need to bridge the intention/behavior
gap that still exists in the research on inclusion of children with disabilities in PE.
In addition, we argue that more knowledge is needed about the contextual and
social mechanisms that seem to be the barriers encountered by the stakeholders.
Note
1. I = criteria from Zitomer & Goodwin (2014), II = criteria from Hutzler (2003), a = criteria for
qualitative research design, b = criteria for quantitative research design. Mixed-method research
= all criteria were used.
References
Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for
Change? Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109–124. doi:10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
An, J., & Hodge, S.R. (2013). Exploring the meaning of parental involvement in physical
education for students with developmental disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 30, 147–163. PubMed doi:10.1123/apaq.30.2.147
An, J., & Meaney, K.S. (2015). Inclusion practices in elementary physical education: A
social-cognitive perspective. International Journal of Disability Development and
Education, 62, 142–157. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2014.998176
André, A., Deneuve, P., & Louvet, B. (2011). Cooperative learning in physical education and
acceptance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
23, 474–485. doi:10.1080/10413200.2011.580826
André, A., Louvet, B., & Deneuve, P. (2013). Cooperative group, risk-taking and inclusion
of pupils with learning disabilities in physical education. British Educational Research
Journal, 39, 677–693.
Arampatzi, A., Mouratidou, K., Evaggelinou, C., Koidou, E., & Barkoukis, V. (2011). Social
developmental parameters in primary schools: Inclusive settings’ and gender differ-
ences on pupils’ aggressive and social insecure behaviour and their attitudes towards
disability. International Journal of Special Education, 26, 58–69.
Asbjørnslett, M., Helseth, S., & Engelsrud, G.H. (2013). “Being an ordinary kid”—Demands
of everyday life when labeled with disability. Scandinavian Journal of Disability
Research, 16, 364–376. doi:10.1080/15017419.2013.787368
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Baghurst, T. (2014). Encouraging disability appreciation among physical education, teacher

education students through practical simulation. Palaestra, 28(4), 44–47.
Baran, F., Aktop, A., Özer, D., Nalbant, S., Aglamix, E., Barak, S., Hutzler, Y. (2013). The
effects of a special Olympics soccer athletes and non-disabled partners. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 34, 695–709.
Beamer, J.A., & Yun, J. (2014). Physical educators’ beliefs and self-reported behaviors
towards including students with autism spectrum disorder. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 31, 362–376. PubMed doi:10.1123/apaq.2014-0134
Bebetsos, E., Derri, V., Zafeiriadis, S., & Kyrgiridis, P. (2013). Relationship among students’
attitudes, intentions and behaviors towards the inclusion of peers with disabilities, in
mainstream physical education classes. International Electronic Journal of Elementary
Education, 5, 233–248.
Berktaş, N., Yanardag, M., Yilmaz, I., Aras, O., Konukman, F., & Boyaci, A. (2011). The
effects of inclusion class programmes on physical fitness for children with mental
challenges. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 14, 389–393. PubMed doi:10.3109
/17518423.2011.623141
Block, M.E., & Obrusnikova, I. (2007). Inclusion in physical education: A review of the
literature from 1995–2005. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24, 103–124. PubMed
doi:10.1123/apaq.24.2.103
Bodnar, I., & Prystupa, E. (2014). Efficiency of inclusive physical education lessons for
schoolchildren with minor deviation in health. Postepy Rehabilitacji, 3, 13–19.
Bodnar, I., & Prystupa, E. (2015). The efficiency of integrated and segregated physical
education classes for secondary school students with physical and mental disabilities
and poor fitness. Human movement, 16(4), 200–205. doi:10.1515/humo-2015-0046
Bredahl, A.M. (2013). Sitting and watching the others being active: The experienced difficul-
ties in PE when having a disability. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 30, 40–58.
PubMed doi:10.1123/apaq.30.1.40
Bryan, R.R., McCubbin, J.A., & van der Mars, H. (2013). The ambiguous role of the para-
educators in the general physical education environment. Adapted Physical Activity
Campos, M.J., Ferreira, J.P., & Block, M.E. (2014). Influence of an awareness program on
Portuguese middle and high school students’ perceptions of peers with disabilities.
Psychological Reports, 115, 897–912. PubMed doi:10.2466/11.15.PR0.115c26z7
Casebolt, K.M., & Hodge, S.R. (2010). High school physical education teachers’ beliefs about
teaching students with mild to severe disabilities. Physical Educator, 67(3), 140–155.
Chaapel, H., Columna, L., Lytle, R., & Bailey, J. (2012). Parental expectations about
adapted physical education services. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 186–196.
doi:10.1177/0022466912447661
Clarkson, M.B. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluation corporate
social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.
Coates, J.K. (2012). Teaching inclusively: are secondary physical education student teachers
sufficiently prepared to teach in inclusive environments? Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 17, 349–365. doi:10.1080/17408989.2011.582487
Coates, J., & Vickerman, P. (2013). A review of methodological strategies for consulting
children with special educational needs in physical education. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 28, 333–347. doi:10.1080/08856257.2013.797705
Coates, J., & Vickerman, P. (2010). Empowering children with special educational needs to
speak up: experiences of inclusive physical education. Disability and Rehabilitation,
32, 1517–1526. PubMed doi:10.3109/09638288.2010.497037
Coates, J., & Vickerman, P. (2008). Let the children have their say: Children with special
educational needs and their experiences of physical education—A review. Support for
Learning, 23, 168–175. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9604.2008.00390.x
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Combs, S., Elliott, S., & Whipple, K. (2010). Elementary physical education teachers’ atti-
tudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs: A qualitative investigation.
International Journal of Special Education, 25, 114–125.
Crawford, S. (2011). An examination of current adapted physical activity provision in pri-
mary and special schools in Ireland. European Physical Education Review, 17, 91–109.
doi:10.1177/1356336X11402260
Crawford, S., O’Reilly, R., & Flanagan, N. (2012). Examining current provision, practice
and experience of initial teacher training providers in Ireland preparing pre service
teachers for inclusion of students with special education needs in physical education
classes. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 5, 23–44.
Di Nardo, M., Kulácek, M., Tafuri, D., & Sklenariíková, J. (2014). Attitudes of preservice
physical educators towards individuals with disabilities at University Parthenope of

Napoli. Acta Gymnica, 44(4), 211–221. doi:10.5507/ag.2014.022
Dorđić, V., Tubić, T., & Protić, B. (2014). Attitudes of teachers in rural and urban schools
on inclusive physical education. Sportske nauke i zdravlje, 4(1), 33–40.
Doulkeridou, A., Evaggelinou, C., Mouratidou, K., Koidou, E., Panagiotou, A., & Kudláček,
M. (2011). Attitudes of Greek physical education teachers towards inclusion of stu-
dents with disabilities in physical education classes. International Journal of Special
Education, 26, 1–11.
Dowling, F., Fitzgerald, H., & Flintoff, A. (2015). Narratives from the road to social justice in
PETE: Teacher educator perspectives. Sport Education and Society, 20(8), 1029–1047.
doi:10.1080/13573322.2013.871249
Elliott, S., McCollum, S., Colquitt, G., & Pritchard, T. (2013). Perception of the impact of
an PEP grant on elementary physical education programs in one school district. Physi-
cal Educator, 70, 429–446.
Evans, A.B., Bright, J.L., & Brown, L.J. (2015). Non-disabled secondary school children’s
lived experiences of a wheelchair basketball programme delivered in the East of England.
Sport Education and Society, 20(6), 741–761. doi:10.1080/13573322.2013.808620
Fitzgerald, H. (2012). “Drawing” on disabled students’ experiences of physical education
and stakeholder responses. Sport Education and Society, 17, 443–462. doi:10.1080/1
3573322.2011.609290
Fitzgerald, H., & Stride, A. (2012). Stories about physical education from young people
with disabilities. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 59,
283–293. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2012.697743
Fournidou, I., Kudláček, M., & Evaggelinou, C. (2011). Attitudes of in-service physical
educators towards teaching children with physical disabilities in general physical
education classes in Cyprus. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 4, 22–38.
Frantz, J., Phillips, J.S., Matheri, J.M., & Kibet, J.J. (2011). Physical activity and sport as a
tool to include disabled children in Kenyan schools. Sport in Society, 14, 1227–1236.
doi:10.1080/17430437.2011.614780
Goodwin, D.L., Watkinson, E.J., & Fitzpatrick, D.A. (2003). Inclusive physical education.
In R.D. Steadward, G.D. Wheeler, & E.J. Watkinson (Eds.), Adapted Physical Activity
(pp. 189–209). University of Alberta Press.
Grenier, M.A. (2011). Coteaching in physical education: A strategy for inclusive practice.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 28, 95–112. PubMed doi:10.1123/apaq.28.2.95
Grenier, M., Collins, K., Wright, S., & Kearns, C. (2014). Perceptions of a disability sport
unit in general physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 31, 49–66.
PubMed doi:10.1123/apaq.2013-0006
Haycock, D., & Smith, A. (2010a). Inadequate and inappropriate? The assessment of
young disabled people and pupils with special educational needs in national cur-
riculum physical education. European Physical Education Review, 16, 283–300.
doi:10.1177/1356336X10382975
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Haycock, D., & Smith, A. (2010b). Inclusive physical education? A study of the management
of national curriculum physical education and unplanned outcomes in England. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 31, 291–305. doi:10.1080/01425691003700532
Haycock, D., & Smith, A. (2011a). Still “more of the same for the more able”? Including
young disabled pupils with special educational needs in extra-curricular physical educa-
tion. Sport Education and Society, 16, 507–526. doi:10.1080/13573322.2011.589647
Haycock, D., & Smith, A. (2011b). To assist or not to assist? A study of teachers’ views
of the roles of learning support assistants in the provision of inclusive physical
education in England. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 835–849.
doi:10.1080/13603110903452325
Healy, S., Block, M., & Judge, J. (2014). Certified adapted physical educators’ perceptions of
advantages and disadvantages of online teacher development. Palaestra, 28(4), 14–16.

Healy, S., Msetfi, R., & Gallagher, S. (2013). “Happy and a bit nervous”: The experiences
of children with autism in physical education. British Journal of Learning Disabilities,
41, 222–228. doi:10.1111/bld.12053
Hersman, B.L., & Hodge, S.R. (2010). High school physical educators’ beliefs about
teaching differently abled students in an urban school district. Education and Urban
Society, 42(6), 730–757.
Hodge, S.R., & Elliott, G. (2013). Physical education majors’ judgments about inclusion
and teaching students with disabilities. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 1,
151–157. doi:10.11114/jets.v1i1.88
Hutzler, Y. (2003). Attitudes toward the participation of individuals with disabilities in
physical activity: A review. Quest, 55, 347–373. doi:10.1080/00336297.2003.10491809
Hutzler, Y., & Margalit, M. (2009). Skill acquisition in students with and without perva-
sive developmental disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 685–694.
doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2009.01.011
Jeong, M., & Block, M. (2011). Physical education teachers’ beliefs and intentions toward
teaching students with disabilities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82,
239–246. PubMed doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599751
Jerlinder, K., Danermark, B., & Gill, P. (2010). Swedish primary-school teachers’ attitudes
to inclusion—The Ccse of PE and pupils with physical disabilities. European Journal
of Special Needs Education, 25, 45–57. doi:10.1080/08856250903450830
Ješinová, L., Spurná, M., Kudláček, M., & Sklenaříková, J. (2014). Job dissatisfaction
among certified adapted physical education specialists in the USA. Acta Gymnica,
44(3), 175–180. doi:10.5507/ag.2014.018
Jin, J., & Yun, J. (2013). Three frameworks to predict physical activity behavior in middle
school inclusive physical education: a multilevel analysis. Adapted Physical Activity
Jovanović, L., Kudláček, M., Block, M.E., & Djordjević, I. (2014). Self-efficacy of pre-
service physical education teachers towards teaching students with disabilities in
general physical education classes in Serbia. European Journal of Adapted Physical
Activity, 7(2), 32–46.
Klavina, A., Jerlinder, K., Kristén, L., Hammar, L., & Soulie, T. (2014). Cooperative oriented
learning in inclusive physical education. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
29, 119–134. doi:10.1080/08856257.2013.859818
Klavina, A., & Rodionova, K. (2015). The effect of peer tutoring in physical education for
middle school students with severe disabilities. European Journal of Adapted Physical
Activity, 8(2), 3–17.
Ko, B., & Boswell, B. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions, teaching practices, and learning
opportunities for inclusion. Physical Educator, 70, 223–242.
Lavay, B., Guthrie, S., & Henderson, H. (2014). The behavior management training and teach-
ing practices of nationally certified adapted (CAPE) teachers. Palaestra, 28(1), 24–31.
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Lavay, B., Henderson, H., French, R., & Guthrie, S. (2012). Behavior management instruc-
tional practices and content of college/university physical education teacher education
(PETE) programs. Sport Pedagogy, 17(2), 195–210. doi:10.1080/17408989.2010.54
8063
Lavega, P., Planas, A., & Ruiz, P. (2014). Juegos cooperativos e inclusion en educación
física [Cooperative games and inclusion in physical education]. Revista Internacional
de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y el Deporte, 14(53), 37–51.
Leo, J., & Goodwin, D. (2013). Pedagogical reflections on the use of disability simula-
tions in higher education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 32, 460–472.
doi:10.1123/jtpe.32.4.460
Li, C., & Chen, S. (2011). Implementation of curriculum planning in inclusive physical
education in primary schools in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Physical Education &
Recreation, 17, 57–65.
Li, C.X., Chen, S., & Zhang, J. (2010). A status analysis of the integrated physical education
in Hong Kong elementary schools. Asian Journal of Exercise & Sports Science, 7, 35–42.
Lieberman, L.J., Haibach, P., & Schedlin, H. (2012). Physical education and children with
CHARGE syndrome: Research to practice. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,
106, 106–119.
Lieberman, L.J., Haibach, P., & Wagner, M. (2014). Let’s play together: Sports equipment
for children with and without visual impairment. Palaestra, 28(2), 13–15.
Liu, Y., Kudláček, M., & Jesina, O. (2010). The influence of Paralympic school day on
children’s attitudes towards people with disabilities. Acta Uni Palacki Olomuc Gymn,
40(2), 63–69.
McKay, C., Block, M., & Park, J.Y. (2015). The impact of Paralympic school day on student
attitudes towards inclusion in physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
32, 331–348. PubMed doi:10.1123/APAQ.2015-0045
Maher, A. (2010a). Physical education and special educational needs in North-West England.
Sport Science Review, 19(5-6), 263–283. doi:10.2478/v10237-011-0041-8
Maher, A. (2010b). The inclusion of pupils with special educational needs. Sport Science
Review, 19(1-2), 263–283. doi:10.2478/v10237-011-0006-y
Maher, A. (2013). Statements of special educational needs and mainstream secondary physical
education in north-west England. British Journal of Special Education, 40, 130–136.
doi:10.1111/1467-8578.12032
Maher, A.J. (2014). Special educational needs in mainstream secondary school physical
education: learning support assistants have their say. Sport Education and Society.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13573322.2014.905464
Maher, A., & Macbeth, J. (2014). Physical education, resources and training: The per-
spective of special educational needs coordinators working in secondary schools
in North-West England. European Physical Education Review, 20, 90–103.
doi:10.1177/1356336X13496003
Martin, K., & Kudláček, M. (2010). Attitudes of pre-service teachers in an Australian
university towards inclusion of students with physical disabilities in general physical
education programs. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 3, 30–48.
Mauerberg-deCastro, E., de Souza Paiva, A.C., Figueiredo, G.A., da Costa, T.D.A., de Castro,
M.R., & Campbell, D.F. (2013). Attitudes about inclusion by educators and physical
educators: Effects of participation in an inclusive adapted physical education program.
Motriz Rio Claro, 19, 649–661.
Medcalf, R., Marshall, J., Hardman, K., & Visser, J. (2011). Experiences and perceptions
of physical education. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties, 16, 189–206. doi:10.10
80/13632752.2011.569409
Miller, M. (2012). The role of service-learning to promote early childhood physical education
while examining its influence upon the vocational call to teach. Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy, 17, 61–77. doi:10.1080/17408981003712810
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D.G., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 264–269. PubMed doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-
200908180-00135
O’Brien, D., Kudláček, M., & Howe, P.D. (2009). A contemporary review of English language
literature on inclusion of students with disabilities in physical education: A European
perspective. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 2, 46–61.
Obrusnikova, I., & Dillon, S.R. (2012). Students’ beliefs and intentions to play with peers
with disabilities in physical education: Relationships with achievement and social goals.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 31, 311–328. doi:10.1123/jtpe.31.4.311
Obrusnikova, I., & Kelly, L.E. (2009). Caseloads and job demographics of adapted physical
educators in the United States. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109, 737–746. PubMed
doi:10.2466/pms.109.3.737-746
Oh, H.K., Rizzo, T.L., So, H.S., Chung, D.H., Park, S.J., & Lei, Q. (2010). Preservice physical
education teachers’ attributes related to teaching a student labeled ADHD. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 885–890. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.027
Özer, D., Nalbant, S., Aglamis, E., Baran, F., Samut, P.K., Aktop, A., & Hutzler, Y. (2013).
Physical education teachers’ attitudes towards children with intellectual disability: The
impact of time in service, gender, and previous acquaintance. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 57, 1001–1013. PubMed
Pan, C.Y., Liu, C.W., Chung, C., & Hsu, P.J. (2015). Physical activity level of adolescents with
and without intellectual disabilities during physical education and recess. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 36, 579–586. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.10.042
Pan, C.Y., Tsai, C.L., Chu, C.H., & Hsieh, K.W. (2011a). Physical activity and self-determined
motivation of adolescents with and without autism spectrum disorders in inclusive
physical education. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 733–741. doi:10.1016/j.
rasd.2010.08.007
Pan, C.Y., Tsai, C.L., & Hsieh, K.W. (2011b). Physical activity correlates for children with
autism spectrum disorders in middle school physical education. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 82, 491–498. PubMed doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599782
Park, S.S., Koh, Y., & Block, M. (2014). Contributing factors for successful inclusive physical
education. Palaestra, 28(1), 42–49.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park:
Sage.
Pedersen, S.J., Cooley, P.D., & Hernandez, K. (2014). Are Australian pre-service physical
education teachers prepared to teach inclusive physical education? Australian Journal
of Teaching Education, 39(4), 53–62.
Peers, D., Spencer-Cavaliere, N., & Eales, L. (2014). Say what you mean: Rethinking disability
language in Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
31, 265–282. PubMed doi:10.1123/apaq.2013-0091
Perkins, K., Columna, L., Lieberman, L., & Bailey, J. (2013). Parents’ perceptions of physi-
cal activity for their children with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment &
Blindness, 107, 131–142.
Petkova, A., Kudláček, M., & Nikolova, E. (2012). Attitudes of physical education students
(last university year) and physical education teachers towards teaching children with
physical disabilities in general physical education classes in Bulgaria. European Journal
of Adapted Physical Activity, 3, 82–98.
Petracovschi, S. (2012). Representation of the notion of competition in adapted sports by physi-
cal education and sports teachers in the centres of inclusion education in Timisoara and
the Timis County. Timisoara Physical Education and Rehabilitation Journal, 4(8), 14–21.
Piletic, C.K., & Davis, R. (2010). A profile of the introduction to adapted physical educa-
tion courses within undergraduate physical education programs. Journal of Research
in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 5(2), 26–32.
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Qi, J., & Ha, A.S. (2012a). Inclusion in physical education: A review of literature. Inter-
national Journal of Disability Development and Education, 59, 257–281. doi:10.10
80/1034912X.2012.697737
Qi, J., & Ha, A.S. (2012b). Hong Kong physical education teachers’ beliefs about teaching
students with disabilities: A qualitative analysis. Asian Social Science, 8(8), 3–14.
doi:10.5539/ass.v8n8p3
Reina, R., Lopez, V., Jimenez, M., Garcia-Calvo, T., & Hutzlerc, Y. (2011). Effects of
awareness interventions on children’s attitudes toward peers with a visual impair-
ment. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. [Internationale Zeitschrift
für Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue Internationale de Recherches de Readaptation],
34, 243–248. PubMed doi:10.1097/MRR.0b013e3283487f49
Rizzo, T.L. (2013). Top 10 issues in adapted physical education: A pilot study. Palaestra,
23(3), 21–26.
Roper, E.A., & Santiago, J.A. (2014). Influence of service-learning on kinesiology students’
attitudes towards P-12 students with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
31, 162–180. PubMed doi:10.1123/apaq.2013-0086
Roult, R., Carbonneau, H., Chan, T., Belley-Ranger, E., & Duquette, M-M. (2014). Physi-
cal activity and the development of the built environment in schools for youth with a
functional disability in Quebec. Sport Science Review, 23(5-6), 225–240.
Rust, R., & Sinelnikov, O. (2010). Practicum in a self-contained environment: Pre-service
teachers perceptions of teaching students with disabilities. Physical Educator, 67,
33–45.
Rybová, L., & Kudláček, M. (2013). The state of inclusion of students with physical
disabilities in general physical education in Prague and Central Bohemian Region.
European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 6, 57–61.
Samalot-Rivera, A., & Porretta, D.L. (2009). Perceptions and practices of adapted physical
educators on the teaching of social skills. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 26,
172–186. PubMed doi:10.1123/apaq.26.2.172
Sato, T., Hodge, S.R., Casebolt, K., & Samalot-Rivera, A. (2015). Physical education teacher
candidates’ beliefs about instructing students with disabilities in adapted aquatics.
International Journal of Aquatic Research and Education, 9, 309–328.
Simpson, K., & Mandich, A. (2012). Creating inclusive physical education opportunities in
elementary physical education. Physical & Health Education Journal, 77(4), 18–21.
Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability rights and wrongs. New York: Routledge.
Spencer-Cavaliere, N., & Watkinson, E.J. (2010). Inclusion understood from the perspec-
tives of children with disability. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 27, 275–293.
PubMed doi:10.1123/apaq.27.4.275
Stanish, H., Curtin, C., Must, A., Phillips, S., Maslin, M., & Bandini, L. (2015). Enjoy-
ment, barriers, and beliefs about physical activity in adolescents with autism spectrum
disorder. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32, 302–317. PubMed doi:10.1123/
APAQ.2015-0038
Svendby, E.B., & Dowling, F. (2013). Negotiating the discursive spaces of inclusive educa-
tion: Narratives of experience from contemporary physical education. Scandinavian
Journal of Disability Research, 15, 361–378. doi:10.1080/15017419.2012.735200
Táboas-Pais, M.I., & Rey-Cao, A. (2012). Disability in physical education textbooks: An
analysis of image content. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 29, 310–328. PubMed
doi:10.1123/apaq.29.4.310
Taliaferro, A.R., Hammond, L., & Wyant, K. (2015). Preservice physical educators’ self-
efficacy beliefs towards inclusion: The impact of coursework and practicum. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 32, 49–67. PubMed doi:10.1123/apaq.2013-0112
Taliaferro, A., & Harris, N.P. (2014). The effects of a one-day workshop on physical educa-
tors’ self-efficacy towards inclusion of students with autism. Palaestra, 28(3), 38–43.
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Tindall, D. (2013). Creating disability awareness through sport: Exploring the participation,
attitudes and perceptions of post-primary female students in Ireland. Irish Educational
Studies, 32, 457–475. doi:10.1080/03323315.2013.859339
Tindall, D., MacDonald, W., Carroll, E., & Moody, B. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes
towards children with disabilities: An Irish perspective. European Physical Education
Review, 21, 206–221. doi:10.1177/1356336X14556861
Umhoefer, D.L., Vargas, T.M., & Beyer, R. (2015). Adapted physical education service
approaches and the effects on the perceived efficacy beliefs of general physical educa-
tion teachers. Physical Educator, 72, 361–381.
UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris: Author.
van Amsterdam, N., Knoppers, A., & Jongmans, M. (2015). “It’s actually very normal that I’m
different”: How physically disabled youth discursively construct and position their body/
self. Sport Education and Society, 20, 152–170. doi:10.1080/13573322.2012.749784
Vickerman, P., & Blundell, M. (2012). English learning support assistants’ experiences of
including children with special educational needs in physical education. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 27, 143–156. doi:10.80/08856257.2011.645585
Wang, L., Qi, J., & Wang, L. (2015a). Beliefs of Chinese physical educators on teaching
students with disabilities in general physical education classes. Adapted Physical Activ-
ity Quarterly, 32, 137–155. PubMed doi:10.1123/APAQ.2014-0140
Wang, L., Wang, M., & Wen, H. (2015b). Teaching practice of physical education teach-
ers for students with special needs: An application of the theory of planned behavior.
International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 62, 590–607. doi:10
.1080/1034912X.2015.1077931
Wegner, L., & Struthers, P. (2011). Sports for learners with physical disabilities in ordinary
public primary schools in the Western Cape. African Journal for Physical, Health
Education, Recreation and Dance, June, 103–112. doi:10.4314/ajpherd.v17i3.68079
Wilkinson, S., Harvey, W.J., Bloom, G.A., Joober, R., & Grizenko, N. (2013). Student–
teacher experiences in a service-learning project for children with attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18, 475–491. doi:10
.1080/17408989.2012.690385
Woodruff, E.A., & Sinelnikov, O.A. (2015). Teaching young adults with disabilities
through service learning. European Physical Education Review, 21, 292–308.
doi:10.1177/1356336X14564171
Xafopoulos, G., Kudláček, M., & Evaggelinou, C. (2009). Effect of the intervention program
“Paralympic School Day” on attitudes of children attending international school towards
inclusion of students with disabilities. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis.
Gymnica, 39(4), 63–71.
Zhang, J. (2011). Quantitative analyses about market- and prevalence-based needs for
adapted physical education teachers in public schools in the United States. Physical
Educator, 68, 140–149.
Zitomer, M.R., & Goodwin, Z. (2014). Gauging the quality of qualitative research in
adapted physical activity. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 31, 193–218. PubMed
doi:10.1123/apaq.2013-0084
APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

A Systematic Review Inclusion of Physical Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Systematic Review Inclusion of Physical Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2017, 34, 311 -337

Inclusion of Children With Disabilities

Keywords: inclusive education, disability, special educational needs, integration

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

emphasizes disability as “the outcome of the interaction between individual and

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Figure 1 — Flowchart of study selection.

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Data Representation and Analysis

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

and one article focused on policy.

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

In- and Preservice PE Teachers

not found to directly relate to self-reported teacher behavior. However, intentions

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Physical Education Teacher Educators

Special Educational Needs (SEN) Coordinators and Learning

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Children With Disabilities

Children Without Disabilities

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

treatment effect on attitudes toward inclusion in PE among children without dis-

with disabilities rather than on differences, and to promote involvement in dis-

Children With and Without Disabilities Together

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Multiple Adult Perspectives

Physical Educational Policy

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

grants positively influenced inclusive physical education (Elliott et al., 2013).

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

the descriptive synthesis of contemporary research provides a good overview of

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

Baghurst, T. (2014). Encouraging disability appreciation among physical education, teacher

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

physical educators towards individuals with disabilities at University Parthenope of

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

advantages and disadvantages of online teacher development. Palaestra, 28(4), 14–16.

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

APAQ Vol. 34, No. 3, 2017

You might also like