Secondary Physical Education teachers’ beliefs on teaching students with disabilities at schools in Puerto Rico
	*University of Puerto Rico in Bayamón Department of Special and Elementary Physical Education (Puerto Rico) **The Ohio State University (EE.UU.)	Dr. Amaury Samalot-Rivera* amaurysamalot@netscape.com Dr. Samuel Hodge** hodge.14@osu.edu
	Abstract           The purpose of this study was to examine general physical education (GPE) teachers’ beliefs on teaching students with disabilities. The participants were five GPE teachers at schools in Puerto Rico (Central America). The research method was explanatory multiple-case study (Yin, 2003), situated in planned behavior theory (Ajzen, 1985). Data were secured with a demographic questionnaire, attitude survey, and interviews (Yin, 2003). Survey data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and indicate that the teachers’ judgments tend to vary on inclusion and their acceptance teaching students with disabilities. The teachers agreed that they needed more professional development training. Interview data were analyzed with constant comparative method and uncovered the recurrent themes: (a) more difficult and complicated, (b) self-efficacy, (c) paradoxical culture, (d) motives, and (e) worries. School districts should regularly engage GPE teachers in relevant professional development training focused on teaching students with disabilities in physical education.           Keywords: Inclusion. Students with disabilities. Puerto Rico. Regular Physical Education. Inclusive Physical Education.
	http://www.efdeportes.com/ Revista Digital - Buenos Aires - Año 13 - Nº 123 - Agosto de 2008

1 / 1

    Today, inclusion is a common educational practice in the United States (US) and elsewhere (Fitzgerald, 2006). Increasingly, researchers have studied how general physical education (GPE) teachers view, construct, and respond to inclusion (Grenier, 2006). The extant research base indicates that GPE teachers’ beliefs on inclusion and teaching students with a range of disabilities are influenced, both positively and negatively, by multiple variables. Of concern, Lieberman, Houston-Wilson, and Kozub (2002) found that inadequate professional preparation was the most common barrier to teachers effectively including students with disabilities in GPE. Research shows that GPE teachers often do not believe they know how best to teach students with disabilities, especially those with severe disabilities (Hodge, Ammah, Casebolt, LaMaster, & O’Sullivan, 2004; LaMaster, Gall, Kinchin, & Siedentop, 1998; Lieberman et al., 2002).

    To extend our knowledge base, more research is needed that focuses on the beliefs and experiences of culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse groups (Hodge, Kozub, Robinson, & Hersman, 2007). In conceptualizing this study, we sought to listen to the voices of a diverse group of Puerto Rican GPE teachers who teach students with disabilities in physical education. This study is part of a larger research study designed to examine the beliefs of physical education teachers on teaching students with disabilities in integrated classes.

    Puerto Rico is an island located between the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean. It is a Commonwealth of the US and has 78 municipalities³ (municipio) and more than 3.9 million residents (Welcome to Puerto Rico, 2006a). Of these, there are over 2 million female and 1.8 million male residents. Moreover, there are an estimated 525,000 adults (19.1%) with a disability with some 228,000 men and 298,000 women with a disability, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2006c). It is estimated that nearly 54% of the families on the island live in poverty and 30% of the 3,500 square miles of land mass is urbanized, with a density of 1,127 people per square mile (Welcome to Puerto Rico, 2006b). Most residents live in urban areas (U.S. Department of Education, 2005b). Puerto Rico has a rich diversity of people, cultures, traditions, languages, foods, music, dance, among others (Welcome to Puerto Rico, 2006c). Spanish and English are the official languages of Puerto Rico, however, Spanish is the predominant language used (Welcome to Puerto Rico, 2006a, 2006b). Both American and Spanish cultures⁴ influence the daily lives of Puerto Rico’s residents. But mostly the cultural influences are Hispanic⁵ in society, schools, and all institutions. Although US citizens, they identify themselves as Puerto Ricans foremost (Welcome to Puerto Rico, 2006b, 2006c). In expressing nationality, Puerto Ricans will often say “Soy de aquí como el coquí” (“I am as Puerto Rican as a coquí,” a type of frog native to the island) (Welcome to Puerto Rico, 2006a).

    The school system is administered by the Department of Education, which is responsible for schools across 10 geographical regions consisting of some 1,540 public and 569 private schools (Nómina, 2004a, 2004b; Welcome to Puerto Rico, 2006b).Education is obligatory in Puerto Rico for children and youth between 6 to 17 years old. There is an estimated enrollment of 596,502 preK-12 school-age children and youth in Puerto Rico (USDE, 2005b). In 2002-2003, some 61,168 students with disabilities ages six to 21 received special education or related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in Puerto Rico (USDE, 2006). Students attending urban and rural schools most often are from low to middle socioeconomic backgrounds, and many of them receive free or reduced lunch at school. Most (99.9%) students have Hispanic ancestry (US Census Bureau, 2006). In addition to Spanish, the primary language, English is also taught from K-12 (Welcome to Puerto Rico, 2006b).

    In 2002-2003, the school system in Puerto Rico had 163 physical education teachers employed to serve children and youth with disabilities under IDEA, Part B, at more than 1,540 public schools (Nómina, 2004a, 2004b; Loiz-Reyes, 2003; USDE, 2006). Of these teachers, 148 were fully certified in physical education, but did not necessarily possess adapted physical education (APE) certification (USDE, 2006). There exists a significant storage of certified APE teachers in Puerto Rico, thus too often GPE with little to no formal training to teach children and youth with disabilities do so in Puerto Rico’s schools (Loiz-Reyes, 2003; Nómina, 2003a, b).

Purpose and theoretical framework

    Situated in Ajzen’s (1985) theory of planned behavior (TpB), the purpose of this study was to examine Puerto Rican GPE teachers’ beliefs on teaching students with disabilities. TPB was judged an appropriate theoretical framework for interpreting the beliefs of GPE teachers on teaching students with disabilities. TPB posits that attitudes toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are the core aggregates of behavioral intention (Ajzen, 1985).

    TPB posits three conceptually independent determinants of intention: (a) attitude toward the behavior means the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question; (b) subjective norm means perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior; and (c) perceived behavioral control means perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior. That is, perceived behavioral control denotes a person's view of the ease or difficulty of performing the behavior of interest, which is partially dependent upon resources and opportunities available to perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

    These determinants are posited to be a product of three accessible belief systems: (a) behavioral which represent the influence attitudes toward the behavior, (b) normative which denotes the underlying determinants of subjective norms, and (c) control beliefs which provide the basis for perceptions of behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). From these accessible belief systems, behavioral intention is the immediate antecedent of a particular behavior. Given adequate control over the behavior, individuals are likely to carry out their intentions if afforded opportunities to do so (e.g., teacher modifies game play to include a student with a physical disability). In general, intentions “capture the motivational factors that influence a behavior; they are indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behavior” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181). This intent to perform a behavior assumes that the behavior in question is under volitional control (e.g., teacher has the competencies, resources, and opportunities to effectively teach students with disabilities).

Method

Research method

    An explanatory multiple-case study (Yin, 2003) was used to better understand the complex phenomena of teaching students with disabilities in GPE at schools in the cities of Arecibo, Isabela, Mayagüez, and San Sebastián (Puerto Rico). Explanatory (Yin, 2003) or interpretative (Merriam, 1998) case studies are “used to develop conceptual categories or to illustrate, support, or challenge theoretical assumptions held prior to data gathering” (Merriam, 1998, p. 38). Yin (2003) asserts that case study method can support both quantitative and qualitative strategies. Further, he stated that researchers “can use multiple strategies in any given study (e.g., a survey within a case study or case study within a survey)” (Yin, 2003, p. 9). For this study, data were collected with a demographic questionnaire, attitude survey, and audio-taped interviews.

Teachers, Students, and School Contexts

    Five Puerto Rican GPE teachers (4 males, 1 female; mean age = 43.6), Mario, José, Juan, Esther, and Antonio (pseudonyms), were selected from middle and high schools in the regions of Arecibo, Isabela, Mayagüez, and San Sebastián of Puerto Rico. Adhering to Yin’s (2003) guidelines, the selection of the participants involved contacting the district’s school principals and physical education coordinators for nominations of teachers matching the following selection criteria. The teachers: (a) represented diversity in personal background, culture, language, and work environment (Lienert, Sherrill, & Myers, 2001); (b) had received training in physical education teacher education (PETE) programs; (c) held physical education teaching certification; (d) had taught students with disabilities in GPE classes at the middle and/or high schools; and (e) were judged as effective teachers (Hodge et al., 2004; LaMaster et al., 1998). They all were certified to teach physical education and held a bachelor’s degree in education. Mario and José also had earned a master’s degree. The teachers had between 5 and 29 years of overall experience teaching and a range of 1 to 15 years of experience teaching students with disabilities (Table 1). In GPE, there is often an emphasis on sport-oriented activities such as basketball, volleyball, track and field, and softball. Related to this, many GPE teachers also coach sports and oversee intramural programs at their schools. The teachers in this study coached such sports as judo, basketball, fencing, and softball. No teacher aides were available to support their classes and only Esther had regular weekly support of an APE specialist at her school.

Table 1. Demographic Data on Teachers, School Contexts, and Students with Disabilities

Teacher	Gender	Age	Ethnicity		YrsExp		YrsSD		APEUG	APEG	APEPD
Mario	Male	45	Puerto Rican		14		5		0	0	3
José	Male	50	Puerto Rican		25		1		1	0	5
Juan	Male	42	Puerto Rican		21		15		3	0	0
Esther	Female	28	Puerto Rican		5		4		2	0	4
Antonio	Male	53	Puerto Rican		29		6		0	0	0
Demographic Information on School Contexts and Students
Teacher	Schoolcom	SchoolLevel		Classavg		RangeSWD		Student Disability Type
Mario	Urban	High school		26		0-3		LD, OI, MR
José	Urban	High school		25		0-2		ADD, LD, ED, MR, OI
Juan	Rural	High school		28		0-14		LD, MR, multiple disabilities, OI
Esther	Urban	Middle school		28		1-3		LD, Deaf, muscular dystrophy
Antonio	Urban	High school		26		0-2		LD, OI

Note. APE^UG = number of undergraduate APE courses; APE^G = number of graduate level APE courses; APE^PD = number of professional development opportunities; YrsExp = Years of experience teaching GPE; YrsSD = Years of experience teaching students with disabilities.

Note. School^com = context of school community; Class^avg = average class size; Range^SWD = range in the number of students with disabilities included per GPE class.

Note. ADD = Attention Deficit Disorder; ED = Emotional Disturbances; LD = Learning Disabilities; MR = Mental Retardation; MD =; OI= Orthopedic Impairment.

    The teachers averaged 18.8 years of experience teaching in GPE contexts and 6.2 (range of 1 to 15) years experience teaching students with disabilities (Table 1). They had taught students with various disability types and levels. Mario explained “During the last 14 years we have had the experience of working with students in wheelchairs and with mild as well as severe intellectual disabilities in physical education”. Juan said, “I have had so many experiences in these past 21 years that I cannot even begin to explain them all.” In contrast, José had the least experience in teaching students with disabilities. He explained, “I have had few experiences in the past because I used to refuse to have students with disabilities in my classroom, but I have had more experience this year.” Antonio made a similar point:

    I have not had a lot of experience teaching students with disabilities…, but, we do have special education students; however, most have learning disabilities. We also have had students in wheelchairs and one with movement difficulties in his arms.

    Mario explained that “physical education is required and the DOE [Department of Education] established that all children in Puerto Rico have…the right to participate in the regular physical education classes.” Increasingly, therefore, GPE teachers in Puerto Rico have experienced opportunities to teach students with disabilities in their classes, suggested Mario.

    Mario taught at an urban high school and was responsible for teaching four GPE classes daily. In these classes, he served on average 26 students with a range of zero to three students with learning disabilities (Table 1). Mario had 14 years of teaching experience but had taken no APE courses at either the undergraduate or graduate level. However, Mario stated that he kept current with APE practices by attending conferences and workshops.

    José also taught at an urban high school and he taught four classes each day with an average of 25 students including a range of zero to two students with disabilities. He had taken an APE course and had some additional professional development including adapted aquatics training.

    Juan taught in both a rural middle school and high school. He was responsible for teaching five GPE classes with an average of 28 students with a range of zero to 14 students with various disabilities. Juan had taken three undergraduate APE courses, but had received no other practicum or in-service training on inclusion or teaching students with disabilities.

    Esther taught in an urban middle school. She had taken a couple of undergraduate APE courses and engaged in several professional development workshops geared toward teaching students with disabilities. She taught five 7th grade classes with an average class size of 28 students. In all, Esther had teaching responsibility for nine students with disabilities (learning disabilities, hearing impairments, and one student with muscular dystrophy).

    Antonio taught at an urban high school and had taught physical education in public schools for 29 years. He had had no coursework in APE, nor did Antonio engage in any professional development focused on teaching students with disabilities. He taught four GPE classes daily serving a total of 102 students with an average class size of 26 students. Of these students, three had learning disabilities.

Instrumentation

    For each teacher at her or his school, data were collected with a demographic questionnaire (LaMaster et al., 1998), the Physical Educators’ Judgments about Inclusion (PEJI) survey (Hodge, Murata, & Kozub, 2002), and a focused interview approach (Yin, 2003). Prior to data collection, each instrument was translated from its original English version to Spanish using a cross-cultural translation technique to establish relevancy of the instruments to the teachers’ language and culture (Banville, Desrosiers, & Genet-Volet, 2000).

    Demographic questionnaire. For collecting demographic data, a questionnaire developed by LaMaster et al. (1998) was used. Data gathered included information about the makeup of the teachers’ classes (e.g., class size, disability types), gender, age, educational history, working conditions, teaching experience, access to services and supports, and teacher responsibilities in working with students who had disabilities (attending IEP meetings).

    Interview approach. The primary sources of data were audio-taped, face-to-face interviews using a two-phase, open-ended (conversational style) focused approach (Yin, 2003). Recent qualitative studies have used a similar approach (Goodwin, Fitzpatrick, Thurmeier, & Hall, 2006). We used open-ended questions in Spanish to facilitate a two-phase (i.e., reflecting and responding) interviewing process. In the reflection phase, twelve questions (translated from English to Spanish) were given to the teachers several days prior to the interview to permit them to reflect on their experiences and beliefs associated with teaching students with disabilities. The questions were constructed in the framework of TpB. In the responding phase, each teacher responded to questions asked in Spanish. Although the open-ended questionnaire ensured consistency of questions reflected on before the interview (reflection phase) and later asked during the interviews (responding phase), the data collector probed beyond the pre-established questions to get at the individual teachers’ cultural and contextual realities. The teachers were interviewed, uninterrupted, at their respective schools. Each interview was conducted and transcribed in Spanish, and later translated and transcribed into English.

    Typically, the focused interview sessions lasted 60 to 90-minutes (Yin, 2003). This also is consistent with previous qualitative studies in our field (Goodwin et al., 2006). More important, the teachers had work-related time constraints that we were mindful of in conducting the interviews. All interviews were audio taped with the teachers' permission, transcribed verbatim, and then these transcripts were translated from Spanish to English.

Data collection and analysis

    The lead author, a native Puerto Rican male fluent in Spanish and English and trained in case study and interviewing methods, served as the data collector and as one of several analysts to the study. During data collection, he was an adapted physical education doctoral candidate at a university in the US. Use of multiple-case study method was an economically feasible and time effective way of gathering data from physical education teachers at various schools across the island of Puerto Rico. All data were collected in a three-month period.

    Each teacher’s interview data were analyzed inductively by preparing the data (transcribing and translating), reducing the data (reading, bracketing, gleaning, and winnowing text), categorizing (using constant comparative procedures) and thematizing the data, and theorizing (Seidman, 1998; Yin, 2003). First, the interview data were prepared for analysis by transcribing and translating the audio taped interviews. Second, the lead author listened to each of the audio taped interviews while reading along with the written transcription to check for accuracy, corrections were made as needed. Third, the transcriptions were independently examined by the entire research team. They all engaged in a process of reducing, categorizing, thematizing, and theorizing the data. In reducing the text, the researchers read and marked with brackets passages they judged as of interest and importance. This process of gleaning text led to categorizing (category construction) and thematizing the data by connecting threads and patterns within categories and between categories resulting in the emergence of recurring themes (Merriam, 1998; Seidman, 1998).

Trustworthiness and transferability

    Multiple strategies were used to ensure trustworthiness. In brief, the researchers: (a) collaborated in designing the cases, (b) worked independently at first and later converged in analyzing and interpreting different pieces of data (i.e., triangulation of the data and investigator triangulation in searching for agreement and consistency of evidence from different data sources) to ensure dependability of the findings; and (c) used member checking to ensure credibility and confirmability (Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005).

    Our team of researchers worked in collaboration in designing and conducting these multiple case studies and as analysts in interpreting the different pieces of data within and across cases. In these cases, the lead author conducted member checks. He returned the interview transcripts (Spanish) to the respective teachers for their review to ensure correctness of content, and they were asked to comment, clarify, elaborate, or suggest changes that would accurately represent their beliefs and experiences (Brantlinger et al., 2005). All five teachers agreed with the accuracy of the data specific to his or her particular context, experiences, and beliefs.

    Transferability refers to “whether particular findings from a qualitative study can be transferred to another similar context or situation and still preserve the particularized meanings, interpretations, and inferences from the completed study” (Leininger, 1994, p. 106). The degree of transferability or fittingness of the findings beyond this multiple-case study to other contexts, situations, or cultures rests with identifiable congruence of integrated physical education classes, teachers, and students with and without various disabilities (Leininger, 1994).

Findings

    The findings are divided into two sections. First, PEJI results from responses of teachers in Puerto Rico are reported using descriptive statistics (Table 2). Next, thematic findings from within-case and cross-case analyses to capture the essence of the teachers’ beliefs are presented. The extracted themes are highlighted with direct quotes from the teachers.

Table 2. Physical Educators’ Judgments about Inclusion (PEJI) Subscales Results

	Subscalea		Subscaleb		Subscalec		Total Scale
Teacher	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Mario	3.6	1.7	3.8	1.3	4.5	1.2	4.0	1.4
José	4.4	0.9	2.0	1.4	3.7	0.8	3.5	1.4
Juan	3.0	2.0	5.0	0.0	4.3	1.6	4.1	1.7
Esther	2.4	0.9	4.0	0.0	4.0	1.5	3.5	1.3
Antonio	3.8	1.6	1.0	0.0	3.7	2.1	3.0	2.0

Note. Scoring scale: Strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; undecided = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5.

Note. Subscale^a = PEJI subscale—Judgments on Inclusion versus Exclusion Settings; Subscale^b = PEJI subscale—Judgments on Acceptance of Students with Disabilities; Subscale^c = PEJI subscale—Judgments on Perceived Training Needs; Total PEJI = Total PEJI scale data.

Quantitative results: judgments about inclusion

    On PEJI Subscale 1, Judgments about Inclusion versus Exclusion, descriptive data (i.e., means and standard deviations) suggests that the teachers were either in disagreement (e.g., Esther’s mean response was 2.4), undecided (Juan), or in agreement (Mario, José, and Antonio) with the position that students with disabilities should be integrated into GPE classes. More specifically, on the PEJI instrument, Esther disagreed with the statement that: “All students with disabilities should be taught in GPE”, but she agreed with the statement that: “Inclusion is an idealistic philosophy that will not work in GPE classes”. Of the five teachers, Esther had had the most experience teaching students with severe disabilities.

    Specific to PEJI Subscale 2, Judgments about Acceptance of Students with Disabilities, these teachers’ judgments tended to vary on their level of acceptance in teaching students with disabilities. They expressed unfavorable beliefs (i.e., mean scores of 1.0 and 2.0 for Antonio and José, respectively) to favorable beliefs (mean scores of 3.8, 4.0, and 5.0 for Mario, Esther, and Juan, respectively) toward teaching students who were hard of hearing, visually impaired, learning disabled, and physically disabled. Specifically, Antonio and José disagreed to strongly disagreed with the statement that: (a) I would readily accept teaching a student who is hard of hearing in my PE classes, (b) I would readily accept teaching a student who is visually impaired in my PE classes, and (c) I would readily accept teaching a student who is learning disabled in my PE classes. Antonio strongly disagreed but José agreed with the statement: I would readily accept teaching a student who is physically disabled in my PE classes. Of the teachers, Antonio and José were the two most experienced veteran teachers (Table 1) but had had very limited experience teaching students with severe disabilities in their GPE classes.

    On PEJI Subscale 3, Judgments about Perceived Training Needs, descriptive data (means from 3.7 to 4.5) indicate that all five teachers believed they needed additional professional training, knowledge, exposure, and assistance from others (e.g., APE specialists, peer tutors) to more effectively teach students with mild to severe disabilities.

    Of note, Antonio’s mean responses appear contradictory as he was in support of inclusion (i.e., based on PEJI Subscale 1 mean response of 3.8), but would not readily accept teaching students with various disabilities into his GPE (PEJI Subscale mean response 1.0). A closer inspection of the data helps to explain what appears to be a contradiction in his responses. Antonio, a 29 year veteran teacher, had no training on teaching students with disabilities. He had had no APE course work or practicum, he had no professional development training geared toward teaching students with disabilities, and he had no APE specialists available for support and/or consultation with him at his school. Antonio’s mean responses on PEJI Subscale 3, reveal his belief that he needed training to acquire knowledge and skills, and needed help from others (e.g., APE specialists) before he would readily accept teaching students with disabilities in GPE.

Teachers’ beliefs: recurring themes

    Our findings indicate that GPE teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with disabilities are influenced by experiences teaching such students at urban and rural schools in Puerto Rico. The teachers’ beliefs were captured in several recurring themes. The themes were: (a) more difficult and complicated, (b) self-efficacy depends, (c) paradoxical culture, (d) motivates, and (e) worries. These themes are described in narrative with quotes from the teachers.

More Difficult and Complicated

    This recurring theme captures the belief that teaching students with disabilities, especially those with severe disabilities, is more difficult in inclusive settings than teaching students without disabilities in GPE classes. Consistently, the teachers asserted that it is more difficult teaching students with various types of disabilities (e.g., Deafness, physical disabilities, visual impairments) compared to teaching students with mild disabilities and students without disabilities. The teachers also asserted that it is more difficult due to greater time demands in planning lessons to include students with disabilities in class activities, more attention given to students with disabilities, more time demanding providing individualized instruction, and more difficult not knowing how best to include students with disabilities in class activities.

    In addition, a lack of adequate professional preparation and support were viewed as contributing factors to some of the difficulties the teachers experienced. Antonio summed it up best in saying, “I think that for any of us it is difficult to teach any student if we do not have the proper preparation and support”. Further, Antonio identified student disability types and severity as increasing the level of difficulty. “Students with mild disabilities are less difficult to teach because they learn faster. When you have a student with severe disabilities the time that it takes them to execute the skills is longer, so it is more difficult to work with them”. Antonio believed, “It is more difficult when we have students with physical disabilities in a wheelchair or visual impairments or Deafness”. It is more difficult, he stated, “to give them the proper instructions because we do not know the proper way to communicate with them or how to treat them” (Antonio, Interview). Juan had similar beliefs:

    It is not that easy, because we have to work more individualized with these students. It depends on the disability and on the student, and for that we will change the daily planning. You have to make some adjustments… But yes it is a little more difficult because I need to consider the specific disability of each student. (Juan, Interview)

    Likewise, Esther said, it “all depends on the disability and how severe it is. If I have the help of the APE teacher in school it will not be that difficult, but if I am alone that will change my class, the program, and the planning to try to work with them”. José was frustrated with some of the difficulties he had experienced. He said, “I don’t know why… but this year I have them [students with disabilities] and it is really difficult…incredibly difficult, very difficult and I have some students that I cannot deal with” (José, Interview).

    Across cases, the teachers believed that inclusive classes were more difficult and complicated to teach due to the additional time needed for planning and individualizing instruction for students with disabilities. Mario stated “It is more tedious. I try to make sure the students with disabilities actively participate, make accommodations for these students, and follow-up on an individual basis and this takes more work. As well, Juan stated, “It is not that easy, because we have to work more individualized with these students”. José’s sentiments were similar. He said, “It is a lot more difficult! First of all you have to make two lesson plans. One plan for the regular students and one lesson plan for the special education students. It takes time from me”.

    More so than any other reason, the GPE teachers believed that it was more difficult and complicated for them to teach students with disabilities due to their lack of adequate professional preparation and a lack of support for their classes. On this point, Antonio stated, “…it is difficult for us because we were not trained to teach PE to students with disabilities”. Repeatedly, he said, “…students with mild disabilities, I can handle them very well, but students with severe disabilities are difficult for us because we do not have the preparation and support”.

Self-efficacy depends

    The essence of this theme is that these GPE teachers believed their self-efficacy in teaching students with disabilities was dependent largely on their experiences, knowledge, formal training, student disability type and severity, resources, and supports (e.g., APE specialist). Mostly, the teachers had experience teaching students with learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, and intellectual disabilities at the mild-moderate level. They had much less experience teaching students with severe disabilities and held low to modest levels of confidence in teaching such students. Esther did have a student with severe muscular dystrophy and a Deaf student included in her GPE classes. Both Juan and José had experience coaching students with various disabilities in sport contexts. In general they had limited experiences teaching students with severe disabilities and believed they were inadequately prepared to teach such students. This had an adverse affect on their confidence and self-efficacy.

    During their undergraduate preparation, José, Juan, and Esther had taken one to three APE courses. None of the teachers had taken an APE course at the graduate level. Mario, José, and Esther said that they had participated in a number of professional development opportunities (e.g., workshops, conferences) geared toward teaching students with disabilities. The teachers also mentioned using self help strategies (e.g., reading disability literature, consulting their professional colleagues) to enhance their efficacy in teaching students with disabilities. For example, Esther asserted, “I always feel sure about what I am doing because I always try to get information about their condition to be able to work with them”. Similarly, Juan stated,

    I try to learn more as an educator every year with continuing education. …But, yes, I understand that I feel confident in my abilities and with the help of my colleagues, the DOE in preparing us and providing us with continuing education, workshops, and also the special education teacher of the school all united we can do a good job for the students. (Juan, Interview)

    Despite cautious optimism, Juan felt that a lack of knowledge and limited formal training adversely affects teachers’ confidence in teaching students with disabilities. Further, Juan stated that GPE teachers in Puerto Rico are inadequately prepared to teach students with disabilities.

    Our preparation in the university only briefly touches on what special education is about, we take some courses that are requisites but they are very ambiguous and then you have to figure out how to deal with the situation when you get this student [student with severe physical disability] and work the best you can. If the philosophy is to integrate students with disabilities into the regular setting, please provide us with proper orientation to disability and education so we know what to do with them in any given condition, there are norms and laws that we do not know about.

    Likewise, Mario did not feel prepared to teach students with disabilities due to a lack of adequate training. He stressed, “I think we have not been well prepared”. “The DOE has not prepared us to teach students with disabilities, but then they tell us—you have to work with it, but how are we going to do that if we do not have the specialized training?” [Mario, Interview] Also speaking of the DOE, Jose stated that “Obviously, the DOE has to send us to take some courses to be prepared to deal with inclusion that is more frequent [in the schools] now”. For Antonio:

    First, I need to learn how to work with them [students with disabilities], because I don’t know. Honestly, I don’t know what to do and what is needed to work with a student with severe disabilities. I need a better preparation. In addition, we don’t have the proper facilities or the necessary equipment to work with them. (Antonio, Interview)

    Juan stated, “We, the regular physical educators, do not have the preparation needed to know about every specific condition”.

    The teachers also believed that severity and type of student disability and a lack of supports were critical factors that had an impact on their confidence and effectiveness. For example, Esther stated that for students with mild disabilities it is “a little easier” to teach them. But for “students with severe disabilities, I would have to look for extra help from the adapted physical educator”. Esther explained, “Look! Not only me. But all the PE teachers need to know more about the disabilities the students have and how to work with them”.

    To compensate for their limited experience, inadequate preparation, and general lack of support, the teachers used various strategies (e.g., reading, asking colleagues for help, using peer tutors) to better integrate students with disabilities into their classes. For example, Juan asked students without disabilities to support their classmates with disabilities in class activities. For him, “Using your regular students as resources is extremely important to be successful with the student with disabilities. I have students who are very good and who you can help understand that with their abilities they can help their peers with disabilities. …I can see that with a little effort we can accomplish big things”.

    José and Antonio also used various strategies such as asking APE specialists for help and guidance, and searching various resources for information to be more effective teaching students with disabilities. José said, “I don’t feel well prepared, but I search for help and develop a different plan for student with disabilities. That is what I do. I look for help, I learn in the process”. Antonio also explained his approach:

    When I have students with physical disabilities in my classes, I call Mr. Vigo because he is a teacher in APE and I ask him what to do with these students. He gives me examples and different tasks to work on with them, and helps me a lot. …I prepare, read, look for resources, I read the IEP, talk with the special education teacher and APE specialist in the area, and ask them what do I have to do, what should I not do, how should I work with this person, and I ask the student with a disability what he wants from the class, what he wants to do and then I develop a plan specifically for him.

    Repeatedly, teachers expressed their desire and the need to be supported by the Department of Education in terms of more adequate professional preparation on how to teach students with disabilities. Antonio made the comments that “at this moment if the DOE provides us with the time to take courses in adapted [physical education] and how to teach students with severe disabilities, I would take those courses to be prepared”. Juan summarized this as the “DOE should give us the tools and preparation to work with these types of students”.

Paradoxical culture

    The paradoxical culture of inclusive practice is captured in this theme. For these teachers, inclusive classes were typified as birthing a culture that was inspiring for them, socially dynamic with students supporting one another, and participatory as the teachers modified and adapted class activities to include students with disabilities. For example, Esther and Mario spoke of positive aspects of inclusive classes. “You learn things about them [students with disabilities] and the other students also begin to know them” “It is really beautiful”, said Esther. Speaking of a student with severe disabilities, Mario stated:

    He wanted to play basketball, he was in a wheelchair and we got him to the court and he shot some hoops and we adapted the class so he could play chess. We try to adapt to his level of ability. He liked it and said that was a great experience. (Mario, Interview)

    Paradoxically, inclusive classes were typified as infringing on instructional time and hence adversely affecting the learning experience for students without disabilities. Moreover, inclusive classes were at times places where students with disabilities were ridiculed, became the target of jokes, and on occasions segregated from classmates without disabilities. Moreover, some teachers held uneven expectations of students and separated students with disabilities from classmates without disabilities. For example, Juan said, “I had to divide my class giving general instruction to the regular students and more specific and individualistic instruction to the students with disabilities”. Plus, some teachers believed the inclusion of students with disabilities negatively affected the learning experience of classmates without disabilities. In addition to this, Antonio described another negative aspect of inclusive classes.

    There are many times when the regular students see students with severe disabilities and they make jokes about them. This is not all the students, but I think is because of a lack of knowledge and exposure to the students with disabilities. (Antonio, Interview)

    The teachers varied in their beliefs on whether or not inclusive programming had changed their teaching behaviors or class dynamics. In some cases, the teachers believed that including students with disabilities in GPE did little to change the environment. Esther claimed, “It really does not change my learning environment”. Yet the teachers spoke of a need for support and a need to adapt and do some things differently such as lowering performance expectations for students with disabilities. For some teachers, the inclusion of students with disabilities “takes away” from the learning experience of students without disabilities. José asserted that it “changed the environment because I now pay less attention to the regular students … because there are students with disabilities that require very intense assistance”.

Motivates

    Mostly, these teachers were intrinsically motivated to teach students with disabilities. Less influential were extrinsic motivates such as educational policies. Some extrinsic influences came from (a) praise and compliments from parents of students with disabilities, (b) having a family member with disabilities, and (c) teachers’ professional colleagues. But, the teachers were primarily motivated by a sense of gratification in helping students with disabilities succeed, gain acceptance from peers, and participate in class activities. For example, Juan’s motivates in teaching students with disabilities was to make sure they felt accepted, felt as though they were a part of the group, and that they were actively involved in class activities. He explained that the “thing that most impacts me is to be able to see after a hard working year that you have achieved your goals; for example, seeing the smiles on your students’ faces with the satisfaction that they improved” (Juan, Interview). Esther expressed similar thoughts. “I really think I do it out of the love I feel for the students”. Moreover she said, “Seeing a student with a happy face is very meaningful for me”. Further evidence of the teachers’ motivates was captured in Antonio’s comments. The “thing that most fulfills me is the love that these students give to you. …You remember them for all your life”. Likewise, Mario was motivated and stated that the “most significant thing for me is when the child learns, when the child gives me a hug” and “that the child has accomplished, this for me is a big satisfaction” so the “my motivation is the kids, how much I can get from those kids” (Mario, Interview).

    Although the teachers had limited experience teaching students with severe disabilities, Juan and José did have experience coaching athletes with severe disabilities in sports. They shared success stories involving students with disabilities as sources of motivation and inspiration in sport contexts. For Esther, growing up with a family member with disability motivated her to teach students with disabilities. My “motivation has been my cousin, he has mental retardation… Over the years, I have seen the way he has been isolated from others”.

Worries

    This theme reflects worries voiced by the teachers associated with teaching students with disabilities. In general, they were worried about their self-efficacy and the safety of students with disabilities. They were challenged, as teachers, to find more effective ways to communicate with their professional colleagues and to help students with disabilities gain acceptance from their peers without disabilities. Further, they expressed concerns at not being able to give proper instruction to students without disabilities on those occasions where they gave more attention to students with disabilities. Antonio, José, and Esther expressed concerns related to not providing students with proper instruction or opportunities to be successful in their classes, and concerns about time demands in teaching students with disabilities. Further, they had concerns in teaching students with disabilities, particularly students with severe disabilities (e.g., physical disabilities) due to inadequate preparation. For example, Antonio said, “My biggest concern is not being able to effectively teach students with disabilities. …I do not have the preparation and because I do not have it, it is going to be very difficult to reach them like a teacher who is prepared”. José was concerned that he might accidentally harm a student with a disability. He explained, “My biggest concern will be that involuntarily I will harm a student with a disability. …I am very careful and I don't do anything without consulting with the special education teacher, and she tells me how I should work with the student” (José, Interview). Also concerned about student safety, Esther commented, “My concern is not to do a contraindicated activity with them…and cause an injury to a student this will affect me emotionally. …without knowing how to work with them” said Esther “Very scary!” José stated that his “biggest challenge is not to fail. For this reason, I am careful and take more time and sometimes I even abandon the regular students without disabilities for a little while because the students with disabilities need a lot of time and attention” (José, Interview). For Juan, a lack of support and communication with special education teachers made teaching students with disabilities was a concern. He explained:

    My first worry is that the special educators in Puerto Rico have so much work that sometimes it is difficult for them to get close to the regular teachers to inform us about the students with disabilities and sometimes we don’t get to know about these cases until weeks after the classes begin. …We need to have more direct communication with the special education teacher…I think this is my most legitimate concern. (Juan, Interview)

    The teachers were challenged in their efficacy by a lack of knowledge in teaching students with disabilities. They were challenged to individualize instruction and to more effectively communicate while teaching students with disabilities. For example, Antonio exclaimed the “biggest challenge in teaching students with disabilities is trying to make sure they understand me”. He continued, “But I have to try to reach them and not being able to reach them frustrates me”. Mario voiced similar worry. “My biggest concern is to know what kind of learning approach I will use for this student”. “Is it command? Is it reciprocal? Is it divergent? For me it is stressful to know which specific learning approach fits so I can get his best effort” said Mario.

Discussion

    The purpose of this study was to examine the beliefs of GPE teachers on teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes at schools in Puerto Rico. We found that the teachers perceived it as difficult to teach students with disabilities, particularly those students with severe disabilities. Their perceptions that it was difficult teaching students with severe disabilities was exacerbated due to inadequate PETE preparation and a lack of resources and supports, which in TpB helps explain why they had low to modest levels of confidence in their efficacy teaching such students.

    In circumstances where, for example, a teacher has adequate control over a particular teaching behavior (e.g., teacher competently modifies game play to include a student with disabilities), he or she is likely to carry out his/her intentions if afforded opportunities to do so.

    In these cases, the teachers believed teaching students with disabilities, particularly those students with severe disabilities, was more difficult and complicated than teaching students without disabilities. They believed a lack of knowledge and inadequate professional preparation left them unprepared to teach students with various disabilities. These findings are consistent with previous findings (Hodge et al., 2004; LaMaster et al., 1998; Lieberman et al., 2002). In fact, Lieberman et al. found that lack of professional preparation was the most prevalent barrier reported by GPE teachers to including students with visual impairments in GPE classes. Often GPE teachers do not believe that they know what to do in working with students with disabilities (Hodge et al., 2004; LaMaster et al., 1998; Lieberman et al., 2002). In general, the teachers in Puerto Rico had limited experience teaching students with severe disabilities, which adversely impacted their self-efficacy and this was exacerbated by their inadequate professional preparation. Consequently, their perceptions were that teaching students with disabilities was difficult and complicated (perceived behavioral control), particularly in GPE classes with limited resources and little support. In TpB, a teacher’s inadequate professional preparation and limited knowledge on how to best teach students with various disabilities would have an adverse affect on her perceived behavioral control in doing so and reduce her motivate to perform teaching behaviors with such students.

    In Puerto Rico, most undergraduate PETE programs require only one course in APE, which is also typical throughout the US (Hodge & Jansma, 1999). The introductory APE course as taught in Puerto Rico typically focuses on identifying various disability types, definitions, causes, and scope of disabling conditions, but with little or no content covered on inclusive instructional strategies (Canabal, 1991, 1992; Santini- Rivera, 2004). This is characteristic of a categorical approach or disability-specific format to teacher preparation (Jansma & French, 1994), but void of sufficient content on effective instructional strategies for working with students who have disabilities. What's more, the APE course in Puerto Rico typically does not require a practicum component (Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico, 1992). Hence for many novice GPE teachers their initial contact and experience teaching students with disabilities is when they enter into their first teaching context. In addition, the Department of Education’s requirement to obtain a teaching license in K-12 physical education is only a three credit hours course in APE (Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico, 1992; Santini- Rivera, 2004). Beyond this requirement, the teachers in the current study had taken no graduate APE courses. Lacking adequate PETE preparation and support led them to view inclusive classes as more difficult and complicated; for instance, they do not have the proper training or knowledge to deal with individualizing instruction to effectively teach students with severe disabilities (Knowles, 1981; LaMaster et al., 1998). These findings support recent findings (Hodge et al., 2004) revealing that GPE teachers are often unprepared to teach students with disabilities.

    Clearly, the GPE teachers studied in Puerto Rico had low to modest confidence in teaching students with disabilities. They felt that inadequate PETE preparation had adversely affected their confidence in teaching students with disabilities, particularly students with severe disabilities. In addition, they believed a lack of support negatively affected their efficacy in teaching students with severe disabilities. On PETE preparation, Hodge, Davis, Woodard, and Sherrill (2002) compared the effects of two practicum types (off and on campus) on teacher candidates’ attitudes and perceived competence in teaching students with severe disabilities. They reported that these teacher candidates' attitudes did not change significantly, but their perceived competence in teaching students with disabilities improved significantly after matriculating in an APE course coupled with both on- and off-campus practicum types. Earlier research has shown a strong link between professional preparation and perceived competence in teaching individuals with disabilities (Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996). In TpB, teachers’ self-efficacy is strongly influenced by confidence in the skills they possess. This suggests that the teachers in the current study were right in their assertion that they needed additional professional preparation to feel more confident and effective in teaching students with disabilities.

    Despite perceptions of inadequacies (professional preparation, knowledge, and limited experience), the teachers in Puerto Rico expressed mostly favorable attitudes toward providing appropriate instruction to students with disabilities and sought to improve their practice with self-help strategies, sought out support from professional colleagues (e.g., APE specialist, special education teacher), and used peer partners in their classes. Previous research indicates that academic preparation and perceived competence are strong predictors of teachers’ attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities in GPE (Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996). But, Rizzo and Kirkendall (1995) reported that these predictors of attitudes account for only 9% of the variance. More research is needed on PETE teacher candidates’ preparation and teachers’ personal variables (e.g., self-confidence) to better understand these variables (Kozub & Lienert, 2003).

    In Puerto Rico, the GPE teachers stated that a lack of communication with and support from professional colleagues (e.g., special education teachers) also adversely impacted their efficacy in teaching students with disabilities. For instance, the teachers explained that often a student with disabilities would be included in their GPE classes without them ever receiving adequate information from the school’s special education teacher on the student’s disability or receiving the student’s individualized education plan. The GPE teachers felt that there was a need for better communication and collaboration between them and special education teachers (Knowles, 1981). As such, they had positive dispositions at searching for support and trying to provide appropriate services to students with disabilities. Some of the strategies they used were (a) peer partners, (b) retrieving information from the Internet and elsewhere, (c) consulting APE specialists and special education teachers, and (d) reading disability-related literature.

    The theme ‘paradoxical culture’ captured the teachers’ beliefs that inclusive classes were environments typified with both positive and negative aspects (Goodwin & Watkinson, 2000; Grenier, 2006; Place & Hodge, 2001). The teachers reflected on rewarding experiences where both students with and without disabilities benefited from inclusive programming (Fitzgerald, 2006). In contrast, they also believed that inclusive programming had an adverse impact on class instructional time, which negatively affected students without disabilities. Further, inclusive classes were places where students with disabilities were ridiculed (e.g., target of jokes) by classmates. At times, the teacher purposely would “divide” (segregated inclusion) students with disabilities from classmates without disabilities. This phenomenon in “inclusive” classes where students with and without disabilities are segregated from one another has been reported in the literature (Butler & Hodge, 2004; Place & Hodge, 2001).

    Research indicates that at times students with disabilities experience social isolation, which occurs when students with disabilities have limited social interaction with classmates without disabilities (Goodwin & Watkinson, 2000; Place & Hodge, 2001). Place and Hodge found what they called segregated inclusion. This refers to occasions where students with disabilities are included within the GPE class, but physically separated from peers without disabilities, whether encouraged by the teacher or initiated by the students. Recently, Grenier (2006) reported on a teacher, Sue [pseudonym] who intentionally structured the class environment to include a student [Jack] with cerebral palsy and a visual impairment in class activities with his classmates without disabilities. This GPE teacher made curricular adaptations that promoted interactions between peers, and devoted time and energy in her planning to promote students’ purposeful participation in activities together. Despite Sue’s best efforts to include Jack in class activities with his classmates, “there were days when this was not always possible” (p. 253).

    This study’s findings again draw attention to issues on PETE professional preparation (Hodge, Davis et al., 2002). In the US and Puerto Rico, PETE teacher candidates are typically exposed to only one introductory APE course (Hodge & Jansma, 1999; Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995), with some programs not offering any type of practicum training (Hodge & Jansma, 1999). Such limited professional preparation has been questioned and judged inadequate at preparing teacher candidates to work effectively in inclusive GPE (Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996). Under this approach, Hodge, Tannehill, and Kluge (2003) found that PETE teacher candidates’ attitudes and perceived competency were favorably influenced by what they considered as challenging, rewarding, and meaningful practicum experiences. But, if the quality of practicum experiences is not satisfying, novice teachers' attitudes and perceived competence may be adversely impacted (Downs & Williams, 1994; Lavay & DePaepe, 1987). Repeatedly educators have called for restructuring of PETE programs to an infusion curricular approach that would provide information and experiences for teacher candidates to practice effective pedagogy with students with disabilities throughout their professional preparation (Kowalski & Rizzo, 1996).

Conclusions

    Teachers’ efficacy in teaching students with disabilities will be improved with on-going relevant professional development (O’Sullivan & Deglau, 2006). Departments of education and school districts should consider this in making personnel decisions and should engage GPE teachers in such training that will “help them shift their thinking and their practice to ensure better-quality physical education teaching and programming for the children and youth they serve” (Bechtel & O’Sullivan, 2006, p. 378). In conclusion, relevant and effective professional development training is needed for teachers to feel confident and perform effectively teaching students with disabilities in inclusive physical education (Akuffo & Hodge, 2008).

Author’s Notes

1. Employed, fully certified refers to qualified personnel, which includes: (a) staff who hold appropriate certification and licensure for the position held, (b) staff in personnel categories that do not require certification or licensure contingent upon the staff meeting existing state standards or requirements for the position held, and (c) staff in positions for which no state requirement exists (USDE, 2005a, p. 46).

2. Employed, not fully certified refers to “personnel employed or contracted to provide special education and related services who did not have appropriate state certification or licensure for their position” (USDE, 2005a, p. 72).

3. Municipalities (municipio) are administrative local areas (city, town, village) governed by a popularly elected mayor and municipal assembly. The US Census Bureau treats the municipio as the statistical equivalent of a county (Welcome to Puerto Rico, 2006a).

4. Culture represents ‘ways of life’ practices, traditions, and behaviors, which suggests that culture cuts across race and ethnicity attributes and is largely linked to socioeconomic status, social positioning, and family histories (Rogoff, 2003).

5. Hispanic refers to persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin (USDE, 2005a). Hispanics may be of any race but with their own ethno-specific values, attitudes, and behaviors. To reduce overgeneralizations, Marin and Marin (1991) stressed that research focused on only one Hispanic subgroup should describe that particular subgroup instead of using the generic label Hispanic.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control from cognition to behavior (pp. 11-19). Heidelberg: Springer.

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

• Akuffo, P. B., & Hodge, S. R. (2008). Roles and responsibilities of adapted physical education teachers in an urban school district. Education and Urban Society, 40(2), 243-268.

• Banville, D., Desrosiers, P., & Genet-Volet, Y. (2000). Translating questionnaires and inventories using a cross-cultural translation technique. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19, 374-387.

• Bechtel, P. A., & O’Sullivan, M. (2006). Paper 2: Effective professional development—What we now know. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 363-378.

• Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195-207.

• Butler, R. S., & Hodge, S. R. (2004). Social inclusion of students with disabilities in middle school physical education classes. Research in Middle School Level Education, 27, 1-10, retrieved September 23, 2006 from Academic Search Premier database.

• Canabal, M.Y. (1992). Integración de poblaciones especiales: Educación física y recreación para todos. EDFIES: Revista de Educación Física, 5(1), 41-44.

• Canabal, M.Y. (1991). Educación física integrada: Issues y sugerencias para programas de preparación profesional. EDFIES: Revista de Educación Fisica, 4(1),14-18.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Disability and health state chartbook: Profiles of health for adults with disabilities. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico (1992). Currículo de educación física para la escuela elemental. Hato Rey, Puerto Rico: Departamento de Educación de Puerto Rico.

• Fitzgerald, H. (2006). Disability and physical education. In D. Kick, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 752-766). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Goodwin, D. L., Fitzpatrick, D. A., Thurmeier, R., & Hall, C. (2006). The decision to join Special Olympics: Parents’ perspectives. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23, 163-183.

• Goodwin D. L. & Watkinson, E. J. (2000). Inclusive physical education from the perspective of students with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17, 144-160.

• Grenier, M. (2006). A social constructionist perspective of teaching and learning in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23, 245-260.

• Hodge, S. R., Ammah, J. O. A., Casebolt, K., LaMaster, K., & O’Sullivan, M. (2004). High school general physical education teachers' behaviors and beliefs associated with inclusion. Sport, Education and Society. Society, 9(3), 395-419.

• Hodge, S.R., Davis, R., Woodard, R., & Sherrill, C. (2002). Comparison of practicum types in changing preservice teachers’ attitudes and perceived competence. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 155-171.

• Hodge, S. R., & Jansma, P. (1999). Effects of contact time and location of practicum experiences on attitudes of physical education majors. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16, 48-63.

• Hodge, S. R., Kozub, F. M., Robinson, L. E., & Hersman, B. L. (2007). Reporting gender, race, ethnicity, and sociometric status: Guidelines for research and professional practice. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24, 21-37.

• Hodge, S. R., Murata, N. M., & Kozub, F. (2002). Physical educators’ judgments about inclusion: a new instrument for pre-service teachers. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19,435-452.

• Hodge, S. R., Tannehill, D., & Kluge, M. A. (2003). Exploring the meaning of practicum experiences for PETE students. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 381-399.

• Jansma, P. & French, R. (1994). Special physical education: Physical activity, sports, and recreation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

• Kowalski, E. M., & Rizzo, T. L. (1996). Factors influencing preservice student attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 180-196.

• Kozub, F. M., & Lienert, C. (2003). Attitudes toward teaching children with disabilities: Review of literature and research paradigm. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 323-346.

• LaMaster, K., Gall, K., Kinchin, G., & Siedentop, D. (1998). Inclusion practice of effective elementary physical education specialists. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15, 64-81.

• Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.). Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 95-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Lieberman, L. J., Houston-Wilson, C., & Kozub, F. M. (2002). Perceived barriers to including students with visual impairments in general physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 364-377.

• Lienert, C., Sherrill, C., & Myers, B. (2001). Physical educator’s beliefs about integrating children with disabilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18, 1-17.

• Loiz-Reyes, E. (April 2, 2003). Report on teachers not certified in Puerto Rico for the No Child Left Behind Act. Circular memorandum to school administrators by the Office of Federal Affairs, Puerto Rico Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

• Marin, G., & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

• Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

• MINITAB Statistical Software. (2000). MINITAB Release 13 for windows. State College, PA: Minitab Inc.

• Nómina (Puerto Rico Departamento de Educación, 2004a). Physical education teachers of the public education system of Puerto Rico report per category, academic preparation and school district. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Departamento de Educación, Statistics Division.

• Nómina (Puerto Rico Departamento de Educación, 2004b). Physical education teachers of the public education system of Puerto Rico report per school district. San Juan, Puerto Rico: Departamento de Educación, Statistics Division.

• O’Sullivan, M., & Deglau, D. (2006). Paper 7: Principles of professional development. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 441-449.

• Place, K., & Hodge, S. R. (2001). Social inclusion of students with physical disabilities in general physical education: A behavioral analysis. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18, 389-404.

• Rizzo, T. L., & Kirkendall, D. R. (1995). Teaching students with mild disabilities: What affects attitudes of future physical educators? Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 205-216.

• Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. NY: Oxford University Press.

• Santini-Rivera, M. (2004). Teoría y práctica de la educación física elemental y adaptada. Hato Rey, Puerto Rico: Publicaciones Puertorriqueñas.

• Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research. A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

• Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (2001). Research methods in physical activity (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

• U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). Population profile of the United States: Dynamic version. Population distribution in 2004. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/profiledynamic.html

• U. S. Department of Education. (2005a). OSEP IDEA, Part B data dictionary. Rockville, MD: Westat. Retrieved July 18, 2006, from http://www.ideadata.org

• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs (2005b). 26th Annual (2004) Report to Congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act, 1, Washington, D.C.

• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs (2006). 26th Annual (2004) Report to Congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act, 2, Washington, D.C.

• Welcome to Puerto Rico. (2006a). Description. Retrieved October 22, 2006, from http://www.topuertorico.org/descrip.shtml

• Welcome to Puerto Rico. (2006b). People. Retrieved October 22, 2006, from http://www.topuertorico.org/people.shtml

• Welcome to Puerto Rico. (2006c). Puerto Rico culture. Retrieved October 22, 2006, from http://www.topuertorico.org/culture.shtml

• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Another articles In English

revista digital · Año 13 · N° 123 | Buenos Aires, Agosto de 2008   © 1997-2008 Derechos reservados