Inclusion in Physical Education: A review of literature
Submitted by
Marty Smith
Aaron Krieger
Qi, J., & Ha, A. s. (2012). Inclusion in Physical Education: A review of literature. International Journal Of Disability, Development & Education, 59(3), 257-281.
Reviewers’ Credentials
The article entitled, “Inclusion in Physical Education: A review of literature,” covers a study conducted by Jing Qi and Amy S. Ha. Jing Qi is a professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong in Sports Science and Physical Education as well as Ningxia University in the School of Physical Education. Amy S. Ha is a professor at The Chinese University of Hong Kong in Sports Science and Physical Education and is the corresponding author. Besides this review of literature, the two authors have worked on other documents relating to the content area in Physical Education.
The reviewer’s reputation and experience is notable due to their expertise in the content area of Physical Education. Both Qi and Ha have connections to Universities in the department of Sports Science and Physical Education. Qi has previously published various articles within the fields of Physical Education and students with disabilities. She also has studied and critiqued teacher perceptions of students with disabilities and teacher effectiveness. Ha also has published various research in regards to physical education. Her research topics includes the benefits of physical activity, educational reform, and understanding a teacher’s will and ability to cover the Physical Education curriculum. She also has published many articles in regards to teacher behavior and perspective. The co-authors used a systematic process to search literature for the review. They used a total of 75 research-based articles from a computerized education database. The data was summarised and analysed according to the geographic distribution, study period, research theme, and research methods. The authors also performed a content analysis on the descriptive data and identified three recurring themes from the empirical research. These included: stakeholder (e.g., teachers and parents) perspectives of inclusive PE, effective inclusive practices, and the impacts of inclusion on students with and without disabilities.
Search Procedures
The databases searched in the study included SPORTDiscus, Health Medline, ProQuest, ERIC, Heracles (Sportdoc), and Web of Science. Quantitative and qualitative studies were included in the review. The keywords used in the search were “physical education”, “students with disabilities”, “integration”, “inclusion”, and “mainstreaming”. The research topic was framed as “inclusion in PE contexts”. The three steps involved in conducting the review were identifying data sources to be used, establishing the criteria for assessing the quality of the studies, and presentation and analysis of the findings.
The search procedures were thoroughly described in the section labeled criteria for assessing the quality of the studies. The original search resulted in 310 identified articles from the different databases. The authors then removed all of the duplicate references and documents from the original list. This helped reduce the total number to 214 articles. The studies were then identified by article titles and abstracts. The inclusion criteria included the following: must be an original study published between January 1990 and December 2009 (literature reviews and commentaries were excluded); must be published in the English language (non-English studies were excluded); and must be published in journals (books, unpublished papers, doctoral dissertations, and master’s degree theses were excluded). After reviewing articles for this context, the authors ended up having 75 articles in the analysis that was reviewed.
Breadth of Search
A. The period of time that was covered during this review included studies published from 1990 to 2009. For purposes of the study dates were then broken into five year periods. The dates of the studies were categorisedinto the following: 1990-1994, 1995-1999, 2000-2004, and 2005-2009. As a result of categorizing the studies, the number of studies on inclusive PE increased with time: 9 studies in the period 1990-1994 (12%), 19 studies in the period 1995-1999 (25%), 22 studies in the period 2000-2004 (29%), and 23 studies in the period 2005-2009 (34%).
B. The authors reviewed 75 published journal articles for this literature review. The authors gave minimal details about the types of journal articles they used for this literature review. The authors did describe keywords and procedures that were used to review articles. The 75 articles were strictly published in journals only based on the information stated in the literature review.
C. The geographical locations were summarised into the countries and continents in which the studies were conducted. The 75 studies were conducted in the following countries: the United States (65%), the United Kingdom (11%), Israel (6%), Canada (6%), Brazil (3%), Japan (3%), Finland (1%), Germany (1%), Australia (1%), Greece (1%), Ireland (1%), and Turkey (1%). The studies came from countries located in five continents, including North America (53 studies, 71%), Europe (12 studies, 16%), Asia (seven studies, 9%), South America (two studies, 3%), and Australia (one study, 1%).
D. The range of participants included teachers, parents, students, and administrators who were stakeholders in the movement to create inclusive schools. Those individuals involved included inservice and preservice teachers, teacher education providers, student without disabilities, and parents of students with disabilities.
E. The authors did not mention any particular or specific types of theoretical or ideological
perspectives in regards to their research. Their research focused around the inclusion of students with disabilities within the general physical education classroom setting. The dimensions included peer interactions, effects on both general education and children with disabilities. They also studied the effects and perspectives of the teachers from having students with disabilities included in their classrooms. It is inferred that they possibly could be using a social constructivist approach based on the information studied.
F. The authors mentioned a list of types of publications that were excluded from their search. The excluded types of publications were literature reviews, commentaries, books, paper, doctoral dissertations, and master's degree theses. There is no mention of any particular studies that they excluded based on atypical procedures or students. However, when analyzing the studies the authors put the journal articles in relevant categories. Based on the relevant literature and the expert opinion, and by using the analytical framework approach, three categories of research focus areas were identified. The categories of the research were the following: stakeholder perspectives on inclusive PE; effective inclusive practices; and the impacts of inclusion on students with and without disabilities. It is inferred that if the experimental data did not fall under these categories it was omitted.
Overall, the breadth of the search met four to five out of the six dimensions as a foundation for the evaluation. As a whole we believe that the breadth of search was somewhat thorough. We felt that the author’s provided the readers with adequate quantitative data about the period of time covered by the search. The authors gave us specific dates and details about the time period covered as well as the overall geographical statistics of the 75 studies examined. It is notable that the author’s Ha and Qi did a good job of explaining the stakeholders and people involved, giving specific details about each one's perspective and role. As noted early, the article listed what was specifically excluded from the breadth of search. Though overall search of breadth was through there were parts that were incomplete with minimal detail. Based on the data presented to us, we felt that the authors could of provided the reader with more information about the types of journal articles that were being reviewed. We also felt that there was little information given about the theoretical approach to the studies. By having to infer what methodology was being applied it sometimes made it difficult to get a sense of the author's perspective on the topics at hand.
Amount of Information Provided About the Studies Included in the Literature Review
With regards to research methodology, a quantitative approach was used in the majority of studies. The quantitative approach was used in 68% of the studies. Twenty-one studies (28%) used a qualitative approach and three studies (4%) used a mixed-method approach. The reviewed studies were mostly non experimental studies that included causal comparative, correlational, and quasi-experimental studies. Most of these studies had problems that related to the sample. It was noted that most of the sample sizes were smaller. There was a lack of experimental studies using random assignment or that were well-controlled investigations with contrasting groups or conditions. No doubt a major reason for this finding is the difficulty of doing this type of research in a school-based setting. The qualitative studies represented different perspectives. However, the approaches were often not clearly described. Over one-half of the reviewed studies focused on stakeholder perspectives of inclusive PE, especially the perspectives and attitudes of inservice and preservice teachers. In the educational area, some researchers believe that attitudes and behaviours are closely related and that attitudes can be useful in predicting behaviour (Tripp & Sherrill, 1991). This belief has encouraged researchers to investigate the attitudes held by Physical Education teachers towards inclusion (Conatser, Block, & Lepore, 2000; Duchane & French, 1998; MeeganMacPhail, 2006; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991).
For example, several studies have used a quasi-experimental approach to examine the use of peer tutoring for facilitating inclusion in PE (e.g., Klavina, 2008; Klavina & Block, 2008; Wiskochil, Lieberman, Houston-Wilson, & Petersen, 2007). A study by Vickerman (2007) examined the perspectives of teacher education providers and proposed suggestions on how to train PE teachers for the inclusion of students with disabilities. Seymour, Reid, and Bloom (2009) utilised a qualitative research method to examine the nature and extent of friendships between students with and without disabilities within inclusive PE settings. In the review by Block and Obrusnikova (2007), a total 22 of the 75 articles have been published after 2005, which was the most recent year included in their study.
Overall, the amount of information provided about the studies was somewhat incomplete. The authors believe that the studies included in the literature review provided the people with a better understanding of how to successfully implement an inclusion style classroom in a PE setting. However, with inclusion being relatively new in the field of education, it has been noted that more research needs to be completed and analyzed with the mass amounts of new data available. There is a need to note that many different descriptions about inclusion in PE (e.g., inclusion of students with disabilities in general PE, inclusion of students with disabilities in regular PE, and inclusive PE) existed in previous studies. Inclusive PE or inclusion in PE in this study refers to the inclusion of students with disabilities within the PE curricula or contexts. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to analyse studies on inclusion in PE over the past 20 years and then propose recommendations for future research.
Exercise of Critical Judgement
The critical judgment provided in the review drew conclusions from a number of studies that were lumped together. These studies, although lumped together, were analysed according to the geographic distribution, study period, research theme, and research method. Results showed that the number of studies on inclusive PE increased during the 20 years studied, and most of these studies were contributed by authors in developed countries. The research method in this study were categorized into quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method. The descriptive data of these studies were subjected to content analysis which was used to take the volume of the material and reduce it in order to identify categories. In the deductive phase of analysis, the researcher looks at the data anew for undiscovered patterns and emergent understandings. This study provided a number of literature reviews relevant to inclusive education research provided the references for identifying the categories (stakeholder perspectives on inclusion in PE, effective inclusion practices, and impacts of inclusions on students with or without disabilities). If differences of opinions arose, the authors came to a consensus decision through discussion and reassessment and in accordance with the contents of the specific studies. The authors had a peer debriefer, who was an experienced qualitative researcher, to help ensure the reliability and validity of the study. The debriefer commented on the logical nature of the researchers’ interpretations, identifying all possible categories and informing the researchers regarding potential bias.
Overall, the author’s exercise of critical judgment was incomplete. The authors note throughout the explanation of studies that flaws did exist in their findings. In most cases, more observations and data could yield richer results regarding their perspectives and experiences related to inclusive PE. Future studies are still needed to identify the factors contributing to the development of positive attitudes towards inclusive PE. Qi and Ha (2012) suggested that experimental design quality and generalisability might be enhanced through studies involving multisite collaborations. The authors believe with more data on inclusion and the practices used could result in more sufficient results to determine the effect of inclusion in a PE setting.
Resolution of Inconsistent Findings
The authors stated that after systematically putting the content into categories for analysis they reviewed every study individually first. Both Ha and Qi assessed each study using the same criteria according to the data selected in each category. The authors noted that when they came across contrasting data analysis or opinions they came to a consensus by re-assessing the information in the relevant studies and having a thorough discussion about the topic. The authors noted that they enlisted a peer debriefer, who was an experienced qualitative researcher, to help us ensure the reliability and validity of the study. They especially shared their opinions with the debriefer during the data collection and analysis phases. The debriefer reviewed their data collection methods and tables to ensure validity and reliability. This person was also responsible for identifying that all of the researchers interpretations, categories and procedures were unbiased.
Overall, the author’s resolution of inconsistent findings were well documented and complete. The researchers did a good job of going over analysis and data misinterpretations with one another. Qi and Ha were able to meet regular and have in depths conversation about their misunderstanding or differences in findings. The article also stated that they sometimes would re-evaluate the relevant material to find where there data analysis was different. The authors also deferred to the debriefer they brought in to examine this procedure. By bringing in an outside perspective the authors added validity and reliability to their examination of the criteria. This helps ensure the readers that the material presented has been accomplished in an unbiased manner.
Overall Evaluation
Based on our evaluation of the 6 criteria for evaluating a published review we rate this article as somewhat scholarly. Most of this article is very scholarly, however there are holes and unknowns that need to be figured out and presented in the article to make it very scholarly. As noted early the breadth of search only adequately covered 4-5 of the 6 criteria needed to be a scholarly breadth of search. The studies were very well organized and the data was analyzed and studied in a very scholarly manner. However, there was no real conclusion about any of the problems or topics discussed based on the data that was collected and analyzed. The authors continued to mention over and over again that there needs to be more research conducted in order to make more accurate and precise conclusions. This was partially based on the limited data during the time span of the literature review because inclusion is a relatively new concept within the past 20-30 years. Also with the rapid increase of the inclusion model being used in school today coupled with the explosion of technology within the past 10 years, there is much more new relevant data that could and needs to be studied and analyzed. This article is mostly scholarly because in order to make further conclusion about implementing a successful inclusion setting with special needs students in a Physical Education setting more relevant data needs to be collected. By obtaining new and more relevant data, the authors would have a better grasp on how to analyse the data. Sample size was also a high concern during the review. If more participants and years were added to the study, our authors could obtain valuable information that would help determine the effectiveness of inclusion in a Physical Education setting.