Content area
Full Text
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine what effect the type of APE service approach had on GPE teachers' efficacy when working with students with disabilities. The three approaches of APE service delivery chosen for the study were (a) consultation, (b) itinerant, and (c) collaborative. Results indicate significant differences between levels of service: Consult, F(3, 98) = 5.09, p = .003; Itinerant, F(3, 97) = 10.80, p = .000; Collaborative, F(3, 98) = 13.64, p = .000. As well, the collaborative method produced the highest level of efficacy in the participants, F(3, 303) = 19.09, p = .000. The study indicates the collaborative approach of APE service support may be the most effective in increasing GPE teacher efficacy when working with children with disabilities.
Since 1975, and Public Law 94-142, there has been a push for inclusive education classes in which students with disabilities are educated along with their peers without disabilities in the least restric- tive environment (LRE). This has led to many interpretations of the terms inclusion and least restrictive environment (Block, 1996). Some see inclusion as full-time integration, whereas others see it resembling the old term mainstreaming by placing a student into special rotations such as art, music, or physical education for socialization purposes only. Kudlacek, Jesina, Sterbova, and Sherrill (2008) described inclusion as providing the support needed to ensure students with disabilities remain successful as part of the general education classroom. The physical education classroom is no exception to the laws; despite their disabilities, students should have the opportunity to participate with their peers in the general physical education (GPE) class.
Despite the interpretation used, the GPE teacher is obligated to ensure the students with disabilities as well as the students without disabilities are successful in their classes. Many researchers have found teachers feel inadequately prepared to adapt and modify their lessons and feel they need more training and support when working with these combined groups (Ammah & Hodge, 2006; Hodge, Ammah, Casebolt, LaMaster, & Sullivan, 2004). Cook, Tankersley, Cook, and Landrum (2000) found many teachers lack the understanding of working with the unique characteristics of a student with a disability. In contrast, Salend and Dehaney (1999) found teachers who have collaborative and consultation support by qualified...