Inclusion Articles and Reviews

Richard Bailey (2005)

Canterbury Christ Church University College, UK

Evaluating the relationship between physical education, sport and social inclusion.

Educational Review, Vol. 57, No. 1, February 2005.

This article was written to answer questions weather physical education in schools and sport, increases inclusion for students, academic achievements, and decreases criminal activity.  The difference between physical education and sport in the UK is as follows.  Physical Education is a curriculum based activity that is taught by a teacher; sport is a voluntary participating activity in school or through community programs.

I would relate these to a high school baseball team or Babe Ruth organized baseball both are voluntary and not a requirement of the school curriculum.  The author uses many different case studies to try and answer the three main questions.  Although his findings are inconclusive, he finds that some of the studies do show merits to those who feel the answer to these questions are yes. In the area of social exclusion , was defined by the Social Exclusion Unit (2001) as a label of what can happen to people as a result of  problems such as unemployment, poor fills, low income, bad health, family breakdown, high crime environments, These factors can lead to a lack of access to power, knowledge, facilities and opportunity.  A research done by SportScotland (2001), indicates a range of barriers for minority ethnic communities to precipitate in sport to include lack of acceptance or value of sport, discrimination, absence of ethnic role models, to inappropriate facilities and services, this would suggest exclusion based on ethnicity. Another survey in Sport England (Finch et al., 2001) found that 16% of young people with disabilities participated in sport compared to 45% of young people without disabilities. This would suggest exclusion due to health or disabilities. Although there was very limited research done at the time of this article in the area of the benefits of physical activity to developing academic abilities, it has been hypothesized by many that physical activity increases blood flow to the brain, increasing hormonal secretion, mental alertness and improve self esteem.  Some reports have suggested a small positive relationship between cognitive performance and regular activity (Etnier et al. 1997) it has been debated whether participation in sport decreases the criminal activity in an area.  The rational is that increasing large-scale sports programs to specific targeted areas and or during specific times (i.e.; summer programs), has become an essential part to urban regeneration projects, reducing leisure time and focusing the time on sport.  Although there is no empirical evidence that these programs work they have coincided in some decrease in vandalism and other petty crimes.

Donna Umhoefer, Robbi Beyer & Tiffanye M. Vargas (2012)

Theory in Practice: Enhancing General Physical Educators’ Teacher Efficacy

when working with All Students, Strategies:

 A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 25:7, 32-37

This article is written to give strategies to administrators, teachers and support personnel to

Help General Education Physical Education Teachers (GPE) to increase their efficacy when working with

Children with disabilities in a full inclusion P.E. program. In a 1990 study Hoy & Wool folk surveyed 191

student teachers regarding teacher efficacy using the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) and two questioners from Rand Corporation.  The results indicated that the teachers who did student teaching practicum had a greater impact on their teacher efficacy then those who didn’t.  Although personal teaching experience increases the teacher efficacy, modeling enhances the self efficacy, class management, and disciplinary techniques of pre-service teachers (Gutkin, Wilson and Oats (1996). This technique is helpful for GPE teachers as well; by collaborating with Adapted Physical Education Teachers (APE) they will increase their efficacy in working with children with disabilities. Using collaborative delivery approach the APE teacher can work with the GPE teacher demonstrating how to implement the accommodations and modifications. The GPE than has the opportunity to follow the model given, by receiving praise and constructive input along with self talk the GPE increases his confidence and abilities to work with the students with disabilities. The APE teacher works collaboratively with the GPE and the IEP team to insure the IEP goals and bench marks are attainable, again modeling for the GPE and increasing his confidence in the IEP process.  The premise is teacher effacacy increases the teacher’s instructional ability and student achievement.

Social Outcomes for Students with and Without Learning Disabilities in the Inclusive Classrooms.

By: Sharon Vaugh, Batya E. Elbaum, Jeanne Shay Schumm, and Marie Tejero Hughes

This article focused on the social outcomes of student with Learning Disabilities. There were a total of 185 students; 59 of which had LD, 72 with low to average achieving and 54 high achieving students.  The study indicates that students with earning Disabilities have been unidentified or unrecognized and most of the time placed in a general education classroom full-time. While these general education classrooms had a large number of students, no differentiated instruction, as well as,  large group instruction those students with Learning Disabilities struggled. The article also indicated that those students that have a accepting teacher would more likely have peers that were accepting, making it easier to make friends. The article looked at children and adults with and without special education support and saw no correlation with the ability of these adults and peers making friends.