Diversity Paper

Language Diversity (by Luz & Grant)

Special education programs are a valuable resource for families of children with disabilities. Ideally, government’s intention for establishing these programs was to assist families with obtaining equal access to education and socialization for their children.  However, as with many good intentions, unforeseen or unexpected obstacles sometimes interfere with its functioning according to plan.  One such obstacle for special education is language diversity. The effectiveness and success of special education programs are being affected by language diversity issues. Cheatham (2011) states, “Despite the benefits of a family-centered approach and related IDEA (P.L. 108-446) legal mandates, research suggests that participation challenges continue for many families, particularly those who do not speak English well (e.g., Bailey et al., 1999; Harry, 2008; Lian & Fontanez-Phelan, 2001; Salas, 2004; Tellier-Robinson, 2000).” The other issue of concern is misplacement of English language learners (ELL) in special education due to being erroneously identified as learning disabled (LD). Sullivan (2011) provides this information, “The field continues to struggle with uncertainty regarding how to best provide instruction and access to English language curricula and an unclear role of special education in remediating learning difficulties (Artiles &C Klingner, 2006).” Anyone concerned with the success of special education and related programs, such as adapted physical education (APE), must take a closer look at these issues in order to prevent the failure of special education.

At first, interpreters may not be thought of as important contributors to the special education program however, we need to consider the influence they have for the successful outcome of special education meetings such as an IEP meeting. There are now an increasing number of parents whose primary language is other than English. Cheatham (2011) explains, “studies suggest that interpretation during special education meetings may be incomplete (DuFon, 1993; Klingner & Harry, 2006; Lipsit, 2003; Lo, 2008; Lopez, 2000), resulting in an inability by EI/ECSE programs to fulfill IDEA (P.L. 108-446) mandates (Harry, 1992; Klingner & Harry, 2006).” He also lists four common language interpretation concerns: addition errors (interpreter adds information), omission errors (interpreter leaves information out), substitution errors (interpreter exchanges one bit of information for another), and challenges arising from interpreter’s perception of roles (Cheatham, 2011). In one example, an interpreter confused a parent that someone named Wilson was working with their child.

As far as the issue of ELL’s being misidentified as learning disabled, Chu & Flores (2011) stated it best, “It is difficult to distinguish English language learners (ELLs) with learning disabilities (LD) from those who do not have a learning disability because the two groups share many of the same characteristics (Ortiz and Maldonado-Colon 1986; Ortiz and Yates 2001). Among the characteristics shared are poor comprehension, difficulty following directions, syntactical and grammatical errors, and difficulty completing tasks (see Ortiz and Maldonado-Colon [1986])... Each educator must use appropriate assessments to identify ELLs with LDs because misclassification affects them for life; students who are labeled inappropriately are held to lower standards than they are capable of meeting. Furthermore, ELLs’ disproportionate in special education makes it difficult for educators to serve the students who do have disabilities. Many challenges in identifying ELLs with LDs remain to be addressed.”

These issues have great implications for special education. Although, the issue of language interpretation is beyond the scope of responsibility for the special education teacher, it is important to be aware of the challenges that can arise because of this. As for the issue of misidentification of ELL’s as LD’s, there are things that special education teachers can do. Afterall, as Chu & Flores (2011) stated, the reality is that these students will be placed in special education classes and it will take away time from serving students who do have disabilities. So what can be done? One solution is to look for avenues that have been overlooked, physical education! There is a “potential of competitive games involving physical movement to facilitate the acquisition of a second or foreign language and…such activities can promote educational development too (Tomlinson & Masuhara, 2009).” Also, “As physical educators integrate language arts into their teaching, motor skills are taught and literacy concepts are reinforced. The repetitive nature of hearing, seeing, and saying vocabulary and sight words within physical education can facilitate literacy development (Solomon & Murata, 2013).”

Cheatham, G. A. (2011). Language Interpretation, Parent Participation, and Young Children with Disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 2011 31: 78 originally published online 4 August 2010. DOI: 10.1177/0271121410377120

Conroy, P. (2012). Collaborating with Cultural and Linguistically Diverse Families of Students in Rural Schools Who Receive Special Education Services. Rural Special Education Quarterly,31(3), 24-28.

SULLIVAN, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in Special Education Identification and Placement of English Language Learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317-334.

Chu, S., & Flores, S. (2011). Assessment of English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities. Clearing House, 84(6), 244-248. doi:10.1080/00098655.2011.590550

Max, M. A.Perceptions of culturally and linguistically diverse parents of preschool children with speech and language impairments.(Order No. AAI3509854, Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1355854800?accountid=10346. (prod.academic_MSTAR_1355854800; 2013-99070-234).

Holland, S (2013). Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators Hearing, Seeing, and Signing in Elementary Physical Education Published online: 18 Jan 2013

Gomez, C & Jimenez-Silva, M (2013). Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators The Physical Educator as a Language Teacher for English Language Learners Arizona State University Published online: 22 Jan 2013.

Schultz, J (2013). Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance Ensuring the Success of Deaf Students in Inclusive Physical Education Published online: 30 Apr 2013.

Solomon, J & Nathan M. (2013) Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators Physical Education and Language Arts: An Interdisciplinary Teaching Approach Published online: 23 Jan 2013

Tomlinson, B & Masuhara, H (2009). Playing to Learn: A Review of Physical Games in Second Language Acquisition Simulation Gaming 2009 40: 645 originally published online 24 July 2009 DOI: 10.1177/1046878109339969

Voice thread

Click Here for voice thread

Daily Post

6/26 In your opinion, describe why you think communication is a key component to collaborative practice. Give a few examples and use a personal anecdote to support your view.

I feel that communication is very important for the collaboration process to be successful because not everyone has the same ideas or values. In order for the team to come to a consensus regarding a common goal dialogue needs to happen.  Each person can share their ideas and after listening to everyone’s input a decision can be made by the collaborative team.

Communication isn’t always only verbal, non verbal actions such as facial expressions and body language, sometimes speak louder than words. When I was the director for an after school program we had a meeting about incorporating some new programs into the enrichment time.  One of the team members agreed to go along with the plan the rest of the group had agreed on. However, by her body language I could tell that she wasn’t completely on board.

 Most recently while collaborating with my colleagues about how we should arrange fitness testing, we all had different but similar ideas on how it should be done and though communication we where able to agree on how to complete testing as a department and were successful in doing so.

6/28 please share your swimming experience and how can this be viewed as a collaborative experience? What did you learn about yourself in this experience? How valuable is/was collaboration in this type of educational setting?

I really enjoyed my time at the swimming pool, as well as, working with children with a variety of disabilities. I spent some time just sitting on the side of the pool observing the older students jumping in and getting accumulated with the pool. While observing I was able to talk to the instructor/paraprofessionals about some of the students and their skills. I also talked to one of the students who chose to sit on the side with her feet in the water. Before moving to the opposite side of the pool to work with the Deaf or Hard of Hearing group, I observed an instructor and some of my peers transfer a student from a wheelchair to the pool. I took this opportunity to take some mental notes about the transfer. Once I made it to my group I noticed that the instructor was in the pool and the students were sitting on the deck with another adult with which whom she was communicating with the entire time. I then made my way into the pool where I worked with a young boy on a variety of beginning skills. We worked on walking down the wall, leg kicks, arm pulls, and blowing of bubbles. The entire time I was in the water with my peers, instructor, and students there was constant collaboration mainly through communication. Also, some with helping to do certain skills for example: if a student wasn’t kicking, then a peer would come over and grab the student’s legs and start to move them. I found this experience to be very beneficial because I was able to gain some experience in the pool working with individuals with disabilities. I was able to work on some collaboration skills while working with other instructors, students and peers.

7/5 Please share your thoughts on why it is important to consider and understand the importance of diversity in your physical education class.

It is important to understand the background of your students because with all of the diversity within one class each individual student brings to the table different life experiences. As a teacher I try to make sure that my students feel that what they are learning can be used in their daily life even if it is something that they would normally not partake in. Much of what we do as teachers is adapt and change our curriculum to meet the needs of our diverse population of students. It is very rare to find one or just a few students of different backgrounds so we (teachers) need to be equipped with tools to teach them. Much of what I do is research and show various skill sets as it has evolved over time to what it may be today. As I learn more about my students I am better able to related topics to them. I also show the students that physical activities come from various places and they may even be able to relate to a specific concept as it may be related to something their culture has.

7/5 In this post please discuss your feelings about doing a blog and reference a classmates’ blog here with a link to your blog and to their blog.

When I first heard about the blog assignment I was nervous and apprehensive. I didn’t think it would be too difficult, as I feel comfortable with my computer skills. After trying to navigate through the program I quickly learned that it was not as easy as I thought it would be. I am still not completely sold on the idea of my blog being accessible to the public, although I do understand how it can be a useful resource. Here is a link to my blog http://gbonham67.blogspot.com/ and a couple of links to my classmate’s as I feel that they have done a really good job with their blogs http://greekphysedteacher.blogspot.com/, http://apechico.blogspot.com/, www.chicoape.blogspot.com. 

Consultation Articles and Reviews

Shobana Musti-Rao, Renee O. Hawkins, Carol Tan (2011):

A Practitioner’s Guide to consultation and Problem Solving in Inclusive Settings

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 44 No 1, pp 18-26.

This article talks about response to intervention (RTI) using a Problem-Solving Consultation Process. This process uses research based interventions for both academics and behavioral domains.  The example in the article of implementation was from a Secondary School in Singapore.  The teacher Mr. Ong had been teaching Language Arts at the secondary level for 9 years. At the time of the implementation Mr. Omg had 20 students who where challenging, in a class, this is about ½ the class. He felt he was spending more time managing behaviors than teaching the curriculum.  He contacted the local university that was working with teachers implementing the Problem-Solving Consultation Process.  There are 5 stages to the process. Mr. Omg started with Stage 1 Relation Building Process.   In this stage the problem –solving team meet to get acquainted discuss the problem, the interventions that have been taken up to this point. They set up a time for the consulting teacher to come observe the classroom and meeting times.  Stage 2 Problem Identification, after the classroom visit the team meets to discuss the problem and allows the consultant to ask the teacher more specific questions about the problem. The team works together using the data the consultant and the teacher has compiled to identify the problem, the antecedents that lead up to the problem. Stage 3 Problem Analysis this stage allows the team to meet again and analyze the data taken by the consultant as well as the teacher that causes the behavior, identify target students and develop a system for ongoing data collection, and find interventions to address the problem. Stage 4 Program Implementation, during this stage the teacher and consultant work together to develop and implement a reasearch based intervention to address the problem.  Importance in this step is that the teacher implements the plan with fidelity and continues to collect data regarding the results of the plan.  During this stage the consultant visits the class to observe the teachers implementation as well as the students’ behavior.  Stage 5 Program Evaluation, this stage consists of the teacher and consultant meeting once again to analysis the results of the intervention.  If intervention plan is not working the team will repeat stages 3 – 5 using other research based interventions.

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 efficacy increases the teacher’s instructional ability and student achievement.

Adapted Physical Educators: The Multiple Roles of Consultants

Rebecca K. Lytle and Gayle E. Hutchinson

California State University, Chico

This article looked at the shift in roles involving Adapted Physical Educators and how this used to look years ago. They looked at 6 teachers, 4 females and 2 males, each with experience ranging from 3-21 years.

 Adapter Physical Educators were once providing direct instruction to their students, but are now working more with teachers providing consult regarding assessments or information, but are not working directly with the kids.  Findings show that educators prefer the “collaboration consultation model” as it gives each educator equal responsibilities with one common goal.  Adapted Physical Educators have long been using consultations in their practices by discussing with various team members on whether or not the child is making progress on their IEP goal(s). This has been going on even if the student is receiving direct instruction.  There was no true breakdown of components involved in consultation services, meaning there was no specific findings listings what a APE consultants responsibilities entailed.  Some research showed that SOME of these responsibilities would include: facilitator, validator and coach (etc.).  Some research show the breakdown of roles into four roles: trainer/educator, advocacy, process specialist and fact finder. The article goes on to discuss the method of research, each participant and his/her backgrounds, data collection and analysis and the findings of the research. 

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. 

Collaboration Articles and Reviews

Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2011, 28, 95-112

© 2011 Human Kinetics, Inc.

The author is with the Kinesiology Department at the University of New Hampshire in Durham.

Coteaching in Physical Education: A Strategy for Inclusive Practice

Michelle A. Grenier

This article looked at the collaboration process and coteaching amongst three high school teachers, one APE specialist and 2 General Ed Physical Educators. Over a 16 week time period within an adventures course.  Interviews, field notes and documents where collected and analyzed using a comparative approach. The study primarily focused on two subjects with Down Syndrome and how well they performed in a general education physical education class. The class was set up so the GE teachers led the class and the APE teacher was there for support not only to service students with disabilities but to support all students. The role of the APE specialist was to provide input on teaching strategies and curricular modifications to enhance participation. In order for the coteaching process to be effective the teachers had to share a consensus of a common goal and ownership of student learning. Factors that played a role in the collaboration process included administration support, planning time content knowledge and levels of compatibility to ensure success of coteaching.

 Early Childhood Educ J (2009) 36:483–489

DOI 10.1007/s10643-007-0212-5

Collaborative Teaching of Motor Skills for Preschoolers with Developmental Delays

Nathan M. Murata Æ Carol A. Tan

This paper looks at how motor domain is fundamental for motor skill learning for preschoolers with developmental delays. Simple fundamental motor patterns such as running, jumping, sliding, catching and throwing provide an infrastructure for learning more games, sports and daily living activities. Preschoolers with delays still make progress in motor skills but have a tendency to exhibit lowered self concept and delayed social development. Generally the classroom teacher is the one who is implementing the motor domain program typically with little knowledge of how to implement a motor program. In order for the teacher to ensure that they are providing and inclusive environment in which all the special needs of the students are being meet they must collaborate with the Adapted PE specialist, Physical Therapist and Occupational Therapist. During this collaboration process the team is working towards a common goal providing input from their areas of expertise to ensure that development and learning of general skills in all areas. The collaboration process entails a planning phase, exaction phase and the debriefing phase. Also by collaborating on teaching strategies, behavioral support and keeping activities fun to encourage active participation will help with meeting the needs of preschoolers with developmental delays.

May L. Kozub & Francis M. Kozub (2012):

Using the School Nurse to Support Your Elementary Physical

Education Program, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 83:2. 49-53

This article discusses the importance of collaboration between the physical education and other support personnel, especially the school nurse, as during physical education instruction students have the most inherent risk for injury, than at any other time the student is in school. They make several suggestions of how and when to collaborate with the nurse. Starting with meeting with the school nurse at the beginning of the year to discuss which students may have medical or physical issues, and what precautions, modifications and or accommodations will be needed to insure the students’ involvement in PE.  Collaborating with the nurse during curriculum and lesson planning to insure safe guards are in place to reduce the risk of injury. They suggest the nurse be the contact liaison between the teacher and the parent to report any injury no matter it minor or major as the medical personnel would be qualified to answer questions or concerns parents may have.  In addition to being the parent contact in the case of injury they suggest that the Physical Education Teacher collaborate with the school nurse to construct notices to be sent home regarding up coming units, the physical demands, and expectations of the activity and to insure parents understand the difference between soreness versus and injury as a result of the activity. They suggest that the Physical Education teacher encourage the involvement of the school nurse to assist with the education of parents and students regarding health and physical activity.  They also talk about the importance of the Physical Education teacher and the School Nurse being involved in the constructing an IEP for a student to insure its physical needs are being met as well.

5/26 In your opinion, describe why you think communication is a key component to collaborative practice. Give a few examples and use a personal anecdote to support your view.

I feel that communication is very important for the collaboration process to be successful because not everyone has the same ideas or values. In order for the team to come to a consensus regarding a common goal dialogue needs to happen.  Each person can share their ideas and after listening to everyone’s input a decision can be made by the collaborative team.

Communication isn’t always only verbal, non verbal actions such as facial expressions and body language, sometimes speak louder than words. When I was the director for an after school program we had a meeting about incorporating some new programs into the enrichment time.  One of the team members agreed to go along with the plan the rest of the group had agreed on. However, by her body language I could tell that she wasn’t completely on board.

 Most recently while collaborating with my colleagues about how we should arrange fitness testing, we all had different but similar ideas on how it should be done and though communication we where able to agree on how to complete testing as a department and were successful in doing so.