Physical education teachers' attitudes towards children with intellectual disability: the impact of time in service, gender, and previous acquaintance

Physical education teachers’ attitudes towards childrenwith intellectual disability: the impact of time in service,gender, and previous acquaintancejir_1596 1..13

D. Özer,1 S. Nalbant,2 E. Aglamıs�,2 F. Baran,2 P. Kaya Samut,3 A. Aktop2 & Y. Hutzler4,5

1 School of Physical Education and Sport, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale,Turkey2 School of Physical Education and Sport, Akdeniz University, Antalya,Turkey3 Social Sciences Institution, Business Department, Akdeniz University, Antalya,Turkey4 Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences at theWingate Institute, Netanya, Israel5 Israel Sport Center for the Disabled, Ramat Gan, Israel

Abstract

Background This study investigated attitudestowards teaching students with intellectual disability(ID) within a representative sample of secondaryschool physical education (PE) teachers, and todetermine the effects of age, gender, teachingexperience, and having acquaintance with ID andstudents with ID on their attitudes.Methods Participants were 729 secondary schoolPE teachers who worked in 81 major cities ofTurkey. The Teachers Attitudes towards Childrenwith Intellectual Disability Scale was administered.Results The statistical analysis revealed that therewas no significant effect on factors and total atti-tudes scores of gender and having students withID. Significant effects on factors and total attitudesscore were found in teaching experiences andhaving acquaintance with ID.

Conclusions It is encouraged to maintain andfurther develop in-service education programmesof adapted physical activity for PE teachers.

Keywords attitudes, inclusion, intellectualdisability, teacher education

Introduction

The integration of children with special educationalneeds in regular schools has gradually become akey topic in special education over the last half acentury (Avramidis et al. 2000), with preliminarycontributions of scholars such as Johnson (1962)and Dunn (1968). Since the late 1990s the term‘inclusion’, which embodies a whole range ofassumptions about the purpose and meaning ofschools (Kliewer 1998), has superseded the previ-ously used term ‘integration’ in the vocabularyof special educators. In contrast to integration,inclusion implies a restructuring of the educationalenvironment to accommodate the needs of a smallnumber of children with significant disabilities(Thomas & Vaughan 2004; Florian 2008, 2009).

Correspondence: Dr Yeshayahu Hutzler, Zinman College of Physi-cal Education and Sport Sciences at the Wingate Institute,Netanya 42902, Israel (e-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Intellectual Disability Research doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01596.x1

bs_bs_banner

© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

It promotes self-determination and participation ofindividuals with disabilities as any other minority inthe community (Reid & Stanish 2003; Hutzler et al.2005). While some authors question full inclusion(e.g. Kauffman & Hallahan 2005), most wouldagree that the principle of inclusion and appropriateplacement within an inclusion delivery systemshould be considered as a right of children withdisabilities. Several United Nations (UN) policiesaffirm the right of all children, including thosewith a disability, to be valued equally, treated withrespect, provided with equal opportunities withinthe mainstream system, and experience full andeffective participation and inclusion in society.These include the UN Convention on the Rightsof the Child (1989), the UN Rules for the Equalisa-tion of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities(1993), the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994),and most recently the UN Convention on theRights of Persons with Disability (UN ENABE),in which Article 30 specifically refers to physicalactivity within formal and informal educationalinstitutions. For the past 25 years inclusion hasincreasingly been discussed within the physicaleducation (PE) literature, addressing experiencesand methods of including children with and withoutdisabilities within general PE contexts in differentcountries, but mainly in North America (e.g. Block& Vogler 1994; Sherrill et al. 1994; Block 1998;Goodwin & Watkinson 2000; Lienert et al. 2001;Place & Hodge 2001).

Intellectual disability (ID) is one of the mostfrequent disabilities at the school age, comprising1–1.25% of the population (McLaren & Bryson1987; Baroff 1991). In addition, evidence based onsurveys among PE teachers suggests that ID isamong the disabilities that pose the greatest chal-lenge when attempting inclusion in their PE classes(Rizzo 1984; Rizzo & Vispoel 1991; Downs &Williams 1994; Hodge & Jansma 2000; Hutzler2003). It is the knowledge and experience thatteachers have about how to adapt instruction tothe child with disability and to his or her peersand how to adapt tasks, equipment, environmentalconditions and game rules that influences theirattitude about teaching students with disabilities,and that is one of the foundations of successfulinclusion in PE (Kowalski & Rizzo 1996; Hutzleret al. 2005).

Attitudes towards students with disabilities

An attitude can be defined as a generalised positiveor negative evaluation people may have towards anyobject (e.g. individuals or groups of people, events,activities, and ideas), which predicts behaviourstowards these objects (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980).Teachers’ attitudes affect how classes are conductedand how the new demands and opportunities thatinclusion provides are responded to (LaMaster et al.1998). A rich body of literature has been establishedduring the past two decades on attitudes towardsincluding students with a disability in PE, empha-sising the importance of positive beliefs (Block &Obrusnikova 2007) and, the attitudes of PE teach-ers on the success of inclusion (Tripp & Sherrill1991; Sideridis & Chandler 1997; Duchane &French 1998; Hodge et al. 2004; Hardin 2005). Pre-dictors of attitudes towards teaching students withdisabilities in PE have been proposed and studied,including (1) coursework taken by the teachers onstudents with disabilities (Rizzo 1985); (2) age andgender of the teachers (Rizzo 1985); (3) their per-ceived competence (Rizzo & Wright 1988; Rizzo &Vispoel 1991); (4) their specific knowledge andinstructional skills (Heikinaro-Johansson & Sherrill1994; Kowalski & Rizzo 1996; Lienert et al. 2001;Sherrill 2008); and (5) their personal experienceswith individuals with disabilities (Rizzo & Vispoel1991). However, current research has revealedinconsistent outcomes with regard to the impact ofthese predictors on PE teachers’ attitudes towardsindividuals with disabilities.

Turkey has only recently started to prepare itseducation and teacher training programmes forinclusion. There are nearly 8.5 million personswith disabilities in Turkey, which constitutes 12.29%of the total population (Turkey Disability Survey2002). According to Ministry of National Educationdata (Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Edu-cation 2011), in Turkey some 110 896 students withID are included in the regular school system andanother 29 625 students with ID attend specialschools (21.1% of the total number).

Special education services are provided mainlyby the Republic of Turkey Ministry of NationalEducation (MoNE). The Turkish special educationlaw, adopted in 1997, was a major event in thedevelopment of the special education services; it

2Journal of Intellectual Disability Research

D. Özer et al. • Teacher attitudes intellectual disability


was revised in 2005. Under this law it was foreseenthat the identification of children with specialneeds, the evaluation of their educational perfor-mance, and their placement in the most appropriateeducational settings according to the least restrictivesetting principle would be carried out by interdisci-plinary teams in Guidance and Research Centersaffiliated with the MoNE (Official Journal ofRepublic of Turkey 2005). These centres are themechanisms provided by the system to supportthe classroom teacher and facilitate the inclusionprocess.

Inclusion is currently being exercised throughoutTurkey. Based on an investigation of inclusion inthe school system (preschool, elementary, and highschool) between 1990 and 2009, a steady increasein the ratio of students with disabilities includedin general education settings can be observed. Theratio of inclusion was 18.08% in 1990, 45.78%in 2000, and 66.31% in 2009. Nevertheless, thenumber of special education schools, which was68 in 1990, increased considerably within 19 years,reaching 565 in 2009. These schools provide anetwork of qualified educational centres for thosechildren who still attend special schools. In addi-tion, 1738 special education and rehabilitationcentres sponsored by the Government of Turkeyserve as a support network for educational treat-ment and inclusion within the general schoolsystem (Special Education Guidance andConsultation Services 2009).

The rapid dissemination of inclusion is based onthe terms of the Special Education Law and Guide-lines (Official Journal of Republic of Turkey 1983),stating that children with disability should be edu-cated in regular schools whenever possible. Thelegislation states that regular schools must makeprovisions for the education of children with dis-abilities. In 2006 the Special Services Departmentof the Turkish Ministry of National Educationannounced a comprehensive description of integra-tion guidelines, listing among others the supportsystems needed to accommodate these children,which include trained school personnel, resourcerooms, assistance in the class, and special educationconsultants. All of these elements must be putin place in order to allow the full integration ofchildren with special needs (Official Journal ofRepublic of Turkey 2006).

Adapted physical activity within physical educationteacher training

Prior to the year 2000 adapted physical activity(APA) was only an optional course in 56% of PEteaching departments, and there were no APAcourses in the other PE teaching departments inTurkey (Özer & Müniroglu 1998). As a result of thereconstruction of the courses being offered by theeducation faculties initiated by the Turkish HigherEducation Council, APA became an obligatorycourse in all PE teaching departments in 2000. Thenew programme included a theoretical course, con-sisting of 3 h per week over 14 weeks in the courseof one semester. However, 42 h over one semesteris insufficient to educate the qualified PE teachersthat are required for APA. Consequently, PE teach-ers who graduated from university before 2009 mayhave very little if any experience in working withchildren with disabilities.

As a result of the second reconstruction of thecourses offered by The Council of Higher Educa-tion (Kavak et al. 2007) a Special Education coursewas added in parallel to the APA course as a com-pulsory course in all PE teaching departments in2006. This Special Education course is a theoreticalcourse of two weekly hours during the third semes-ter. The APA course includes a theoretical lecture,as well as two practical hours each week, duringthe seventh semester.

Because of this legislative and teacher trainingreform, PE teachers in Turkey are increasinglyencountering inclusion of students with disabilityin their classes, among whom students with ID arestrongly represented. However, no information isavailable about PE teachers’ attitudes towardsteaching students with ID. Therefore, the purposeof this study was to investigate attitudes towardsteaching students with ID within a representativesample of secondary school PE teachers, and todetermine the effects of age, gender, teachingexperience, and having acquaintance with ID andstudents with ID on their attitudes.

Method

Sampling design

Data were gathered by a survey method. Samplingprocedures began in cooperation with the Turkish




Elementary Education General Management(TEGM), which also granted the permission forthe study. The survey was disseminated in the year2006. At that point of time there were 81 majorcities in Turkey, with 7864 PE teachers registeredin the TEGM database. Schools were randomlyselected from each city until the total number of PEteachers in these schools surpassed 10% of the totalnumber of PE teachers in the respective city. Thetotal number of teachers selected was 1223. Thequestionnaire forms and an envelope with postagereturn were sent by mail to the selected schools andhanded to the PE teachers in each school by theprincipal. Seven hundred and twenty-nine question-naires (59.6% return rate) were returned. Samplesize was determined using calculations of Krejcie &Morgan (1970), who indicated that a sample of 367

at least is needed, when a population of 8000 hasbeen identified.

Participants

Participants were 729 (515 men, 214 women) sec-ondary school PE teachers. The gender distributionwas 214 women (29.36%) and 515 men (70.64%).Age distribution was 353 aged between 21 and30 years (48.42%), 281 between 31 and 40 years(38.55%), and 95 between 41 and 60 years(13.03%). The teaching experience in PE was 548

between 1 and 10 years (75.17%), 121 between 11

and 20 years (16.60%), and 60 had an experienceof 21 years or more (8.23%). In addition, it wasreported that 44.99% of the PE teachers hadacquaintance with ID, and 49.93% of them hada student with ID in their class.

Instruments

The data collection survey was the Teachers Atti-tudes towards Children with Intellectual DisabilityScale (TACIDS), developed in Turkey for preschoolteachers, classroom teachers, and pre-service teach-ers (Sucuoglu et al. 1997). The sample of this studywas comprised of 354 pre-service, preschool andclassroom teachers. This sample reached a totalinternal consistency of Cronbach’s a = 0.93.

The TACIDS consists of two basic parts. Thefirst part has 39 items with a five-point Scale, i.e.1 = strongly agree (SA), 2 = agree (A), 3 = unde-

cided (U), 4 = disagree (D), and 5 = strongly dis-agree (SD). Twenty-two items in the survey werepositively phrased and 17 items were negativelyphrased. For the purpose of this study, the TACIDSwas adapted for PE teachers only by adding ‘PE’ tothe word ‘teacher’ in terms of both items and expla-nation. Instrument internal structure was estab-lished during the current study through factoranalysis and measurement of factor internal consis-tency, and is presented in the results section. Thesecond part of the TACIDS consisted of six selec-tion type or open-ended demographic questionsaddressing gender, age, years in service, maritalstatus, having acquaintance with ID, and havinga student with ID in the class.

Statistical analysis

To derive valid scale means scores, the scores fornegatively phrased items were reversed. Negativelyphrased questions were converted to positive scoresby means of the computer software (SPSS-X).TheKaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test, and Barlett testfor revealing sampling adequacy and sphericity wereconducted. Consequently, a principal componentfactor analysis with varimax rotation was performed(Statistical Package for Social Sciences 1988).Thiswas followed by a reliability analysis (Cronbach’s a).The impact of demographic attributes such as age,gender, and number of years in service on the factorsgenerated and the total score of the scale was mea-sured by means of independent sample t-tests in thedichotomy variables (gender, having acquaintancewith ID) and one-way anova with post hoc Scheffetests. Significance in all procedures was set atP < 0.05.

Hypotheses

Based on the reviewed past research, we postulatedseveral hypotheses, as follows:1 Female PE teachers have a higher attitude scorethan male PE teachers (Hutzler 2003; Block &Obrusnikova 2007);2 Young PE teachers have more positive attitudescores than older PE teachers (Rizzo 1985; Rizzo &Wright 1988; Rizzo & Vispoel 1991);3 PE teachers with less teaching experiencespresent more positive attitude scores than PEteachers with greater teaching experiences; and




4 PE teachers who have previous acquaintance withID and have a student with ID in the class presentmore positive attitude scores that the PE teacherswho do not have this acquaintance or do not havea student with ID in their class (Rizzo & Vispoel1991; Block & Rizzo 1995).

Results

Structure, reliability, and validity of theTeachers Attitudes towards Children withIntellectual Disability Scale

The KMO of sampling adequacy test result was0.9 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant(c2 = 8503.45, d.f. = 741, P < 0.01). These results

showed that the sample size was adequate and hasshown sphericity. Factor analysis found sevenfactors accounting for 58.3% of variance.

Descriptive statistics, including item loadings ineach component, Eigenvalues, percentages of vari-ance, and Cronbach’s a are presented in Table 1.Using the 0.40 cut-off point for excluding items notpermitting reasonable interpretation (Tabachnick &Fidell 2007) in any factor, 12 items were excluded,and the analysis was based on 27 items, of which15 items were positively and 12 items negativelyphrased (Table 2). Reliability analysis (Cronbach’sa) followed for each factor. Factor 1 was labelled‘social effects’ and included eight items (Cronbach’sa = 0.88). Factor 2 was labelled ‘feelings’ andincluded three items (Cronbach’s a = 0.83). Factor

Table 1 Item loadings in each component, Eigenvalues, and percentages of variance

Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7

Item 33 0.77Item 35 0.77Item 36 0.75Item 38 0.75Item 34 0.75Item 37 0.73Item 32 0.62Item 31 0.62Item 26 0.89Item 27 0.87Item 25 0.79Item 2 0.69Item 1 0.67Item 3 0.57Item 5 0.53Item 21 0.76Item 19 0.70Item 9 0.59Item 18 0.51Item 29 0.62Item 15 0.61Item 8 0.53Item 30 0.51Item 11 0.84Item 12 0.76Item 4 0.86Item 6 0.57Eigenvalue 5.79 2.91 2.25 1.56 1.15 1.07 1.01Per cent variance 17.37 8.38 7.77 7.77 6.55 5.80 4.72Cronbach’s Alpha 0.88 0.83 0.62 0.65 0.59 0.63 0.47

Note: Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed.




Table 2 Description of the 27 Likert items with means and standard deviations (n = 729)

Factors/items M SD

Social effectsItem 33 (+) Students with ID must take supporting services (e.g. reading first). 4.01 0.93Item 35 (+) PE teachers can achieve students with ID being accepted by their schoolmates. 4.03 0.87Item 36 (+) The parents will need to cooperate with the PE teacher if students with ID enter

the regular class.4.38 0.87

Item 38 (+) The PE teacher can make it easier for students with ID to be friends of studentswithout ID.

4.04 0.84

Item 34 (+) Students with ID in the inclusion must take responsibility for social activities. 3.86 0.98Item 37 (+) The parents of the students without ID must allow them to be friends with

students with ID.4.18 0.86

Item 32 (+) Students with ID in the inclusion must be included in the vote for elections such asdelegate of the classroom.

3.81 1.04

Item 31 (+) The PE teacher has to have knowledge about students with ID. 4.13 0.99

FeelingsItem 26 (-) I am afraid of students with ID. 4.33 0.97Item 27 (-) To see students with ID disturbs me. 4.33 0.952Item 25 (-) Students with ID are so boring. 4.22 0.93

Educational rightsItem 2 (+) Students with ID can attend to regular school. 2.33 1.09Item 1 (+) Students with ID can be a friend of students without ID. 3.44 1.05Item 3 (+) To be educated in the same class with their friends without ID is the legal rights of

students with ID.2.82 1.12

Item 5 (-) It is not possible for students with ID to benefit from regular class. 2.87 1.07

InteractionItem 21 (-) Students without ID feel themselves uncomfortable if the class includes students

with ID.3.21 1.00

Item 19 (-) The PE teacher spends most of her/his time with the students with ID if the classincludes students with ID.

3.17 0.99

Item 9 (-) There is a negative effect on students with ID, if they are educated in the sameclass with student without ID.

2.83 1.06

Item 18 (-) It is not beneficial for students with ID to be educated in the regular class withstudents without ID.

2.64 1.06

SupportItem 29 (+) Students with ID can benefit from a regular class if they are supported by PE. 3.40 0.91Item 15 (+) Students with ID must go to the nearest school to their home. 3.22 1.12Item 8 (+) Every kind of possibilities must be supplied for students with ID to be able to

continue in the regular class.3.36 1.17

Item 30 (+) I can accept students with ID in my class, if I receive help on how I can teach them. 3.64 0.92

DifficultiesItem 11(-) Students with ID must go to the special education schools. 2.12 1.23Item 12 (-) It effects negatively on implementing the programme of the PE teacher, if students

with ID are included in the regular class.2.36 1.13

BarriersItem 4 (-) Students with ID can hurt student without ID. 3.19 1.12Item 6 (-) Students without ID learn negative behaviour from students with ID. 3.38 1.15

(+), positively phrased item; (-), negatively.ID, intellectual disability; PE, physical education; M, mean; SD, standard deviation.




3 was labelled ‘educational rights’ and included fouritems (Cronbach’s a = 0.62). Factor 4 was labelled‘interaction between children’ and included fouritems (Cronbach’s a = 0.65). Factor 5 was labelled‘supporting services’ and included four items(Cronbach’s a = 0.59). Factor 6 was labelled ‘diffi-culties’ and included two items (Cronbach’s =0.63). Factor 7 was labelled ‘barriers’ and includedtwo items (Cronbach’s a = 0.47). Cronbach’s a forthe total scale was 0.84.

Gender

Means and standard deviations of factor scores arepresented in Table 3. There were no significantgender differences in any of the seven factors orin the total attitude score (P > 0.05).

Age

Means, standard deviations of factor scores andresults of the anova statistics are presented inTable 4. Results of the anova revealed significantdifferences on factor 1 (feeling; F2,726 = 6.445,P = 0.002), factor 4 (interaction between children;F2,726 = 3.226, P = 0.04), factor 5 (supporting

services; F2,726 = 4.784, P = 0.009), and total atti-tude score (F2,726 = 6.602, P = 0.001) between agegroups.

The results of the post hoc Scheffe test revealedthat in factor 2 (feelings), the scores of theage groups 21–30 years, and 31–40 years weresignificantly higher than those of the age group41–60 years (P < 0.05). The PE teachers in theage group of 21–30 years had the most favourablescores in factor 2 (feelings), while the PE teachersin the age group of 41–60 years had the leastfavourable. In factor 5 (supporting services) PEteachers in the age group of 21–30 years had signifi-cantly more favourable scores than PE teachers inthe age group of 41–60 years (P < 0.05). The totalattitude scores for the PE teachers in the age groupof 21–30 years were significantly more favourablethan total TACIDS scores of both older groups(P < 0.05). The results of the post hoc test revealedthat there were no significant differences betweenthe groups in factor 4 (interaction betweenchildren) (P > 0.05).

Teaching experiences

Means, standard deviations, and the results of theanova statistics are presented in Table 5. The results

Table 3 Attitude scores by gender, having acquaintance with ID, and having a student with ID in the class (M � SD)

GenderHaving acquaintance

with IDHaving a student with

id in the class

Female(n = 214)

Male(n = 515)

No(n = 243)

Yes(n = 486)

No(n = 364)

Yes(n = 365)

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Social effects 4.08 0.64 4.04 0.69 4.10* 0.65 4.03 0.69 4.09 0.63 4.02 0.72Feelings 4.28 0.76 4.29 0.84 4.41* 0.71 4.23 0.86 4.31 0.83 4.27 0.81Educational rights 2.90 0.76 2.85 0.73 2.95 0.74 2.82 0.74 2.88 0.75 2.85 0.73Interaction between children 3.04 0.72 2.93 0.73 3.03 0.75 2.93 0.72 2.95 0.73 2.97 0.72Support services 3.39 0.72 3.41 0.68 3.53 0.67 3.34 0.70 3.41 0.70 3.40 0.69Difficulties 2.29 1.01 2.22 1.00 2.30 1.05 2.20 0.98 2.26 1.04 2.22 0.97Barriers 3.37 0.94 3.25 0.91 3.39 0.92 3.23 0.91 3.29 0.94 3.28 0.89Total attitude score 94.14 12.89 92.88 11.74 95.47* 11.37 92.14 12.31 93.66 22.93 92.84 12.26

* Significant differences (P < 0.05).ID, intellectual disability; M, mean; SD, standard deviation.




indicated that the scores of factor 2 (feelings)(F2,726 = 6.515, P = 0.002) and total attitude(F2,726 = 5.033, P = 0.007) differed significantlydepending on teaching experiences. In the follow-up post hoc analysis results, revealed that the PEteacher with 1–10 years of experience had more

favourable attitudes in factor 2 (feeling) than thoseof the PE teachers with 21 or more years of experi-ence (P < 0.05). In the total attitude scores, earlycareer PE teachers (1–10 years experience) had sig-nificantly higher scores than late career PE teachers(21 years and more experience) (P < 0.05).

Table 4 PE teachers’ attitude scores by age groups

Age groups

21–30 years(n = 353)

31–40 years(n = 281)

41–60 years(n = 95)

M SD M SD M SD

Social effects 4.08 0.64 4.04 0.69 4.10 0.65 F2,726 = 2.08, P = 0.126Feelings*† 4.28 0.76 4.29 0.84 4.41 0.71 F2,726 = 6.45, P = 0.002Educational rights 2.90 0.76 2.85 0.73 2.95 0.74 F2,726 = 1.97, P = 0.141Interaction between children 3.04 0.72 2.93 0.73 3.03 0.75 F2,726 = 3.23, P = 0.040Support services* 3.39 0.72 3.41 0.68 3.53 0.67 F2,726 = 4.78, P = 0.009Difficulties 2.29 1.01 2.22 1.00 2.30 1.05 F2,726 = 0.43, P = 0.654Barriers 3.37 0.94 3.25 0.91 3.39 0.92 F2,726 = 1.52, P = 0.219Total attitude score*‡ 94.14 12.89 92.88 11.74 95.47 11.37 F2,726 = 6.60, P = 0.001

* Significant differences between 21–30 years and 41–60 years group (P < 0.05).† Significant differences between 31–40 years and 41–60 years group (P < 0.05).‡ Significant differences between 21–30 years and 31–40 years group (P < 0.05).M, mean; SD, standard deviation.

Table 5 PE teachers’ attitudes scores by teaching experience groups

Teaching experience groups

1–10 years(n = 548)

11–20 years(n = 121)

21 years and up(n = 60)

M SD M SD M SD

Social effects 4.08 0.67 4.02 0.73 3.89 0.51 F2,726 = 1.02, P = 0.107Feelings* 4.35 0.77 4.15 0.95 4.01 0.85 F2,726 = 6.52, P = 0.002Educational rights 2.88 0.74 2.85 0.73 2.95 0.74 F2,726 = 0.86, P = 0.423Interaction between children 2.98 0.75 2.95 0.68 2.78 0.60 F2,726 = 2.14, P = 0.118Support services 3.43 0.70 3.36 0.65 3.30 0.68 F2,726 = 1.24, P = 0.290Difficulties 2.26 1.03 2.16 0.97 2.19 0.89 F2,726 = 0.58, P = 0.563Barriers 3.32 0.92 3.18 0.95 3.17 0.84 F2,726 = 1.69, P = 0.191Total attitude score* 94.00 12.01 91.73 12.31 89.45 11.59 F2,726 = 5.03, P = 0.007

* Significant differences between 1–10 years and 21 years and up group (P < 0.05).




Having acquaintance with intellectual disabilityand having a student with intellectual disabilityin the class

Significant differences were found between PEteachers who had or did not have acquaintance withID in factor 1 (social effects) t (727) = 2.69, P =0.007, factor 2 (feeling) t (727) = 2.70, P = 0.007,and total attitude scores t (727) = 2.22, P = 0.027.Significantly higher scores were observed in factor1, factor 2, and total attitude scores of the PEteachers who had acquaintance with ID (Table 3).However, no significant difference was found in thetotal attitude score and factors between teacherswho had a student with ID in their class and thosewho did not (P > 0.05).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the atti-tudes of PE teachers towards teaching studentswith ID and to determine the effects of age, gender,teaching experience, and having acquaintance withID on their attitudes.

The reliability and validity of the scale

Each of the 27 belief items loaded higher than therecommended 0.40 cut-off point. Using Tabachnick& Fidell’s (2007) component/factor loading inter-pretation scale with the oblique rotation, 13 items(4, 11, 12, 21, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)showed ‘excellent’ loadings (0.71 or greater withoverlapping variance of 50% or more). Three items(1, 2, 19) showed a ‘very good’ loading (0.63 orgreater with overlapping variance of 40% or more).Seven items (3, 6, 9, 15, 29, 31, 32) showed ‘good’loadings (0.55 or greater with 30% or more overlap-ping variance). Four items (5, 8, 18, 30) showed a‘fair’ loading (0.45 or greater with 20% or moreoverlapping variance). No items showed ‘poor’loadings. These data were also supported by aseparate principal components analysis withvarimax rotation.

Reliability was estimated through the coefficientalpha (Cronbach 1951). Reliability coefficients sur-passed the 0.70 criterion for acceptability (Nunnally& Bernstein 1994; Safrit & Wood 1995) for totalscore (0.84) social effects (0.88), and feelings

(0.83). The other scales revealed lower than accept-able scores (0.62 for educational rights, 0.65 forinteraction, 0.59 for supporting services, 0.63. fordifficulties, and 0.47 for barriers), thus compromis-ing their reliability. However, it should be notedthat the first two factors accounted for over 25%of the variance.

General attitude score

Although the movement towards ‘inclusive educa-tion’ is anchored in the broad human rights agenda,many educators have serious reservations aboutsupporting the widespread placement of studentswith disabilities in mainstream schools (Florian2008). In accordance with this notion, our findingsindicated that PE teachers had mixed attitudes: Thescores on the emotional sub-scales (social effectsand feeling) in our study were relatively positive(mean score above 4 on a 1–5 scale). In contrast,the teachers experienced moderate degrees of diffi-culty and barriers (mean score between 2.2 and3.5). Also, previous research reported equivocalfindings; some authors argued that PE teacherspossessed negative attitudes towards inclusion,probably derived from their perception that theydid not have adequate training and were lacking theexperience and knowledge to successfully includestudents with disabilities in the general schoolsystem (see Feigin et al. 2005; Block & Obrusnikova2007). In contrast, Obrusnikova (2008) concludedthat the beliefs of PE teachers towards teachingchildren with disabilities were generally positive butvaried according to the type of disability. Beliefswere more favourable towards teaching childrenwith specific learning disabilities and less favourabletowards teaching children with emotional andbehavioural disorders. Significant predictors of posi-tive beliefs in this study were perceived competence,positive teaching experience with children with dis-abilities, and course work in APA. The results ofthis study may be linked to our findings, emphasis-ing the role of pre-service education in Turkey,which did not include coursework in APA before2000. The lack of training may explain the differ-ence in attitudes between teachers with up to 10

years in service and those who enrolled into servicebefore the teacher preparation programme inTurkey was changed.




Gender

Our hypothesis about gender differences was notsupported. Both male and female teachers hadsimilar attitude scores. Previous findings in thisregard varied. Aloia et al. (1980) found that womenhad more favourable attitudes towards teachingstudents with disabilities than did the men in thatstudy. However, other studies (e.g. Patrick 1987;Rowe & Stutts 1987; Rizzo & Wright 1988; Rizzo& Vispoel 1991; Duchane & French 1998;Kudlácek et al. 2002) revealed no significantgender differences.

Age

Our hypothesis about age was supported. OlderPE teacher in our representative sample possessedless favourable attitudes towards inclusion than didtheir younger counterparts, thus consistent withearlier research, which has suggested that youngerand less experienced teachers tend to be morereceptive regarding the idea of including (Rizzo1985; Rizzo & Wright 1988; Rizzo & Vispoel 1991).We contend that one reason for the difference wasbecause of the introduction to the new PhysicalEducation Teaching Program in 2000 involving alluniversities. Initially APA took place as an obliga-tory PE teaching curriculum for one semester in2000, and after that a ‘Special Education’ courseand an APA practical course were added in 2005.Younger teachers who were educated in universitiesduring the past 11 years have received variousdegrees of training in APA, thus strengtheningthe teachers’ knowledge base about how to includechildren with disabilities.

Teaching experiences

The findings in this regard are consistent with theresults of age differences as reported in our study.We contend that PE teachers with less teachingexperience were influenced by the change in thePE teacher training programme that occurred in2000. In contrast, Bekiari & Sakelariou (2004)reported that in Italy PE teachers with more yearsof experience believed that they have more skillsto cope with the special needs of the children, andthey were more positive towards benefits of inclu-sion compared with less experienced educators.

The difference in results from these two studiesmay be explained by the differing legislative frame-work, and the different PE teacher education pro-grammes causing significant differences betweenboth countries regarding inclusion. Italy graduallyapproached inclusion since over a period of 30

years (Manetti et al. 2001), and, therefore, teacherswith more years in service were exposed to moreexamples of inclusion and had the opportunitygain positive experience, while in Turkey inclusionoccurred only in the last decade, not permittingenough exposure and experiences within the PEpractice.

Previous acquaintance and having a student withintellectual disability in the class

Our hypothesis about having an acquaintancewith persons with ID was supported. It was foundthat teachers having an acquaintance with studentswith ID had more favourable attitude scoresin terms of factor 1 (social effects) and factor 2

(feelings) than the other teachers. However, ourhypothesis about having a student with ID in theclass was not supported. Some previous studieshave revealed that previous experience and contactwith students having certain disabilities lead topositive attitude formation (Rizzo & Vispoel 1991;Block & Rizzo 1995; Folsom-Meek et al. 1996).Most authors supported their findings with theContact Theory (Allport 1954), which suggeststhat the amount and type of contact is relatedto its effect. However, it is also likely that thoseteachers with an a priori more positive attitudetowards students with disability would reach outfor opportunities to include them in their classes.Block & Rizzo (1995) found that the quality ofteaching experience and course work in APE werestrongly related to attitudes towards teaching stu-dents with severe disabilities. Our findings withregard to having a child with ID in the classmay be explained by to the potential influenceof negative experiences while teaching classesincluding students with ID while supports, servicesand knowledge were still lacking (mostly prior to2000). Future studies need to explore the experi-ences of teachers during inclusive settings after2000. A qualitative approach may be ideal forthis purpose.




Limitations

Although the general reliability of the TACIDSinstrument used in this study was high (r = 0.84),the internal consistency of F7 (barriers) was low(0.47), decreasing the power of the results in thisfactor. Therefore, it is recommended that thisinstrument be revised with a different substance toimprove its internal consistency in future studies.In addition, the survey used for data collection inthis study (TACIDS) was developed for generalpreschool teachers, classroom teachers, and pre-service teachers, and not for PE teachers (Sucuogluet al. 1997). In the current study we used an adap-tation of the original TACIDS to fit PE teachers.However, further research is needed to studywhether it may be necessary to develop a uniqueattitude scale for this particular population.

Conclusions

The results of this study revealed that PE teachershad mixed attitudes towards including students withID in their classes. PE teachers who were young,had acquaintance with ID, and less teaching experi-ence had more favourable attitude scores than theothers. It appears that the introduction of compul-sory APA classes in Turkey since 2000 in the PEteaching training curriculum resulted in youngteachers having more favourable attitude scores.The differences between the younger and olderteachers, as well as below and above 10 years inservice may be related to the change of PE teachingcurriculum in 2000. The lack of the effect of havinga student with ID in the class may indicate that theteachers participating in our study did not perceiveenough positive experiences. It has been suggestedthat in order to improve attitudes, teachers need toexperience self-efficacy in being able to adapt theirteaching for inclusion (Hutzler et al. 2005). Basedon the results of this study, we conclude thatin-service education programme planning of APAshould be provided to all PE teachers. Trainingactual adaptations and empowerment practicesapplied to real cases during the coursework, aswell as well-organised practicum sessions whereadaptive teaching practices and provision of support(e.g. peer tutoring) can be practiced, are stronglyrecommended for achieving this purpose.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the General Directorate ofPrimary Education, and the Ministry of NationalEducation of the Republic of Turkey, for theirsupport and contribution to this study.

References

Ajzen I. & Fishbein M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes andPredicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Allport G. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA.

Aloia G. E., Knutson R., Minner S. H. & Von Seggem M.(1980) Physical education teachers’ initial perceptions ofhandicapped children. Mental Retardation 18, 85–7.

Avramidis E., Bayliss P. & Burden R. (2000) A survey intomainstream teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion ofchildren with special educational needs in the ordinaryschool in one local education authority. Educational Psy-chology 20, 191–211.

Baroff G. S. (1991) Developmental Disabilities: PsychologicalAspects. Pro-Ed, Austin, TX.

Bekiari A. & Sakelariou K. (2004) Physical educationteacher’s opinions towards inclusion of students withdisabilities. Italian Journal of Sport Sciences 11, 10–15.

Block M. E. (1998) Don’t forget about the social aspectsof inclusion. Strategies 12, 30–4.

Block M. E. & Obrusnikova I. (2007) Inclusion in physi-cal education: a review of the literature from 1995–2005.Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 24, 103–24.

Block M. E. & Rizzo T. (1995) Attitudes and attributes ofphysical educators associated with teaching individualswith severe and profound disabilities. The Journal of thePersons with Severe Handicaps 20, 80–7.

Block M. E. & Vogler E. W. (1994) Inclusion in regularphysical education: the research base. Journal of PhysicalEducation, Recreation, and Dance 65, 40–4.

Cronbach L. J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internalstructure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297–334.

Downs P. & Williams T. (1994) Student attitudestoward integration of people with disabilities in activitysettings: a European comparison. Adapted PhysicalActivity Quarterly 11, 32–43.

Duchane K. A. & French R. (1998) Attitudes and gradingpractices of secondary physical educators in regulareducation settings. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly15, 370–80.

Dunn L. (1968) Special education for the mildly retarded:is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children 35, 5–22.




Feigin N., Talmor R. & Erlich I. (2005) Inclusion andburnout in physical education. European PhysicalEducation Review 11, 29–50.

Florian L. (2008) Inclusion: special or inclusive education:future trends. British Journal of Special Education 35,202–08.

Florian L. (2009) Towards an inclusive pedagogy. In:Psychology for Inclusive Education: New Directions inTheory and Practice (eds P. Hick, R. Kershner &P. T. Farrell), pp. 38–51. Routledge, London.

Folsom-Meek S. L., Groteluschen W. & Nearing R. J.(1996) The influence of academic major and hands-onexperience on college students’ attitudes toward learnerswith mild disabilities. Brazilian Journal of AdaptedPhysical Education Research 31, 47–66.

Goodwin D. L. & Watkinson E. J. (2000) Inclusive physi-cal education from the perspective of students withphysical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly17, 144–60.

Hardin B. (2005) Physical education teachers’ reflectionson preparation for inclusion. Physical Educator 62,44–57.

Heikinaro-Johansson P. & Sherrill C. (1994) Integratingchildren with special needs in physical education: aschool district assessment model from Finland. AdaptedPhysical Activity Quarterly 17, 44–56.

Hodge S. R. & Jansma P. (2000) Physical educationmajors’ attitudes toward teaching students with disabili-ties. Teacher, Education and Special Education 23, 211–24.

Hodge S. R., Ammah J. O. A., Casebolt K., LaMaster K.& O’Sullivan M. (2004) High school general physicaleducation teachers’ behaviors and beliefs associatedwith inclusion. Sport, Education and Society 9, 395–419.

Hutzler Y. (2003) Attitudes toward the participation ofindividuals with disabilities in physical activity: a review.Quest 55, 347–73.

Hutzler Y., Zach S. & Gafni O. (2005) Physical educationstudents’ attitudes and self-efficacy towards the partici-pation of children with special needs in regular classes.European Journal of Special Needs Education 20, 309–27.

Johnson G. (1962) Special education for the mentallyhandicapped: a paradox. Exceptional Children 29, 62–9.

Kauffman J. M. & Hallahan D. P. (2005) The Illusion ofFull Inclusion: A Comprehensive Critique of A CurrentSpecial Education Bandwagon, 2nd edn. PRO-ED,Austin, TX.

Kavak Y., Ayhan A. & Akbaba Altun S. (2007) TeacherEducation and Education Faculties in Council of HigherEducation in Republic of Turkey (1982–2007). Publicationof Council of Higher Education, Ankara.

Kliewer C. (1998) Schooling Children with Down Syndrome.TeachersCollege Press, New York, NY.

Kowalski E. M. & Rizzo T. L. (1996) Factors influencingpreservice student attitudes toward individuals with dis-abilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 13, 180–96.

Krejcie R. V. & Morgan D. W. (1970) Determining samplesize for research activities. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement 30, 607–10.

Kudlácek M. M., Valkova H. H., Sherrill C. C.,Myers B. B. & French R. R. (2002) An inclusioninstrument based on planned behavior theory forprospective physical educators. Adapted PhysicalActivity Quarterly 19, 280–99.

LaMaster K., Gall K., Kinchin G. & Siedentop D. (1998)Inclusion practices of effective elementary specialist.Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 15, 64–81.

Lienert C., Sherrill C. & Myers B. (2001) Physical educa-tors’ concerns about integrating children with disabili-ties: a cross-cultural comparison. Adapted PhysicalActivity Quarterly 18, 1–17.

McLaren J. & Bryson S. E. (1987) Review of recentepidemiological studies in mental retardation: preva-lence, associated disorders, and etiology. AmericanJournal of Mental Retardation 92, 243–54.

Manetti M., Schneider B. H. & Siperstein G. (2001)Social acceptance of children with mental retardation:testing the contact hypothesis with an Italian sample.International Journal of Behavioral Development 25,279–86.

Nunnally J. C. & Bernstein I. H. (1994) PsychometricTheory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Obrusnikova I. (2008) Physical educators’ beliefs aboutteaching children with disabilities. Perceptual and MotorSkills 106, 637–44.

Official Journal of Republic of Turkey (1983) Law ofDependent Children for Special Education no. 2916. Avail-able at: http://www.ogretmenimiz.com/kanunlar/2916.htm (retrieved 16 April 2011).

Official Journal of Republic of Turkey (2005) Public Actof Special Education Services Regulation in Ministry ofEducation no. 25883. Available at: http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/25883_1.html (retrieved 16 April 2011).

Official Journal of Republic of Turkey (2006) SpecialEducation Services Regulation no. 26184. Available at:http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/26184_0.html (retrieved16 April 2011).

Özer D. & Müniroglu S. (1998) Examination of studies ofschool of physical education and sport toward individualwith disability. Contemporary Education 23, 21–4.

Patrick G. (1987) Improving attitudes toward disabledpersons. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 4, 316–25.

Place K. & Hodge S. R. (2001) Social inclusion ofstudents with physical disabilities in general physicaleducation: a behavioral analysis. Adapted PhysicalActivity Quarterly 18, 389–404.




Reid G. & Stanish H. (2003) Professional and disciplinarystatus of adapted physical activity. Adapted PhysicalActivity Quarterly 20, 213–29.

Republic of Turkey Ministry of National Education (2011)National Education Statistics. Formal Education 2010–2011.Republic of Turkey Ministry of National EducationStrategy Development Presidency, Ankara.

Rizzo T. L. (1984) Attitudes of physical educators towardteaching handicapped pupils. Adapted Physical ActivityQuarterly 1, 267–74.

Rizzo T. L. (1985) Attributes related to teachers’ attitudes.Perceptual and Motor Skills 60, 739–42.

Rizzo T. L. & Vispoel W. P. (1991) Physical educators’attributes and attitudes toward teaching students withhandicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 8, 4–11.

Rizzo T. L. & Wright R. G. (1988) Selected attributesrelated to physical educators’ attitudes toward teachingstudents with handicaps. Mental Retardation 26, 307–09.

Rowe J. & Stutts R. M. (1987) Effects of practica type,experience and gender on attitudes of undergraduatephysical education majors toward disabled persons.Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 4, 268–77.

Safrit M. J. & Wood T. M. (1995) Introduction to Measure-ment in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 3rd edn.McGraw-Hill, New York.

Sherrill C. (2008) Adapted Physical Activity, Recreation, andSport: Crossdisciplinary and Lifespan, 5th edn. WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Sherrill C., Heikinaro-Johansson P. M. & Slininger D.(1994) Equal-status relationships in the gym. Journal ofPhysical Education Recreation and Dance 65, 27–31, 56.

Sideridis G. D. & Chandler J. P. (1997) Assessment ofteacher attitudes toward inclusion of students with dis-abilities: a confirmatory factor analysis. Adapted PhysicalActivity Quarterly 14, 51–64.

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (1988) SPSS-XUser’s Guide, 3rd edn. [computer program manual].SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL.

Sucuoglu B., Atay M. & Çiftçi I. (1997) A study of scaledevelopment for measuring teachers attitude towardstudent with intellectual disability. 7th Special EducationConference Proceeding Book. Karatepe Press, Ankara.

Tabachnick B. G. & Fidell L. S. (2007) Using MultivariateStatistics, 5th edn. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.

Thomas G. & Vaughan M. (2004) Inclusive Education:Readings and Reflections. Open University Press,New York.

Tripp A. & Sherrill C. (1991) Attitude theories ofrelevance to adapted physical education. AdaptedPhysical Activity Quarterly 8, 12–27.

Turkey Disability Survey (2002) Basic Characteristics ofDisabled Population. Available at: http://www.ozida.gov.tr/arastirma/tr_ozurluler_arastirmasi/blm1.pdf (retrieved 10

May 2011).

Accepted 13 June 2012




Documents

Physical education teachers' attitudes towards children with intellectual disability: the impact of time in service, gender, and previous acquaintance