Research in Dance and Physical Education

Current Issue

Research in Dance and Physical Education - Vol. 1 , No. 2

[ Article ]
Research in Dance and Physical Education - Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.13-28
ISSN: 2586-1034 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2017
Received 20 Apr 2017 Revised 24 May 2017 Accepted 12 Jun 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26584/RDPE.2017.1.1.13

How to Reconceptualize Physical Education Teacher Education Curriculum for Successful Training toward Inclusion
Eun Hye Kwon*
Texas A&M University - San Antonio, USA

Correspondence to : *Assistant Professor Department of Counseling, Health and Kinesiology Texas A&M University - San Antonio, eunhye.kwon@tamusa.edu


Abstract

Since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was mandated in 1975, segregated special education programs were moved to more inclusive ones. According to National Center for Education Statistics (2016), there are over 6.5 million students with disabilities receive special education. 95% of those students with disabilities are taking special education services in the public school setting. However, studies showed that General Physical Education (GPE) teachers would not feel competent or prepared to include students with disabilities. Since most of PETE programs offer one Adapted Physical Education (APE) course, it is necessary to reconceptualize PETE curriculum for better preparation for inclusion. Infusion approach curriculum (DePauw and Goc Karp,1994) was proposed for successful training toward inclusion in PETE curriculum. Studies revealed that an infusion approach-based curriculum model could positively affect students’ attitudes toward individuals with disabilities (Barrette, Holland Fiorentino, & Kowalski, 1993; DePauw & Goc Karp, 1994). However, developing an infusion approach curriculum has several barriers, limited lecture hours, overload, and faculty supports. To successfully develop an infusion approach curriculum, blended learning can be one of the methods for successful implementation. This paper introduces the direction to infuse disability concept in PETE program applying blended learning.


Keywords: PETE Curriculum, Adapted Physical Education, Infusion approach-based curriculum, Blended learning

References
1. Alberts, P. P., Murray, L. A., & Stephenson, J. E. (2010). Eight educational considerations for hybrid learning. In: F.L. Wang, J. Fong, & R. C. Kwan (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Hybrid Learning Models: Advanced Tools, Technologies, and Applications, Information Sciences Reference (pp. 117-137). Hershey, PA.
2. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., & Garrett, R. (2007). Blending in. The Extent and Promise of Blending Learning in the United States. Proceedings of the Sloan Consortium.
3. Ammah, J. O. A., & Hodge, S. R. (2006). Secondary physical education teachers' beliefs and practices in teaching students with severe disabilities: A descriptive analysis. The High School Journal, 89(2), 40-54.
4. Aycock, A., Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Lessons learned from the hybrid course project. Teaching with technology today, 8(6), 9-21.
5. Balci, M., & Soran, H. (2009). Students' opinions on blended learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 21-35. Retrieved from Ebsco Host June 2013.
6. Barette, G., Holland, G., Fiorentino, L., & Kowalski, E. (1993) Physical education teacher education (PETE): Innovation through infusion and integration. The Physical Educator, 50, 69-76.
7. Blinde, E. M., & McCallister, S. G. (1998). Listening to the voices of students with physical disabilities. Experiences in the physical education classroom. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69(6), 64-68.
8. Block, M. E., & Obrusnikova, I. (2007). Inclusion in physical education: a review of the literature from 1995-2005. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24, 103-124.
9. Block, M. E., & Rizzo, T. L. (1995). Attitudes and attributes of physical educators associated with teaching individuals with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicapped, 20(1), 80-87.
10. Block, M. E., Taliaferro, A., Harris, N., & Krause, J. (2009). Using self-efficacy theory to facilitate inclusion general physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 81(3), 43-46.
11. Bonk, C. J., Olson, T. M., Wisher, R. A., & Orvis, K. L. (2002). Learning from focus groups: An examination of blended learning. The Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 97-118.
12. Campbell, M. C.; Floyd, J. & Sheridan, J. B. (2002). Assessment of Student Performance And Attitudes For Courses Taught Online Versus Onsite. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 18(2), 45-51.
13. Chandler, J. P. & Greene, J. L. (1995). A statewide survey of adapted physical education service delivery and teacher in-service training. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 262-274.
14. Collins-Brown, E. (2011). Quality by design: Course design for optimal blending. Presentation at the 8th Annual Sloan Consortium Blended Learning Conference and Workshop, Oak Brook, IL, March 28 -29.
15. Croft-Baker, N. (2001). Eight companies keep E-learning from E-Scaping. New Corporate University Review, 9(2), Retrieved from http://traininguniversity.com/tu_pi2001ma_4.php.
16. Crummett, C., Mazoue, J., Anderson, R., Daughtrey, T., Love, W., MacDonald, S., Stoloff, M., Wilcox, D., and Zemliansky, P. (2010). Best Practices for Online and Hybrid Course Delivery. James Madison University. Retrieved June 1 2013, From: http://www.jmu.edu/dl/wm_library/JMU_Best_Practices.pdf.
17. Dean, P. J., Stahl, M. J., Sylwester, D. L., & Peat, J. A. (2001). Effectiveness of Combined Delivery Modalities for Distance Learning and Resident Learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 2(3), 247-54.
18. Delialioglu, O., & Yildirim, Z. (2007). Students' perceptions on effective dimensions of interactive learning in a blended learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 133-146.
19. DePauw, K. P. & Goc Karp, G. (1994). Integrating knowledge of disability throughout the physical education curriculum: An infusion approach. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11, 3-13.
20. DePauw, K. P. & Goc Karp, G. (1994). Integrating knowledge of disability throughout the physical education curriculum: An infusion approach. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 11, 3-13.
21. Deperlioglu, O., & Kose, U. (2010). The effectiveness and experiences of blended learning approaches to computer programming education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education.
22. Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2011). A course is a course is a course: Factor invariance in student evaluation of online, blended and face-to-face learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 236-241.
23. Garnham, C., & Kaleta, R. (2002). Introduction to hybrid courses. Teaching with Technology Today, 8(6). Retrieved October 3, 2006, from http://www.uwsa.edu/ttt/articles/garnham.htm.
24. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95-105.
25. Gautsch, S. (2011) Toward Social Learning in Blended Learning Faculty Fellows Program." Presentation at the ELI Annual Meeting, Austin, TX, (February 14, 2011). Retrieved May 12 2013: http://www.educause.edu/Resources/TowardSocialLearninginBlendedL/224484.
26. Gerbic, P. (2009). Including Online Discussions within Campus-based Students' Learning Environments. In E. Stacey, & P. Gerbic, (Eds.), Effective Blended Learning Practices: Evidence-based Perspectives in ICT-facilitated Education, Information Science Reference (pp. 21-38): Hershey, NH.
27. Gomez, J. & Igado, M. (2008). Blended learning: The key to success in a training company. International Journal Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(8).
28. Goodwin, D. L., & Watkinson, E. J. (2000). Inclusive physical education from the perspective of students with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17(2), 144-160.
29. Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future direction. In C. J. Bonk and C. R. Graham (Eds.). Handbook of blended learning: Global perspective, local designs, (pp. 3-21), San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publising.
30. Hall Jr, O. P., & Mooney, J. G. (2010). Hybrid learning systems: Meeting the challenges of graduate management education. In Hybrid Learning (pp. 35-48). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
31. Hardin, B. (2005). Physical education teachers' reflections on preparation for inclusion. The Physical Educator, 62(1), 44-55.
32. Hartman, J. L., Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (1999, August 16-18). Faculty satisfaction in ALNs: A dependent or independent variable?, Paper Summer ALN Workshops: Learning Effectiveness and Faculty Satisfaction, presented at the Sloan Urbana, IL.
33. Harwell, S. H. (2003). Teacher professional development: It's not an event, it's a process. Waco, TX: CORD. Retrieved January, 2004.
34. Haycock, D., & Smith, A. (2011). To assist or not to assist? A study of teachers' views of the roles of learning support assistants in the provision of inclusive physical education in England, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 835-849.
35. Haycock, D., & Smith, A. (2011). To assist or not to assist? A study of teachers' views of the roles of learning support assistants in the provision of inclusive physical education in England, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 835-849.
36. Heinze, A., & Procter, C. T. (2004). Reflections on the use of blended learning. Education in a Changing Environment, 13-14 September 2004, University of Salford, UK. Retrieved May 15 2013 from: http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf.
37. Hensley, G. (2005). “Creating a hybrid college course: Instructional design notes and recommendations for beginners”. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1(2), Retrieved January 5 2013 from: http://jolt.merlot.org/vol1_no2_hensley.htm.
38. Hodge, S. R., Davis, R., Woodard, R., & Sherrill, C. (2002). Comparison of practicum types in changing preservice teachers' attitudes and perceive competence. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 155-171.
39. Hodge, S. R., Tannehill, D., & Kluge, M. A. (2003). Exploring the meaning of practicum experiences for PETE students. Adapted Physical Education Quarterly, 20, 381-399.
40. Hoffman, K. M. (2003). Online course evaluation and reporting in higher education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 96, 25-29.
41. Hutzler, Y. (2003). Attitudes toward the participation of individuals with disabilities in physical activity: A review. Quest, 55(4), 347-373.
42. Hutzler, Y., Zach, S., & Gafni, O. (2005). Physical Education students' attitudes and self-efficacy towards the participation of children with special needs in regular classes. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(3), 309-327.
43. Johnson S. D., & Aragon, S. R. (2002). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. In T. M. Egan& S. A. Lynham (Eds.), Proceedings of the Academic for human Resource Development. Bowling Green, ID: Academy for Human Resource Development. .
44. Johnson S. D., Aragon, S. A., Shalik, N,, and Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative Analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face to face learning environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11, 29-49. .
45. Johnson, J.Q. & Voelker-Morris, R. (2007). “Course Redesign for Hybrid Learning.” University of Oregon. Retrieved March 2015, from: http://www.nwelearn.org/conference/2007.slides/jqjohnson%20redesign.pdf.
46. Kelly, R. (2008). Nine Tips for Creating a Hybrid Course. Retrieved February 2013, from: http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/curriculum-development/nine-tips-for-creating-a-hybridcourse/.
47. Khan, B. H. (Ed.). (2005). Managing e-learning strategies: Design, delivery, implementation and evaluation. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
48. Kim, K-J., Bonk, C. J., and Oh, E. J. (2008). The present and future state of blended learning in workplace learning settings in the United States. Performance Improvement, 47(8), 5-16.
49. Kowalski, E. M. (1995). The infusion approach to teacher development, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 4, 49-53.
50. Kowalski, E. M., & Rizzo, T. L. (1996). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ atttiudes toward individuals with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 180-196.
51. Kwon, E. & Block, M. E. (2013). Status of introductory APE course and infusion in PETE program. Annual cconference of the National Consortium for Physical Education for Individuals with Disabilities, Reston, VA.
52. LaMaster, K., Gall, K., Kinchin, G., & Siedentop, D. (1998). Inclusion practices of effective elementary specialists. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15, 64-81.
53. Laster, S., Otte, G., Picciano, A. G., & Sorg, S. (2005). Redefining blended learning. Presentation at the 2005 Sloan-C Workshop on Blended Learning, Chicago, IL. .
54. Lepore, M., & Kowalski, E. (1992). Infusion: A new look at an old idea. Paper presentation at the North American Federation of Adapted Physical Activity (NAFAPA) conference. Montreal, Canada.
55. Lepore, M., Gayle, G. W., & Stevens, S. F. (1998). Adapted Aquatics Programming: A professional guide. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
56. Linert, C., Sherrill, C., & Myers, B. (2001). Physical educators' concerns about integrating children with disabilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18, 1-17.
57. Martyn, M. (2003). The hybrid online model: Good practice. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 1(18). Retrieved June 2013, from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0313.pdf.
58. Meegan, S. & MacPhail, A. (2006). Irish physical educators' attitude toward teaching students with special educational needs. European Physical Education Review, 12(1), 75-97.
59. Morgan, K. R. (2002). Blended learning: A strategic action plan for a new campus. Seminole, FL: University of Central Florida.
60. National Center for Education Statistics (2016). The condition of Education 2016. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 2017: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016144.pdf.
61. Ocak, M. A. (2011). Why are faculty members not teaching blended course? Insights from faculty members, Computer & Education, 56(3), 689-699.
62. Orton-Johnson, K. (2009). “I’ve stuck to the path I’m afraid”: exploring student non-use of blended learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 837-847.
63. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments: definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-33.
64. PEW. (2003). Program in course redesign. Center for Academic Transformation. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578. Retrieved August 2016, from http://www.center.rpi.edu/PewGrant.html.
65. Piletic, C. K. & Davis, R. (2010). A profile of the introduction to adapted physical education course within undergraduate physical education teacher education program. Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport & Dance, 5(2), 26-32.
66. Poirier, S. (2010). A hybrid course design: the best of both educational worlds. Techniques (ACTE), 85(6): 28-31.
67. Power, A. L. (2004). Teacher preparation for environmental education: Faculty perspectives on the infusion of environmental education into preservice methods courses. The Journal of Environmental Education, 35(3), 3-11.
68. Reynolds, T. & Greiner, C. (2005). Integrated field experiences in online teacher education: A natural blend? In C.J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
69. Rizzo, T. L., & Kirkland, D. (1995). Teaching students with mild disabilities: What affects attitudes of future physical educators?. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 205-216.
70. Ross, B., & Gage, K. (2006). Global perspectives on blended learning: Insight from WebCT and our customers in Higher Education. In C. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 155-168). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
71. Rossett, A., Douglis, F., and Frazee, R.V. (2003). Strategies for building blended learning. ASTD. Retrieved March 2013 from: http://www.astd.org/C/2003/703_ossett.htm.
72. Shank, P., & Sitze, A. (2004). Making sense of online learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
73. Shibley, I. (2009). Blended Course Design. Magna Publication. Retrieved May 2 2013 from: http://www.magnapubs.com/talog/ended-learning-course-design-whitepaper/.
74. Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational technology, 43(6), 51-54.
75. Smelser, L. M. (2002). Making Connections in Our Classrooms: Online and Off. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Chicago, IL.
76. Smith, S. J., & Meyen, E. L. (2003). Applications of online instruction: An overview for teachers, students with mild disabilities, and their parents. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(6), 1-15.
77. Smith, S. B., Smith, S. J., & Boone, R. (2012). Increasing access to teacher preparation: The effectiveness of traditional instructional methods in an online learning environment, Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 37-46.
78. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. San Francisco, CA: Innosight Institute. Retrieved March 2 2013 from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-contentuploads/2012/05/Classifying-K-12-blended-learning2.pdf.
79. Sullivan, P. (2002). “It's easier to be yourself when you are invisible”: Female college students discuss their online classroom experiences. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 129-143.
80. Tan, L., Wang, M., and Xiao, J. (2010). Best practices in teaching online or hybrid courses: A synthesis of principles. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6248: 117-12.
81. Troha, F. J. (2002). “Bulletproof Instructional Design: A Model for Blended Learning.” USDLA Journal, 16(5). Retrieved April 2 2013 from: http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAY02_Issue/article03.html.
82. Twigg, C. A. (2003). Models for online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 28-38.
83. U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The Condition of Education 2001 .Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
84. U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO U.S. government Accountability Office) (2010), entitled 'Students With Disabilities: More Information and Guidance Could Improve Opportunities in Physical Education and Athletics'. Report number GAO-10-519.
85. Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., & Simmering, M. J. (2003). E-learning: emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 245-258.
86. Woltering, V., Herrler, A., Spitzer, K., & Spreckelsen, C. (2009). Blended learning positively affects students' satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: results of a mixed-method evaluation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(5), 725-738.
87. Yeh, Y. C., Huang, L., & Yeh, Y. (2011). Knowledge management in blended learning: Effects on professional development in creativity instruction, Computer & Education, 56(1), 146-156. York: Plenum Press.
88. Yukawa, J. (2010). Communities of Practice for Blended Learning: Toward an Integrated Model for LISEducation. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 51(2), 54-75.