-
137
Official Journal of IFAPAwww.APAQ-Journal.com
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2015, 32,
137-155http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2014-0140 2015 Human
Kinetics, Inc.
Beliefs of Chinese Physical Educators on Teaching Students With
Disabilities in General Physical Education Classes
Lijuan Wang Jing Qi Shanghai University of Sport Beifang
University of Nationalities
Lin WangShanghai University of Sport
This study examined the behavioral beliefs of physical education
(PE) teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their
general PE (GPE) classes and to identify the factors that
contribute to their beliefs. A total of 195 PE teachers from a
region in eastern China were surveyed. Results of the Physical
Educators Attitudes Toward Teaching Individuals With
Disabilities-III survey indicate that although some teachers felt
that including students with disabilities in GPE classes provides
benefit for them, they were concerned about the practical
difficulties of teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes,
the lack of support, and the possible rejection of students with
disabilities by their peers. Moreover, the behavioral beliefs of
teachers vary according to the disability conditions of the
students. Results show that there is no significant effect of
demographic factors on the beliefs of PE teachers. Quality of
experience predicts positive beliefs. The study has important
implication for teacher training, provision of equipment, and
support from teacher assistants.
Keywords: PE, adapted physical education, behavioral beliefs
The philosophy behind teaching students with disabilities has
significantly changed over the last 2 decades, and several
countries, namely, the United States, Ireland, and Japan, have
implemented policies to facilitate their teaching in general
classes (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Sato & Hodge, 2009). In
the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (2004) suggested that students with disabilities be
educated with students without disabilities in the least
restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate. The law
states that stu-dents with disabilities must be afforded the
opportunity to participate in the general
Lijuan and Lin Wang are with the Shanghai University of Sport,
Shanghai, China. Qi is with Beifang University of Nationalities,
Yinchuan, China. Address author correspondence to Lijuan Wang at
[email protected]
-
138 Wang, Qi, and Wang
physical education (GPE) program. As a result, there has been an
increase in the number of students with disabilities receiving
physical education (PE) in general classes with their peers without
disabilities (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006). Many factors affect the
success of teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. One
important factor is the behavioral belief of teachers, which is the
key to changing their intention to teach students with disabilities
(Theodorakis, Bagiatis, & Goudas, 1995). If professionals can
understand teacher beliefs and concerns about teaching students
with disabilities in their GPE classes, they can address these
issues and focus on changing these beliefs. This can, in turn, lead
to more successful profes-sional programs on teaching students with
disabilities in general classes (Conatser, Block, & Gansneder,
2002; Kozub & Porretta, 1998).
Several studies in North America and Europe used various survey
instruments such as the Physical Educators Attitude Toward Teaching
the Handicapped (Rizzo, 1984, 1988) and the Physical Educators
Attitudes Toward Teaching Individuals with Disabilities-III
(PEATID-III; Rizzo, 1993) to examine behavioral beliefs of PE
teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their general
classes (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006;
Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo
& Wright, 1988). These studies indicate that beliefs range from
negative or undecided (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Meegan &
MacPhail, 2006; Petkova, Kudlacek, & Nikolova, 2012) to
positive (Knoll & Fediuk, 2012; Obrusnikova, 2008).
Teacher-related variables may influence behavioral beliefs of PE
teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE
classes. These variables include gender, age, academic degree,
years in teaching PE, experience with students with disabilities,
quality of experience, perceived competence, and coursework in
special education and adapted PE.
Some variables such as gender and age have inconsistent
relationships with beliefs. Aloia, Knutson, Minner, and Von Seggern
(1980) found that women have more positive beliefs than men when
teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes, but
subsequent studies (Fournidou, Kudlacek, & Evagellinou, 2011;
Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Petkova et al., 2012; Rizzo, 1985;
Rizzo & Wright, 1988) do not concur. Studies show that age is
negatively correlated with teaching beliefs and that older teachers
are more negative toward teaching students with disabilities in GPE
classes (Rizzo, 1985). Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) and Rizzo and
Wright (1988) failed to find a significant correlation between age
and beliefs.
Several studies have examined the effect of academic degree on
PE teachers beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in
their GPE classes. However, no significant relationship was found
between an academic degree and beliefs (Block & Rizzo, 1995;
Rizzo, 1985).
The effect of years of teaching PE on the beliefs of PE teachers
about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes has
been examined in several studies (Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo &
Vispoel, 1991). However, no significant relationship was found
between years of teaching PE and the beliefs of PE teachers. Most
studies reported that teachers with more experience in teaching
students with disabilities in GPE classes have more positive
beliefs than teachers with less experience (Block & Rizzo,
1995; Knoll & Fediuk, 2012; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo &
Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). However, Rizzo (1985)
failed to find a significant relation-ship between teaching
experience and positive teaching beliefs.
-
Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities
139
Several studies show that educational preparation is a predictor
of beliefs (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo,
1985). Some studies indicate that teachers who completed adapted-PE
coursework or special education courses have more positive beliefs
(Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1985). However,
Rizzo and Wright (1988) and Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) found no
signifi-cant correlation between coursework in special education or
adapted PE and beliefs.
Quality of experience is an assessment indicator of the
perception of PE teach-ers of teaching students with disabilities
in their GPE classes and the reflection of their enjoyment in
teaching such students. Block and Rizzo (1995) and Obrusnikova
(2008) examined the effect of quality of experience on the beliefs
of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their
GPE classes. They found that the beliefs of PE teachers become more
positive as the quality of experience in teach-ing students with
disabilities improved.
Perceived competence and self-efficacy have been correlated with
beliefs of PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in
their GPE classes. Research-ers suggest that PE teachers with
higher level of perceived teaching competence exhibit more positive
beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE
classes (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo &
Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). However, those studies
failed to use a validated instrument to measure perceived
competence. In addition, Beamer and Yun (2014) reported that PE
teachers self-efficacy is positively related to their beliefs about
teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes.
Aside from teacher-related variables, various studies found that
student-related variables such as type of disability are linked to
teacher behavioral beliefs. Students with learning disabilities are
generally viewed more positively than students with emotional and
behavioral disorders (Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo &
Vispoel, 1991).
Teaching Students With Disabilities in Chinese General Classes:
Policy and Implementation
Teacher behavioral beliefs may differ because of cultural
differences in the way persons with disabilities are regarded
(Leyser, Kapperman & Keller, 1994; Sharma, Ee, & Desai,
2003). Most studies have focused on the United States and European
countries. Much remains unknown about beliefs or concerns of PE
teachers in China.
Teaching students with disabilities in Chinese general classes,
commonly referred to as Suiban Jiudu, has ideological and pragmatic
roots. Sweeping reforms in China in the 1980s resulted in
tremendous social, political, and economic changes (Deng &
Manset, 2000). Consistently, equal rights for individuals with
disabilities have become a focus of the Chinese government (Deng
& Manset, 2000). Financial constraints may be another important
reason behind the initiation of teaching stu-dents with
disabilities in general schools rather than special schools.
According to Deng and Manset, separate education for nearly 5
million children with disabilities in China would require
establishing at least 210, 000 new special schools. Thus, enrolling
students with disabilities in general schools is a cost-effective
approach (McCabe, 2003).
-
140 Wang, Qi, and Wang
The drafting of several policies has contributed to the
progression of teaching students with disabilities in general
classes. In China, the Compulsory Education Law was the first
official call for teaching students with disabilities in general
schools in areas without or that could not afford special schools
or programs (National Peoples Congress, 1986). The 1990 Law on the
Protection of Persons with Disabilities (National Peoples Congress,
1990) and the 1994 Regulations on Education for Persons with
Disabilities (State Council, 1994) called for compulsory 9-year
education for students with disabilities. As a result, the Chinese
educational system has seen an increasing number of students with
disabilities taught in general education settings. In 1992, 129,400
students with intellectual disability, visual impairment, and
hearing impairment were enrolled in general schools (Gu, 1993). By
2011, their enrollment reached 225,200 out of 208,000,000 students
in general schools (Ministry of Education of China, 2012).
Some studies examined teacher perceptions and practice about
teaching stu-dents with disabilities in China (e.g., Chen, 2008; Li
& Sam, 2011). Research find-ings indicate that most Chinese
school or university teachers agree to teach students with
disabilities in their general classes, but they are not confident
in teaching them in a general setting (Chen, 2008). Teaching
students with disabilities in general classes has many barriers. On
one hand, no guidance was provided in the teaching program and
syllabus for general teachers. Teachers are not directed by policy
on how to teach and assess this group of students (Li & Sam,
2011). On the other hand, special education courses are provided
only in few universities, and profes-sional training programs for
school teachers are deficient (Wu, 2011). Xiao (2005) reported that
the number of teachers with professional knowledge in China could
not fulfill the requirement of teaching students with disabilities
in general classes in the country. However, no studies on PE
teacher beliefs have been conducted.
GPE classes in China focus on fitness, health, and cognitive and
affective orientation. The aims of PE teachers are to develop motor
competencies and pro-mote sports participation, social
adaptability, and a healthy and safe lifestyle for students
(Ministry of Education of China, 2002). Taking into account these
aims, the purposes of this study were (a) to describe the
behavioral beliefs of Chinese PE teachers about teaching students
with different types of disabilities; (b) to examine demographic
differences in the beliefs of Chinese PE teachers in terms of
gender, academic degree, teaching level, PE teaching experience,
experience teaching stu-dents with disabilities, special education
courses, and adapted-PE courses; and (c) to identify some
teacher-related variables significantly contributing to their
beliefs. The current study will provide a foundation of knowledge
to develop professional training programs for PE teachers on
teaching students with disabilities in China.
Method
Participants
The participants of the current study were 195 full-time PE
teachers from 30 primary, secondary, and high schools from Shanghai
in Eastern China. Sampling was conducted in two steps. First, 10
schools from six districts in Shanghai were deliberately selected
from 1,521 schools with 7,503 PE teachers. These 10 schools
-
Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities
141
had the highest number of students with disabilities in this
region in the past 3 years. All PE teachers (51) in the subject
schools, who have substantial experience in teaching students with
disabilities, agreed to participate in the study. The remaining 13
out of 19 districts were targeted for the second sampling step. One
primary and one secondary school were randomly selected from each
district. We contacted the principals of these 26 schools. Six
schools declined to participate. The remaining 20 schools, with 144
PE teachers, participated in the study. Some teachers had
experience in teaching students with disabilities, although to a
lesser degree than the participants from the first step.
Instrumentation
Data were collected using the PEATID-III (Rizzo, 1993). This
instrument contains three sections, namely, a belief scale to
measure teacher beliefs, a demographic survey to collect attribute
information, and an open-ended question that explores reasons for
beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes.
The first portion of the PEATID-III consists of 12 statements. A
sample statement is Teaching students labeled ________ in my GPE
classes will motivate nondisabled students to learn to perform
motor skills. The six types of disability classifica-tionsemotional
and behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, specific learn-ing
disability, mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, visual
impairment, and hearing impairmentare included in the PEATID-III.
Under each statement, the six disability classifications are listed
and rated according to a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The
participant expresses the extent of his or her agreement with each
disabling condi-tion per item. Six items are positively phrased (1,
2, 3, 4, 11, and 12), while six are negatively phrased (5, 6, 7, 8,
9, and 10). Scores for negatively phrased items were reversed to
offset any possible respondent mental set and to derive accurate
scale means (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). The second portion of the
PEATID-III includes 11 selection-type or open-ended items. The
following are examples of the attribute questions asked: Rate the
quality of your teaching experience for students with disabilities
(No experience/not good/satisfactory/very good) and Have you taken
any adapted physical education courses? (Yes / No). Respondents
were asked to fill in the blanks or circle the most appropriate
answers. The third section contains one open-ended question: How do
you feel about teaching students with disabili-ties in GPE classes?
(positive/neutral/negative) Why? Respondents were asked to choose
the answer, express their opinions, and explain the reason behind
their beliefs. The validity and reliability of the PEATID have
already been established by Folsom-Meek and Rizzo (2002).
The instrument was translated into Chinese and validated before
data collection. According to the guideline for adapting
self-report measures (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz,
2000), the translation and back-translation of the instrument were
undertaken by two research assistants who are fluent in both
Chinese and English. Noted differences were negotiated until the
translators agreed. To verify the validity of the Chinese version
of the instrument, the questionnaire was sent to five experts who
all had doctoral degrees, one in special education, two in PE, and
two in adapted PE. Three experts found that the Chinese version is
valid, but
-
142 Wang, Qi, and Wang
two experts thought that some statements need revision. Minor
modifications were made based on the expert comments. For example,
the original types of disabilities included were adjusted to the
six disability types in the current study (i.e., emotional and
behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, specific learning
disability, mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, visual
impairment, and hearing impairment) to be more consistent with
current law (i.e., State Council, 1994) and professional practice.
The background question What grade levels are you presently
teach-ing? was omitted because the variable was excluded from the
study. Experts also suggested that perceived competence be excluded
from the study because the question How competent do you feel
teaching students with disabilities? cannot reflect the teaching
competence of teachers without experience in teaching students with
disabilities. The revised version was re-sent to the experts, and
they all agreed that the instrument is valid.
A pilot study was then conducted with 20 PE teachers to
determine whether confusing items were still found in the
questionnaire. For example, one original statement is Students
labeled ________ will develop a more positive self-concept as a
result of learning motor skills in my GPE class with nondisabled
peers. Based on the comments of the participants, Thinking about
oneself was added to explain self-concept The testretest
reliability was checked with 22 other PE teachers for 2 weeks. The
Chinese version demonstrated acceptable testretest reliability at
.74 for emotional and behavioral disorders, .71 for physical
disabilities, .80 for visual impairment, and .78 for hearing
impairment. We obtained lower reliability coefficients for learning
disabilities (.67) and mild to moderate intellectual disabili-ties
(.69). Most reliability coefficients surpassed the .70 criterion
for acceptability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Data Collection
The university ethics committee and relevant school authorities
approved the study. Data were collected by the researcher and three
postgraduate research assistants majoring in adapted PE. The team
visited 30 elementary and secondary schools in Shanghai in the
middle of the 201112 school year. Face-to-face distribution was
conducted to enable researchers to explain and clarify the aim of
the study. Before data collection, the research assistants were
informed about the research purpose and design and were trained to
clarify questionnaire items that might confuse participants. The
process and skills in data collection were also explained to them.
Before their arrival at each school, the head of the PE teaching
group was contacted. The invitation to participate in the study had
already been given during weekly meeting of each school. All PE
teachers who participated in the study signed an informed-consent
form approved by the institutional review board. The teachers were
assured that participation was voluntary and confidentiality was
guaranteed. The questionnaires were distributed immediately after
the weekly meeting at each school. The research purpose and several
terms in the questionnaire were explained. Participants were given
instructions and directed to complete the questionnaire. Completed
questionnaires were collected in groups. The survey required 1525
minutes to complete and was collected immediately on completion.
Out of the 273 contacted teachers, 211 returned the survey, which
yielded a 77.3% return rate.
-
Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities
143
After screening, 16 surveys were eliminated because of missing
data. The final sample is 195 participants.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics included the means and standard deviation
of the overall belief score and the six disability-specific belief
scores. Mean score per disability was based on the sum of the item
ratings of the disability divided by the number of items on the
scale. One-way within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA)
examined the differences in teacher beliefs based on disability
type. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed with
the teacher beliefs as dependent variables and demographic data as
independent variables to examine the latters main effects on
teaching beliefs. For significant MANOVAs, univariate follow-ups
were used to determine where significant differences occurred.
Pearsons productmoment correlations examined relationships between
teacher beliefs and selected teacher-related variables. Relations
among the variables were also examined. A series of standard
multiple-regression analyses specified the variables contributing
signifi-cantly to positive beliefs. The scores were separately
entered into the regression analysis as dependent variables, and
the teacher-related variables such as gender, academic degree,
teaching levels, years of teaching PE, experience in teaching
students with disabilities, course work in adapted PE, course work
in special education, and perceived quality of teaching experience
of PE teachers served as independent variables.
Responses for the open-ended question were inductively analyzed
(Patton, 2002) and coded for the principal researcher to identify
the themes. Data manage-ment and analysis followed the following
steps: (a) Raw data themes were identified per participant. They
included the summary of the passage and a number of key words,
phrases, or sentences in the response that conveyed a specific
concept or idea. (b) Using inductive content analysis, common
themes, or patterns shaped by cross-case raw-data analysis, were
identified. These common themes emerged as first-order themes
(e.g., practical challenges, offering equal opportunities, and lack
of support). (c) The first-order themes were included under two
general dimensions, namely, benefits of inclusion and teacher
concern, which corresponded to major categories on teacher comments
about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. (d)
Summaries of first-order themes and general dimensions of
participants were combined to form a dichotomous thematic
structure. Pseudonyms are used throughout the article to protect
the privacy of all participants. The percentages of frequencies of
each theme relative to the total number of respondents to the
open-ended question were calculated.
Trustworthiness was established by applying two strategies. Peer
debriefing (Creswell, 2007) was used when the principal researcher
met with an experienced qualitative researcher. Throughout data
analysis, data, charts, memos, and the researchers thoughts and
analyses were shared with the peer debriefer, whose role was to
comment on the logical nature of the researchers interpretation,
iden-tification of all possible categories, and potential
researcher bias. A final analyst triangulation (Patton, 2002)
tested the reliability of the data analysis. After the themes were
determined, two research assistants knowledgeable in adapted PE
-
144 Wang, Qi, and Wang
examined the data and checked the subthemes. Intercoder
reliability had an average of .82, which was higher than the .8
intercoder reliability criterion (Weber, 1990). A discussion ensued
until complete agreement was reached by the researcher and research
assistants. Pseudonyms were used throughout the study to protect
the privacy of all participants.
Results
Participant Characteristics
The mean age of the 195 PE teachers was 33 years (SD = 6.71,
range = 2253). The participants comprised 124 (63%) men and 71
(36%) women. A total of 142 (72%) participants had completed a
4-year undergraduate program with a bachelor degree. A small group,
37 (19%), had completed a 3-year college program with a junior
college degree, and 16 (8%) had completed both a 4-year
undergraduate program and a 3-year postgraduate program with a
masters degree. In terms of teaching level, 69 participants (35.4%)
taught in primary schools with students age 712, followed by those
in secondary schools with students age 1315 (71, 36%), and high
schools with students age 1618 (55, 28%). In terms of teaching
experience in PE, 119 (61%) had less than 10 years, 57 (29%) had
1020 years, and 19 (9%) had over 20 years. A total of 100 (51%) had
taught students with disabilities for 17 years, whereas 95 (49%)
had no experience. Only 47 (24%) had taken one or more
undergraduate, graduate, or continuous training courses in adapted
PE, whereas 148 (76%) had not taken such courses. Moreover, only 31
(16%) had taken special education, whereas 164 (84%) had not. When
asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale the quality of their
teaching experience with students with disabilities in GPE classes
(how they liked the experience), 95 (49%) had no experience and 53
(27%) rated their experience as satisfactory, 15 (8%) as very good,
and 32 (16%) as not good.
Behavioral Beliefs of Teachers About Teaching Students With
Disabilities in Their GPE Classes
A neutral response to the PEATID-III is 3.0 (Block & Rizzo,
1995). The average of teacher beliefs about students with physical
disabilities (M = 3.01, SD = 0.51) was neutral. ANOVA was used to
examine whether there were significant differ-ences between beliefs
of teachers about teaching students with mild to moderate
intellectual disabilities, visual impairment, hearing impairment,
specific learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders,
and the neutral beliefs (the belief of teachers about teaching
students with physical disabilities). Results indicated significant
differences between belief about students with physical
disabilities and mild-moderate intellectual disabilities, F(1, 195)
= 43.13, p < .01, 2 = .18; visual impairment, F(1, 195) = 33.56,
p < .01, 2 = .15; hearing impairment, F(1, 195) = 33.77, p <
.01, 2 = .15; and specific learning disabilities, F(1, 195) =
19.51, p < .01, 2 = .09. Beliefs about students with mild to
moderate intellectual disabilities (M = 3.26, SD = 0.50), visual
impairment (M = 3.18, SD = 0.46), hearing impairment (M = 3.21, SD
= 0.48), and specific learning disabilities (M = 3.15, SD = 0.46)
were
-
Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities
145
positive. However, teachers held negative beliefs toward
students with emotional and behavioral disorders (M = 2.79, SD =
0.57), with a significant difference from beliefs about students
with physical disabilities, F(1, 195) = 51.90, p < .01, 2 =
.21.
Moreover, ANOVA results showed significant differences in
teacher beliefs toward teaching students with six disabling
conditions, F(5, 195) = 23.96, p < .01, 2 = .39. The effect size
is generally considered medium (Cohen, 1992). Subsequent Tukey post
hoc comparisons revealed a significant difference among all
variables except the relationship between specific learning
disabilities and vision impair-ment, F(1, 195) = 1.84, p > .05,
2 = .01; between hearing impairment and mild to moderate
intellectual disabilities, F(1, 195) = 3.01, p > .05, 2 = .02;
and between hearing impairment and vision impairment, F(1, 195) =
1.06, p > .05, 2 = .01.
Demographic Differences in the Beliefs of PE teachers
Table 1 presents the mean scores, standard deviations, and F
value of beliefs across demographic characteristics. MANOVA results
indicated no significant differences in beliefs in terms of gender,
F(1, 195) = 0.53, p > .05, 2 = .02; academic degree, F(2, 195) =
2.09, p > .05, 2 = .04; teaching level, F(2, 195) = 0.69, p >
.05, 2 = .03; PE teaching experience, F(2, 195) = 0.72, p > .05,
2 = .02; and special education courses, F(1, 195) = 0.95, p >
.05, 2 = .03]. With regard to the experience teaching students with
disabilities in their GPE classes, 144 participants came from
schools with little experience or exposure to students with
disabilities. To avoid bias, the experienced group (51 teachers)
was excluded and the difference in the beliefs of the teachers was
examined. The findings showed no significant differences in beliefs
in terms of experience teaching students with disabilities in their
GPE classes, F(1, 144) = 0.41, p > .05, 2 = .02. The only
significant difference was found in beliefs in terms of adapted-PE
courses, F(1, 195) = 3.55, p < .01, 2 = .10. The follow-up
univariate test results indicated that the beliefs toward students
with emotional and behavioral disorders contributed to this
significant difference, F(1, 195) = 5.22, p < .05, 2 = .03. PE
teachers who had taken adapted-PE courses had significantly higher
beliefs toward students with emotional and behavioral disorders
than those who had not taken adapted-PE courses (Table 1).
Relationship Between Selected Teacher-Related Variables and
Beliefs
The analysis results of correlations between some ordinal and
interval variables such as academic degree, teaching levels, PE
teaching experience, quality of experience teaching students with
disabilities, and overall beliefs indicated there are no
signifi-cant correlations except for that between quality of
teaching experience and overall beliefs (r = .29, p < .01). A
series of standard multiple-regression analyses identified and
assessed the collective and separate contributions of all
teacher-related vari-ables. Table 2 summarizes these results.
Quality of experience is the only variable that significantly
contributed to the prediction of positive beliefs about teaching
students with disabilities in GPE classes. This variable explained
8% variance. The variable solely significantly contributed to the
prediction of positive beliefs about teaching students with
physical disabilities, specific learning disabilities,
-
146
Tab
le 1
Te
ach
ers
Bel
iefs
ab
ou
t Tea
chin
g S
tud
ents
Wit
h D
isab
iliti
es A
cro
ss D
emo
gra
ph
ic D
iffer
ence
s
(N =
195
), M
(S
D)
Type
of D
isab
ility
FE
BD
PD
SLD
MM
IDV
IH
I
Gen
der
0.53
m
ale
2.82
(0.
57)
3.03
(0.
49)
3.15
(0.
45)
3.25
(0.
49)
3.19
(0.
45)
3.19
(0.
48)
fe
mal
e2.
76 (
0.57
)2.
97 (
0.53
)3.
16 (
0.49
)3.
27 (
0.52
)3.
16 (
0.48
)3.
24 (
0.47
)
Aca
dem
ic d
egre
e2.
09
ju
nior
col
lege
deg
ree
2.72
(0.
77)
2.61
(0.
69)
2.73
(0.
69)
3.09
(0.
75)
3.00
(0.
73)
2.94
(0.
58)
ba
chel
ors
deg
ree
2.97
(0.
55)
2.99
(0.
47)
3.15
(0.
43)
3.25
(0.
47)
3.18
(0.
44)
3.21
(0.
48)
m
aste
rs
degr
ee2.
75 (
0.54
)3.
24 (
0.53
)3.
34 (
0.46
)3.
45 (
0.47
)3.
38 (
0.42
)3.
38 (
0.41
)
Teac
hing
leve
l0.
69
pr
imar
y sc
hool
2.83
(0.
50)
3.05
(0.
46)
3.19
(0.
39)
3.32
(0.
49)
3.19
(0.
43)
3.21
(0.
45)
se
cond
ary
scho
ol2.
79 (
0.59
)2.
97 (
0.51
)3.
08 (
0.49
)3.
20 (
0.49
)3.
15 (
0.46
)3.
16 (
0.52
)
hi
gh s
choo
l2.
77 (
0.63
)3.
00 (
0.57
)3.
18 (
0.51
)3.
26 (
0.53
)3.
22 (
0.51
)3.
28 (
0.46
)
Yea
rs o
f te
achi
ng p
hysi
cal e
duca
tion
0.72
202.
79 (
0.39
)3.
02 (
0.35
)3.
17 (
0.39
)3.
12 (
0.41
)3.
14 (
0.36
)3.
13 (
0.48
)
(con
tinu
ed)
-
147
Type
of D
isab
ility
FE
BD
PD
SLD
MM
IDV
IH
I
Exp
erie
nce
teac
hing
stu
dent
s w
ith d
is-
abili
ties
0.41
ye
s2.
78 (
0.53
)2.
99 (
0.49
)3.
18 (
0.42
)3.
26 (
0.52
)3.
14 (
0.47
)3.
21 (
0.47
)
no
2.86
(0.
62)
3.09
(0.
48)
3.22
(0.
44)
3.33
(0.
46)
3.23
(0.
42)
3.26
(0.
47)
Spec
ial e
duca
tion
cour
ses
0.95
ye
s2.
97 (
0.61
)3.
14 (
0.29
)3.
21 (
0.50
)3.
40 (
0.59
)3.
35 (
0.30
)3.
32 (
0.56
)
no
2.79
(0.
57)
3.00
(0.
52)
3.15
(0.
46)
3.25
(0.
49)
3.18
(0.
47)
3.21
(0.
47)
Ada
pted
phy
sica
l edu
catio
n co
urse
s3.
55**
ye
s2.
96 (
0.51
)3.
05 (
0.43
)3.
14 (
0.44
)3.
24 (
0.45
)3.
21 (
0.37
)3.
12 (
0.44
)
no
2.75
(0.
58)
2.99
(0.
53)
3.16
(0.
47)
3.26
(0.
52)
3.18
(0.
49)
3.24
(0.
49)
Not
e. E
BD
= e
mot
iona
l and
beh
avio
ral d
isor
ders
; PD
= p
hysi
cal d
isab
ility
; SL
D =
spe
cific
lear
ning
dis
abili
ty; M
MID
= m
ild to
mod
erat
e in
telle
ctua
l dis
abili
ties;
VI
= v
isua
l im
pair
men
t; H
I =
hea
ring
impa
irm
ent.
**p
< .0
1.
Tab
le 1
(c
on
tin
ued
)
-
148
Tab
le 2
S
tan
dar
d M
ult
iple
-Reg
ress
ion
An
alys
is fo
r P
red
icti
ng
th
e B
elie
fs (
N =
195
)
Varia
ble
BS
Et
pR
2
Ove
rall
belie
f.0
8
qu
ality
of
expe
rien
ce0.
130.
034.
09
