Adapted Physical Education in the Special Education Process

Adapted physical education (APE) services have the same overall objectives as general physical education; however, adapted physical educators should implement accommodations and modifications to personalize the programs to meet the individual needs of students with disabilities. Because of the high levels of health disparity for people with disabilities, as well as cognitive and socio-emotional benefits associated with physical activity and exercise, it is crucial that students with disabilities receive high-quality APE programming. To give the readers a broad overview of APE and how it should be implemented, this chapter covers the following topics: physical education and physical literacy, the benefits of physical education and exercise for students with disabilities, federal laws in relation to physical education for students with disabilities, the role of adapted physical educators in interdisciplinary team approaches within the individualized education program process, and highlighting specialized teaching strategies and specialized equipment for students with disabilities.

Strategies for Implementing Social-Emotional Learning in Adapted Physical Education

Benefits of developing SEL skills can include improved academic success, emotional health, increased patience for problem solving, and enhanced emotional control and regulation (Ciotto & Gagnon, 2018). Physical education (PE) can be used as an avenue to teach SEL skills by connecting the affective domain (Ciotto & Gagnon, 2018) with the five SEL competencies of: (a) self-awareness, (b) social-awareness, (c) self-management, (d) relationship skills, and (e) responsible decision-making. We offer that SEL is important for all students and can support students with special needs, including those not in general education classrooms, when implemented with appropriate modifications. The purpose of this article is to provide adapted physical educators with two strategies for developing and implementing SEL within APE programs: Restorative Justice Circles (Anfara et al., 2013; Suvall, 2009) and TPSR (Hellison, 2003).

Improving Special Education Service Delivery Through Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Central to positive learning outcomes for students with disabilities is the ability of the individualized education program (IEP) team to work collaboratively. Within the IEP team, effective service delivery involves direct and related service providers working in an interdisciplinary capacity as they share professional responsibilities to implement the student’s program and achieve the common goal of improved student outcomes. With support from the literature, this paper discusses the core components of Bronstein’s Interdisciplinary Collaboration Model (2003); and elucidates how professionals share their content knowledge and technical skills with each other, collaborate in instructional design, and gain a firm understanding of each other’s discipline in practice. Practical applications that promote interdisciplinary collaboration between adapted physical educators, special educators, related service providers, and parents to improve service delivery and learner outcomes are shared.

Strategies to Increase Self-, Student, and Discipline Advocacy in Adapted Physical Education

While sharing some characteristics with their general physical education colleagues, adapted physical educators also face unique challenges related to their role. For example, both general and adapted physical education teachers encounter stress stemming from the marginalized nature of their discipline but may navigate such experiences differently. Adapted physical education teachers often serve in itinerant roles travelling among multiple schools and may provide services for upwards of 100 students. They must also have a functional understanding of a wide variety of disabilities, individualize instruction for each student, collaborate with service providers across several schools, and be an active team member in the individualized education program process. As a result, they may need to advocate for themselves, their students, and the role of the discipline in different and unique ways. Drawing from research on general and adapted physical education teacher socialization, and available research-informed practices, the purpose of this paper is to describe the unique stressors associated with teaching adapted physical education and strategies they may implement as part of local advocacy.

Least Restrictive Environment Decision Making in Physical Education

Purpose: To examine how physical educators and adapted physical educators make decisions regarding the implementation of the least restrictive environment law and what factors influence those practices. Methods: This study utilized a descriptive survey design through an online platform. Participants included 78 teachers (30 physical educators and 48 adapted physical educators). Descriptive statistics and group comparisons through a multivariate analysis of variance were conducted. Results: A significant difference in the implementation of the law between physical educators and adapted physical educators was detected, F(44, 33) = 2.60, p = .003; Wilk’s Λ = .224, . Adapted physical educators were more involved in making decisions regarding the individualized education program process and student placement. Access to qualified staff was reported as a major barrier to implementation. Discussion/Conclusion: The implementation of the least restrictive environment law and its barriers are discussed.

Mindfulness, Contact Anxiety, and Attitudes Toward Students With Visual Impairments Among Certified Adapted Physical Educators

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between interpersonal/intrapersonal mindfulness, contact anxiety, and attitudes toward students with visual impairments among certified adapted physical educators. Participants included 115 certified adapted physical educators who completed a 31-item online survey, composed of a 10-item demographic questionnaire, a 14-item mindfulness in teaching scale, a four-item intergroup anxiety scale, and a three-item attitude scale. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that intrapersonal mindfulness was a negative predictor of contact anxiety (β = −0.26, p = .007) and contact anxiety negatively predicted attitudes (β = −0.22, p = .02). A mediation analysis revealed that intrapersonal mindfulness had an indirect effect on attitudes through contact anxiety, b = 0.09, SE = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [0.006, 0.22]. Collectively, both intrapersonal and interpersonal mindfulness appear to be responsible for the formation of attitudes, but with different underlying processes involved.

Barriers and facilitators to inclusion in integrated physical education: Adapted physical educators’ perspectives

While movement toward the education of students with disabilities in integrated physical education has now become common internationally, it is not without concerns. Notably, scholars have questioned whether instruction in integrated physical education settings provides inclusive experiences for students with disabilities. The purpose of this exploratory study was to explore certified adapted physical educators’ (CAPEs’) perspectives on barriers and facilitators to students with disabilities experiencing inclusion in integrated physical education. A sample of 99 CAPEs (74.7% female) across the United States provided valid responses to an online survey form. Guided by the established two-step coding protocol, two independent reviewers coded the responses to open-ended questions. In total, 460 barriers and 473 facilitators that fell into seven categories were identified. Among these, both teacher-related barriers and facilitators were more commonly reported than other factors, such as environmental and policy barriers/facilitators. As such, it appears that the participants placed onus on ensuring the inclusiveness of integrated physical education classes largely on the shoulders of the teachers. In addition, codes related to programmatic or equipment-related factors were underreported, suggesting that even in integrated physical education classes where adapted equipment (i.e. equipment facilitator) and personnel support (i.e. programmatic facilitator) are available, inclusive experience may not be. These findings suggest inclusiveness of integrated physical education is complex and influenced by numerous factors.