Graduate students’ practicum experiences instructing students with severe and profound disabilities in physical education

Pre-service adapted physical education teacher education

Because students with disabilities are more likely to be educated in schools with typically developing peers, it is essential for all educational personnel, including PE teachers, to have proper teacher education to help meet their unique needs. There is a wealth of research that suggests that pre-service teacher education, including specialized coursework and practicum experiences, is an essential component for enhancing PE teachers’ abilities and perceptions toward teaching students with disabilities (e.g. Block and Obrusnikova, 2007; Martin and Kudláček, 2010). Much of this research has focused on undergraduate pre-service PE teachers, who are typically only exposed to one introductory adapted physical education (APE) course (Murphy, 2007). While research suggests that one APE course can positively impact pre-service teachers’ ability to appropriately modify tasks (Hodge et al., 2003, 2013), exposure to one such course may not provide all of the knowledge, experience, or competence that future educators need to effectively teach students with disabilities (Rizzo and Kirkendall, 1995). As a result of this, APE scholars suggest that teacher education programmes tend to inadequately provide enough curricular courses and/or field experiences to prepare pre-service PE teachers to successfully teach students with disabilities in their classes (Hardin, 2005; Morley et al., 2005; Rust and Sinelnikov, 2010).

Research in this area has focused on undergraduate pre-service PE teachers. However, there is a rich history of students being trained as APE specialists in graduate programmes (i.e. master’s degree programmes, credentialing programmes) internationally, beginning with the first master’s degree programme in this area in 1968 (i.e. The College of Brockport (2015)). Unlike undergraduate programmes, master’s level students in this area are engaged in multiple APE-related courses, as well as a variety of practicum experiences. However, little is known about the meaning that graduate APE students ascribe to their participation in these professional socialization experiences.

Practicum experiences

Practicum experiences, or field experiences, are organized experiences that provide participants with a pre-specified number of hours observing, assisting a teacher, and/or teaching in formal or informal settings (Beyer, 1984). These experiences can be either laboratory-based (i.e. on-campus) or field-based (i.e. off-campus) and are considered to be an essential component of pre-service education that helps pre-service teachers to develop skills and competencies in classroom management, make progress in their teaching profession, and can influence them to stay in the profession longer (Cameron et al., 2007). Teacher preparation research suggests that practicum experiences at special schools for students with developmental disabilities can be beneficial to increase pre-service teachers’ disability awareness. More specifically, APE coursework should include experiences: (1) of the daily realities of schools and classrooms (Sleeter, 2008); (2) with APE-specific content and theoretical knowledge and pedagogy (Sato and Hodge, 2012); (3) demonstrating the academic and social experiences of students with disabilities in APE (Fitzgerald, 2005); and (4) in diverse environments such as schools educating children with various disabilities (Burden et al., 2004). Furthermore, Hodge et al. (2003) suggest that pre-service teachers tend to have positive experiences teaching students with disabilities when they receive multiple and interacting opportunities, supervision from a cooperative teacher and/or university supervisor, and successful orientation (e.g. one-on-one lessons, and small teaching opportunities). Such experiences in teacher preparation can help to minimize pre-service teachers’ stereotypical beliefs about various demographic populations and improve teachers’ attitudes toward working with those with disabilities (Sleeter, 2008).

Practicum experiences may be especially important when those experiences focus on areas of high need. For example, recently there has been serious concern regarding the shortages of APE programme graduates who are prepared to teach students with severe and profound disabilities and low retention rates of those working with this population (Healy et al., 2014; Zhang, 2003). Severe and profound disability is defined as a severe chronic condition attributable to cognitive or physical impairment of a person that is likely to result in substantial functional limitation in three or more major life activities (e.g. self-care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility) and will continue indefinitely (Hodge et al., 2012). Severe and profound disabilities have many different causes (e.g. trisomy 18, deafblindness, CHARGE syndrome), and many children with severe and profound disabilities may have more than one disability (e.g. autism spectrum disorder and a visual impairment). Regardless of the cause of the severe and profound disability, a number of attributes may be present that makes APE instruction challenging, such as limited levels of awareness of the needs of students, a lack of communication, and medical complications (Hodge et al., 2012).

Purpose and theoretical framework

There is a wealth of knowledge available regarding the impact of coursework and practicum experiences for undergraduate students, as well as research pertaining to strategies to teach children with severe and profound disabilities. However, the research base is underdeveloped in regard to the meaning that pre-service APE specialists ascribe to practicum experiences teaching students with severe and profound disabilities during their graduate teacher education. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to describe and explain graduate students’ experiences instructing students with severe and profound disabilities during course-related practicum experiences.

This study was interpreted through the lens of occupational socialization theory (Lawson, 1986). Occupational socialization is a theoretical framework that guides researchers in understanding why teachers think about and teach the way they do (Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2009). Within the context of PE, occupational socialization has been defined as “all kinds of socialization that initially influence persons to enter the field of PE and later are responsible for their perceptions and actions as teacher educators and teachers” (Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2009: 107). Utilizing this theoretical framework, researchers can describe the acculturation, professional preparation, and organizational socialization of teachers, and explore factors that contribute to their decisions and behaviors (Richards et al., 2014). Because of the focus on practicum experiences, the professional socialization phase was the focal interest in this study. This phase refers to the time that begins when pre-service teachers are enrolled in teacher certification programmes at colleges and universities (Richards et al., 2014). In essence, professional socialization refers to the influence that PE teacher education has on pre-service teachers (Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2009). Experiences associated with the professional socialization period include course study, practicum experiences, and student teaching (Hushman, 2013). According to Lawson (1986), each of these experiences can have a large influence on perceptions of students within a PE programme. Practicum experiences, in particular, offer an opportunity for pre-service teachers to incorporate skills, techniques, and theories into an actual teaching environment (Hushman, 2013) with the guidance of a professional.

Scholars have thoroughly utilized occupational socialization theory to explore ways in which the PE profession recruits, trains, and socializes its teachers (e.g. Lawson, 1983; Templin and Schempp, 1989) including learning about the effectiveness of teacher education programmes (e.g. Curtner-Smith and Sofo, 2004). Some research suggests that PE teacher education programmes should allow pre-service teachers to explore PE professionals’ occupational socialization (Curtner-Smith, 1999; Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2009), and those programmes must provide meaningful experiences, including closely supervised practicum experiences, to positively influence pre-service teachers’ occupational socialization as well as dispositions (Curtner-Smith and Sofo, 2004). While research pertaining to PE pre-service teachers is ubiquitous, this theoretical paradigm has not been previously utilized in regard to examining the meaning of teacher education (e.g. practicum experiences) of pre-service teachers in the field of APA. Because participants in this study were pursuing a master’s degree, and had already obtained bachelor’s degrees in PE, this time period would represent a secondary professional socialization period (Lee and Curtner-Smith, 2011).

Participants

All participants (n = 9) were graduate (master’s level) students enrolled in APE graduate programmes at one of two public universities located in the Northeast (North Atlantic State University, NU) and Midwest (Midwest Erie State University, MU) regions of the US. Seven participants (Anton, Casey, Maggy, Nadia, Kaitlyn, Ted, and Donovan) were American born, one was Puerto Rican (Jackson), and one was Irish (Gayle). Each of the participants earned a bachelor’s degree in PE in their native countries prior to enrolling in their respective programmes. APE was a new field of study for all participants upon entering the graduate programme, and none had substantial previous experience of teaching students with disabilities. Furthermore, prior to this practicum experience, they had not had any interactions with students with severe developmental, emotional, or physical disabilities. Pseudonyms were assigned to all participants and universities to ensure anonymity and protect identity. Table 1 provides further descriptive information about each of the participants.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Master’s degree students’ demographic data.

Pseudonym	Institution	Gender	Age	Ethnicity	Nationality	Degree	Teaching experiences
Casey	MU	Female	23	European	Dual citizenship, Europe and US	PE with State APE certificate	None
Anton	MU	Male	26	White American	US	PE with State APE certificate	None
Gayle	NU	Female	24	Irish	Ireland	APE	None
Maggy	NU	Female	23	White American	US	APE	None
Nadia	NU	Female	23	Native American	US	APE	None
Kaitlyn	NU	Female	24	Indian	US	APE	None
Ted	NU	Male	23	White American	US	APE	None
Jackson	NU	Male	25	Hispanic	Puerto Rican	APE	None
Donovan	NU	Male	27	White American	US	APE	None

Note. MU, Midwest Erie State University; NU, North Atlantic State University.

Participants were purposefully sampled using a criterion sampling method. The logic of criterion sampling is to select and investigate all cases that meet some predetermined criterion of importance or interest (Patton, 2002). In this study, all APE graduate students enrolled in both of the APE programmes were identified. Of the twelve APE graduate students identified, nine (four males and five females) voluntarily agreed to participate in this study. The lead researcher received approval to conduct this study from his university’s institutional review board and secured signed consent forms from all nine participants.

Graduate programme and practicum experience

The participants from the university in the Midwest (Casey and Anton) were enrolled in the APE practicum field experience as part of the graduation requirement for a master’s degree in PE with an APE teaching certification. In the state in which this university was located, PE teachers must have a specific certification in order to instruct individuals with disabilities. Participants attending the university in the Northeast (Gayle, Maggy, Nadia, Kaitlyn, Ted, Jackson, and Donovan) were enrolled in a master’s degree programme focusing specifically on APE. These universities are located in different states, and all participants are required to follow the states’ department of education’s rules and regulations to acquire teaching licenses. For example, NU’s state requires a master’s degree with teaching license to teach PE or APE, but MU’s state does not require a master’s degree to teach. Casey and Anton had undergraduate degrees in non-teaching majors (exercise science and sport studies). MU offers a PE master’s degree with an initial teaching license. MU’s state issues APE certificates when they complete two state-accredited APE graduate courses. The rationale for selecting these participants from different universities was that the APE programmes in MU and NU offer practicum experience components of teaching students with severe and profound disabilities. All participants received full funding for their graduate education through graduate assistant positions or federal grant fellowships. Both programmes included a minimum of 150 credit hours (for Casey and Anton) and 200 credit hours (for Gayle, Maggy, Nadia, Kaitlyn, Ted, Jackson, and Dovovan) of hands-on practicum experiences teaching children with disabilities as part of the graduation requirement that aligned with state-wide certification requirements. Each state determines the number of pre-service teachers’ practicum experience contact hours.

A variety of practicum experiences were made available to the graduate students in order to complete mandatory credit hours. For example, participants could select to complete experiences at special schools or mainstream schools. Selection was based on students’ interest in severity and types of disability. All participants in this study selected working in self-contained classes that were housed at two special schools for students with developmental disabilities (one at each university location). At the time of this study, both schools had large populations of students (total 30–70) with severe intellectual, emotional, and physical disabilities (ages 2 to 21). Most of these students had severe physical or intellectual disabilities, which seriously limited one or more of their functional capacities (e.g. mobility, communication, self-care, self-direction, social skills). Participants were assigned to observe, co-teach, and demonstrate up to five APE classes each week and to conduct one-on-one instruction for 30–45 minutes per class. All students with severe and profound disabilities would participate in the APE classes at least once a week. All students had individualized educational plans (IEPs) that articulated goals in a variety of gross motor activities and games in the gym, as well as motor skills and movement activities in the APE classes. Practicum experiences were supervised by APE professors who held national certified adapted physical educator (CAPE) certifications and had a minimum of six years instructing courses in APE at undergraduate and graduate levels. Furthermore, cooperating teachers, who were full-time teachers at the community schools and had years of experience teaching students with disabilities, acted as guides and mentors to socialize students into the schools’ culture and profession.

Goals of practicum experiences (Lytle et al., 2010) were the following:

Data collection

The primary data sources were demographic questionnaires and semi-structured face-to-face interviews (Patton, 2002). In addition, follow-up correspondence using email messaging was used (Meho, 2006).

Data analysis

A constant comparative method (Boeije, 2010) was used to interpret the data that allowed themes to emerge from the data as well as from the theoretical framework in our study. The basic strategy of this analytical process was to do what its name implies, by constantly comparing pieces of data. More specifically, each potentially meaningful piece of data within the transcripts from the first set of interviews with each participant was coded independently by the first and second authors, and the differences were discussed until agreement was reached. The second set of interviews were initially coded by the lead author and checked by the second author. In addition, two peer-debriefers reviewed the codes to avoid potential researcher bias. Further, coded data from transcripts and each participant were compared to identify similarities and differences. The researchers grouped the codes into thematic categories, which were then refined into recurring themes (Boeije, 2010).

Theme one: The ambiguous roles of APE teachers

This theme captured the essence of the graduate students’ experiences understanding their roles and responsibilities as an APE teacher in a self-contained school for students with severe and profound disabilities. During the practicum experience, a number of participants were asked to contribute to educational outcomes that they did not expect based on their previous anticipatory and professional socialization experiences. In particular, participants were somewhat confused when being asked to help monitor students’ hygiene and self-care skills in the locker room prior to and after participation in PE classes. These participants described this request as a surprising role for APE teachers, because it was not discussed throughout their previous coursework (e.g. undergraduate). Furthermore, participants referred to their experiences as pupils of their cooperating teachers, because they were not allowed to fulfill some responsibilities (e.g. grading and evaluation) of cooperating teachers. Time as pupils in public schools has been described as the most powerful time of socialization for future PE teachers (Curtner-Smith et al., 2008), which provides students with the basis for how they envision themselves as teachers (Bullough and Pinnegar, 2001). Because of this a number of participants were surprised, concerned, and even frustrated with the undefined and ambiguous roles (serving as special education teachers, PE teachers, assistants of cooperating teachers) of APE.

A number of participants shared concerns that they believed that hygiene maintenance and functional skills should be the responsibility of special education teachers. Interestingly, the APE cooperating teachers agreed with these participants, and suggested that APE specialists should focus on teaching motor and social skills rather than functional skills (i.e. occupational related skills – carrying boxes from one location to another) during PE classes. This discussion created tension within the participants, where some accepted the perspective of their cooperating APE teacher, and others pushed back and asserted their personal beliefs (Richards et al., 2013). Those who disagreed with the APE cooperating teachers’ notions believed that APE specialists must contribute to all necessary areas of students’ education. For example, Gayle explained that:

I strongly believe that APE teachers should teach functional skills in PE, because it is beneficial in the long run. There are ambiguous roles and responsibilities between APE teachers and special education teachers. I personally disagree with what some APE teachers believe, that focusing on functional and self-care skills are not a part of APE. I have learned that teaching self-care skills is very important. I feel that we need to integrate these skills into APE classes. APE classes should consider integrating these independence skills into warm-up activities or lessons. My idea is that special education teachers and APE teachers must work collaboratively. I think APE teachers are treated uniquely in this professional world. I want to have a clear definition of what and how APE teachers serve roles and responsibilities of teaching that contribute to student learning outcomes. We are in between PE and special education. APE teachers must flexibly modify curriculum and interventions that can lead to daily living skills and lifetime physical activities. (Gayle, interview)

The ambiguous nature of roles of APE specialists may be attributed to an inability of graduate coursework to explicitly describe the many duties that teachers have within a school (e.g. Richards et al., 2014). However, issues within the school culture may also facilitate confusion about roles in the classroom. For example, French and Chopra (2006) describe a lack of communication and collaboration among professionals as an important consideration in defining particular roles. Research focusing on paraprofessionals in PE environments suggests that mixed and contradicting expectations within the classroom can also contribute to role confusion (Bryan et al., 2013). It is evident that the participants in this study received mixed messages about their duties as APE specialists from their cooperating teachers, special education teachers, and graduate coursework that could have influenced their role confusion.

Theme two: The need for specialized expertise

Participants alluded to the importance of specialized expertise when teaching students with severe and profound disabilities during their practicum experiences. For example, Casey explained that “teaching students with disabilities in PE is like finding the pieces of a puzzle and putting them together in the right spots.” Further, she explained that “if one piece of the puzzle is missing, we may fail to describe the whole picture. This is essential for seeing positive learning outcomes.” Casey continued by describing that she believed it was important for her to continue to build upon her APE expertise to strengthen the quality of her future teaching.

One of the benefits of organized and supervised practicum experiences is that pre-service teachers can learn specialized expertise from cooperating teachers who model appropriate teaching behaviors (Lawson, 1986; Sofo and Curtner-Smith, 2010). Each of the participants alluded to the experience of teaching children with severe and profound disabilities as being difficult and complex. However, they found success in contributing to targeted learning outcomes (e.g. IEP goals) for the students, which can be partially attributed to the hands-on support of the cooperating APE teachers and other special education teachers within the school. The importance of hands-on support from cooperating teachers has been noted in helping novice teachers learn instructional techniques (Tinning and Siedentop, 1985). This may be especially true when working with students with severe and profound disabilities (Zhang, 2003). For example, Kaitlyn explained that her cooperating teacher provided a number of important suggestions that influenced her instruction:

I used several verbal and visual aids for teaching my students with severe and profound disabilities, such as response cards. Many of my students had limited speech and cognitive delay, so response cards allowed students to make selections by making eye contact or pinpointing the response cards. I felt fortunate that my cooperative teacher suggested the response cards when I needed to ask students questions about activities, such as how many balls or trials the students wanted to practice in the class. I appreciate that my cooperative teachers prepared me and gave insight of what APE profession looks like… (Kaitlyn, interview)

While most students described meaningful experiences while learning from cooperating teachers, Donovan explained that he felt unprepared to utilize the resources available to teach difficult tasks to students with severe and profound disabilities. He felt that there were role conflicts (he realized that APE teachers have many roles to fulfill their responsibilities toward students with disabilities) and reality shock (he realized that APE course content focused on teaching students with mild or moderate disabilities rather than those with severe and profound disabilities (Hushman, 2013). He described a feeling of failure, and stated that “my APE programme must offer teacher education such as workshops or practicum seminars about instructional strategies and prompts of effective teaching in APE.” This statement suggests that inconsistency between his classroom education and experiences in the practicum setting led to his inability to effectively instruct. He further described his difficulties finding resources to help his instruction in this area:

I feel that finding information about [specific task] was a very difficult task to do. There are no text books or other resources to develop these tasks. I did not have good mentors that contributed to my learning and teaching… I felt marginalized. I think I have limited professional connections with other teachers… I have only two or three motor skill activities that I can find. (Donovan, interview)

Theme three: Reality shock – unpredictable behaviors

Solomon et al. (1993) suggest that one of the major issues related to professional socialization is reality shock. Reality shock can occur when participants realize they are not in optimal teaching settings with incredibly motivated students (Solomon et al., 1993) or when there are differences between teachers’ expectations and the realities of school life (Richards et al., 2013). Reality shock is typically described in relation to beginning teachers (e.g. Richards et al., 2013). However, in this study, participants experienced a reality shock when students with severe and profound disabilities demonstrated unpredictable behaviors. Many of the graduate students explicitly stated that this was their first time teaching students who demonstrated these types of behaviors (e.g. screaming, physical abuse, or mood swings), and each participant expressed that they were not expecting the magnitude or frequency of unpredictable behaviors that were evident in the schools. For example, Ted mentioned that “one of my students with disabilities suddenly pulled his pants down and urinated on my shoes, I did not know what to say and how to react during the recess. I was panicked and could not think about anything…”

Early in the practicum experience, participants explained that they felt they would be able to relate to their students with severe and profound disabilities, and they would be able to discover the causes of the behaviors. Nadia, for example, said that:

I think teaching students with disabilities is case by case. I need to understand each individual student and patiently and carefully monitor students’ daily progress. I cannot predict everything, but I would like to handle students’ unpredictable behaviors appropriately without asking for others’ help. I know that early practicum is extremely important for maximizing our learning… (Nadia, interview)