Brazilian physical education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion before and after participation in a professional development workshop

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the attitudes of physical education teachers about inclusion and teaching students with disabilities in Brazil before and after they participated in a professional development workshop focused on inclusive ideology and strategies. The participants were Brazilian physical education teachers (pretest sample, n = 90, and posttest sample, n = 90, respectively) sampled randomly from a two-day workshop held in Brasília, Brazil. The research method was pretest–posttest group design. The primary data source was the Physical Educators’ Judgments about Inclusion survey, a three-dimensional attitude survey scale with an accompanying demographic questionnaire. Data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistics. Results indicate the Brazilian physical education teachers: (a) were undecided about inclusion; (b) were accepting of students with disabilities in their classes; and (c) perceived a need for additional professional development training to effectively teach children with disabilities.

Keywords

Attitudes adapted physical education intervention inclusion professional development

Introduction

In Brazil, the rights of people with disabilities in schools are protected under the Federal Constitution of 1988 and Federal Law 13146 (2015). The Federal Constitution of 1988 established a national policy for the integration of people with disabilities, including in educational contexts. Law 7853/89 of the Federal Constitution covers provisions vis-à-vis the support of people with disabilities, their social integration, and the National Coordination Office for the Integration of People with Disabilities (International Disability Rights Monitor, 2004). Under this law, educational placement and program decisions for students with disabilities are in the hands of administrators of schools, departments of education, and parents across Brazil’s 26 states, federal district (where Brasília, the capital city, is located), and numerous municipalities (Watson, 2013). With respect to education, the leading efforts of this legislation were aimed at integrating students with disabilities into the regular school system. More recently, Federal Law 13146: the Brazilian Law of Inclusion (2015) was enacted to ‘ensure and promote, on equal terms, the exercise of rights and fundamental freedoms by persons with disabilities, aiming at its social inclusion and citizenship’ (Xapuri, 2015: para 2). Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the USA, the Brazilian Law of Inclusion mandates that public entities consider accessibility for all, using the concept of universal design, when conceptualizing and implementing publicly available programs and services. Chapter IV of the Brazilian Law of Inclusion (2015) focuses on the right to education, and states that:

Education is the right of people with disabilities, ensuring inclusive education system at all levels and learning throughout life, in order to achieve the maximum possible development of their talents and physical abilities, sensory, intellectual and social according to their attributes, interests, and learning needs.

Paragraph XV of this chapter is of particular interest to physical education, because it states that it is incumbent upon the government to ensure, design, and monitor ‘children with disabilities [to ensure they] can, on an equal basis with others, participate in games, sports, recreation and leisure activities in an inclusive format’ (Brazilian Civil Society, 2015).

Pro-inclusion efforts in Brazil have resulted in an increased number of students attending general education schools with their peers without disabilities (Haegele et al., in press). For example, the proportion of students with disabilities enrolled in general education schools increased from 29% to 79% between 2003 and 2004 (Brazil, 2014). In 2014, approximately 84% of students with disabilities were educated in general education schools (Brazil, 2014). However, even though students with disabilities are more likely to be educated in inclusive classes, research suggests that inclusive classes in Brazil are typified with little interaction between students with and without disabilities and feelings of exclusion among students with disabilities due to a lack of support and accommodations from teachers (e.g. Alves and Duarte, 2012, 2014). For example, Alves and Duarte (2012) examined the participation of a student with Down syndrome in an inclusive Brazilian physical education class, and found that although the student did not have difficulties performing activities, he was unable to establish social relationships with peers. Research suggests that the attitudes and abilities of physical education teachers are central to the success of inclusive classes (Block and Obrusnikova, 2007; Haegele and Sutherland, 2015). As asserted by Mauerberg-deCastro (2011), law enforcement and inclusion campaigns are not enough to change educators’ attitudes toward students with disabilities. Unfavorable attitudes can negatively affect many aspects of school structure (e.g. curricula, peer acceptance), which can impede the learning potential of students with disabilities (Mauerberg-deCastro, 2011; Palla and Mauerberg-deCastro, 2004). Tellingly, Brazilian physical education teachers have expressed hesitancy about teaching students with disabilities and contend that they are not adequately prepared to do so effectively (Nascimento et al., 2007). Therefore, although more students with disabilities are being educated in inclusive classes, unprepared teachers tend to improvise pedagogical practices because of inadequate training (Mauerberg-deCastro et al., 2013). For example, Alves and Duarte (2014) reported that feelings of exclusion for students with disabilities in physical education occurred as a result of lack of adaptations presented by their physical educators.

Brazilian physical education teachers: Attitudes and professional preparation

Research suggests that teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and teaching students with disabilities can have a considerable impact on students’ educational experiences (Morley et al., 2005; Rizzo and Vispoel, 1991). Researchers, globally, have analyzed a number of variables related to teachers’ attitudes, and a number of themes have emerged. Noteworthy findings include physical education teachers (pre-service/in-service) tend to have more favorable attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities if they have more coursework in adapted physical education (APE), including practicum experiences teaching students with disabilities (Folsom-Meek et al., 1999; Hodge et al., 2009; Rizzo and Kirkendall, 1995).

To explore teachers’ attitudes in Brazil, Nascimento and colleagues (2007) surveyed 20 teachers who had worked with students with disabilities in physical education. They found the teachers had not received adequate professional preparation in teaching students with disabilities. Further research in Brazil suggests that physical education teachers who have not had teacher training focused on pedagogical practices for students with disabilities tend not to consider themselves able to teach in inclusive settings, and express negative attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities (Aguiar and Duarte, 2005; Gutierres Filho et al., 2011; Mauerberg-deCastro et al., 2013). Similarly, Zanandrea and Rizzo (1998) examined the attitudes of pre-service physical education teachers in Brazil in regards to prevalent disabilities, specifically emotional behavior disorder, learning disability, cognitive impairment, and orthopedic impairment. The authors indicated that pre-service teachers seem to accept the responsibility of teaching students with disabilities in general physical education, regardless of disability (Zanandrea and Rizzo, 1998). Overall, Zanandrea and Rizzo (1998) reported that Brazilian physical education teacher candidates believed teaching students with disabilities, particularly those who have severe disabilities, is difficult and complicated.

Amongst the many issues impeding inclusive educational practices, often teachers are not and do not feel adequately prepared to teach students with disabilities in their general education programs, including physical education (Block and Obrusnikova, 2007; Chakraborti-Ghosh et al., 2014; Ferreira, 2003). It is predicted that, in the future, more students with disabilities will be educated in inclusive classes because of increased pro-inclusion efforts and current national legislation in Brazil (Ferreira, 2003). This warrants physical education teacher candidates and in-service teachers receiving proper professional preparation and development, respectively, to effectively teach students with disabilities in their classes. In recent data-based research, Taliaferro and Harris (2014) reported on the effectiveness of a one-day professional development workshop in the USA. They argued that professional development training can help in-service physical educators by increasing their knowledge about disabilities, adaptations, and accommodations, and the overall benefits of inclusion for all students. Although not statistically significant, they asserted that the increase found in teachers’ attitudes in their study held practical significance and was limited by a small sample size. Likewise, a number of scholars have studied and discussed the importance of professional development workshops for physical education teachers’ effectiveness in other areas (Bechtel and O’Sullivan, 2006; Martin et al., 2008; O’Sullivan and Deglau, 2006). For example, Martin and colleagues (2008) found a social cognitive theory-based professional development intervention to positively influence teachers’ pedometer and computer efficacy. However, there has been a dearth of intervention research, including studies focusing on professional development, pertaining to inclusive practices published in adapted physical activity-related journals in recent years (Haegele et al., 2015) and no previous research in this arena pertaining to teachers in Brazil.

Zanandrea and Rizzo (1998), and more recently Gutierres Filho et al. (2013), have drawn attention to the attitudes and professional preparation of pre-service physical education teachers in Brazil in regards to teaching students with disabilities. Notwithstanding those two empirical studies, available information pertaining to the beliefs of Brazilian physical education teachers about teaching students with disabilities is limited. Scholars argue that determining, analyzing, and theorizing about the beliefs and intentions of physical education teachers is important in the preparation and professional development of such teachers (Kowalski and Rizzo, 1996; Rizzo and Kirkendall, 1995; Sato et al., 2007). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the attitudes of physical education teachers about inclusion and teaching students with disabilities in Brazil before and after they participated in a two-day professional development workshop focused on inclusive ideology and strategies. The following research hypotheses were tested:

Brazilian physical education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion will improve following professional development training.

Brazilian physical education teachers’ attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities will improve following professional development training.

Brazilian physical education teachers will express a desire for more professional development opportunities following professional development training.

The rationale supporting the three hypotheses is that teachers who participate in the professional development workshop (i.e. the Adapted Physical Activity [APA] Symposium) will gain knowledge about effective strategies in teaching students with disabilities in physical education classes. In turn, this will have a positive effect on their attitudes toward inclusion and teaching students with disabilities. Further, they will have a greater awareness of a need for additional opportunities for professional development.

Method

Research design

The research method was a pretest–posttest group design (Fraenkel et al., 2012; Thomas et al., 2005) using a survey approach. In the pretest–posttest group design, a designated sample (e.g. physical education teachers) is measured or observed both before and after exposure to an intervention. This method permitted direct access to physical education teachers before and after they attended a professional development workshop, which was designed to emphasize inclusive ideology and strategies for teaching students with disabilities in physical education. Direct administration of the study’s attitude survey with an accompanying demographic questionnaire allowed the researchers to collect and analyze data from the participants in a manageable and economically feasible manner.

Participants

Participants were physical education teachers (pretest sample, n = 90, and posttest sample, n = 90, respectively) randomly sampled from those who participated in a two-day adapted physical activity professional development workshop held in the capital city of Brasília, Brazil. More specifically, 90 participants were randomly sampled from the total population of teachers attending the workshop prior to the workshop on day one; at the conclusion of the workshop, on day two, 90 participants were randomly sampled for posttesting from those who had attended both days of the workshop. In the logic of hypothesis testing, the objective is to analyze shifts in the sample(s) distribution, and since participants were sampled from the same population of teachers attending the workshop and group differences were analyzed inferentially, it was deemed an appropriate sampling procedure.

Pretest sample demographics

The pretest sample comprised of 57 women (63.3%) and 33 men (36.7%). All participants were native Brazilians and their age range was 23–55 years (mean age = 38.9 years old). Most participants (n = 84, 93.3%) held a bachelor’s degree with a post-baccalaureate teaching certificate in physical education and six (6.7%) participants held graduate-level degrees (i.e. master’s or doctoral degree) in physical education.

In the pretest sample, nearly all of the participants (97.8%) had experience teaching physical education with a range of 1–34 years of experience (M = 12.9 years). There were two participants who had no experience teaching physical education. Further, most (n = 78) participants had at least some experience teaching students with disabilities in physical education with a range of 1–30 years of experience (M = 7.5 years). However, 12 participants (13.3%) had no such experience teaching students with disabilities.

Posttest sample demographics

The posttest sample comprised of 55 women (61.1%) and 35 men (38.9%). The posttest sample was composed of native Brazilians only and their age range was 23–53 years (mean age = 37.5 years old). Most participants (n = 85, 94.4%) held a bachelor’s degree with a post-baccalaureate teaching certificate in physical education and five (5.6%) participants held graduate level degrees (i.e. master’s or doctoral degree) in physical education.

In the posttest sample, almost all of the teachers (98.9%) had experience teaching physical education with a range of 1–32 years of experience (M = 12.0 years). There was one participant who had no experience teaching physical education. Further, most (n = 81) participants had at least some experience teaching students with disabilities in physical education with a range of 1–25 years of experience (M = 7.4 years). However, nine participants (10.0%) had no such experience teaching students with disabilities.

Two-day professional development workshop

A two-day professional development workshop (i.e. APA Symposium) was held from 17–18 June 2015 in Brazil’s capital city, Brasília. The symposium facilitators (both held doctoral degrees in APE) focused the dialogue, content, and practical activities on a number of inclusion-related topics over the two-day event. Table 1 summarizes the professional development workshop topics and schedule.

Table 1

Professional development workshop topics and schedule.

Day	Topic	Descriptions
1	Education and students with disabilities	A discussion about education and students with disabilities. The term disability was discussed and defined, and laws enacted to protect the rights of people with disabilities including civil and educational provisions for people in Brazil and the USA were compared and discussed.
	Distinguishing between integration versus inclusion	A discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of these orientations and group participation in a demonstration highlighting the differences between integration and inclusion.
	Strategies for facilitating inclusion	A discussion about strategies for facilitating the inclusion of students with autism in physical education and sport environments.
	Practical class activities for including students with autism and intellectual disabilities	Hands-on demonstrations of the use of picture exchange communication system (PECS) symbols, structure, and differentiated instruction in common physical education activities.
2	The inclusion of students with disabilities in the context of physical education and sport	Review of key content from the previous day and an introduction of additional content and concepts on the inclusion of students with disabilities in physical education and sport environments.
	The role and responsibilities of physical education teachers	A discussion about the roles and responsibilities of highly qualified physical education teachers in working with students with disabling conditions.
	Practical class activities for including students with visual impairments and those who use wheelchairs	A discussion on appropriate inclusive teaching strategies for students with visual impairments and those who use wheelchairs, followed by hands-on demonstrations of the use of these tactics applied to fitness/running and soccer activities.

Instrumentation

The Physical Educators’ Judgments about Inclusion (PEJI) survey (Hodge et al., 2002b) was selected as the instrument for measuring the dependent variable (participants’ responses) associated with their attitudes. The PEJI survey is a valid and reliable scale with an accompanying demographic questionnaire (Hodge et al., 2002b, 2013). The demographic questionnaire collects information such as the participants’ gender, age, ethnicity, experience teaching, and educational level.

The PEJI survey was designed to collect data on physical education teachers’ and teacher candidates’ judgments pertaining to inclusion and teaching students with disabilities in physical education (Hodge et al., 2002b). The PEJI is a three-dimensional scale, which measures physical education (pre-service and in-service) teachers’ judgments about the following: (a) inclusion versus exclusion; (b) acceptance of students with disabilities; and (c) perceived training needs (Hodge et al., 2002b). Since its original development for use with English-speaking physical educators (Hodge et al., 2002b), the survey has been translated and validated for use with Japanese- and Korean-speaking physical education teachers, (Hodge et al., 2013; Son et al., 2012) respectively, and has been utilized in numerous studies that have explored attitudes of physical educators about teaching those with disabilities and inclusion (e.g. Hersman and Hodge, 2010).

Prior to data collection, the survey instrument and accompanying demographic questionnaire were translated from the original English versions to the participants’ native Portuguese language using a cross-cultural language translation process (Banville et al., 2000). This process and the psychometric analyses used to examine the Brazilian-version of the PEJI are described in detail by Hodge et al. (2015). Initial exploration of the scale’s underlying dimensions resulted in salient loadings for all items on three hypothesized dimensions, resulting in 57% explained variance for measuring judgments about Inclusion versus Exclusion, Acceptance of Students with Disabilities, and Perceived Training Needs. Supported by the three interpretable components that emerged, construct validity evidence is presented. Hodge and colleagues recommend reporting individual scale scores instead of a total PEJI score.

Procedures

The data collector was a native and resident of Brazil, and an APE professional fluent in the Portuguese language. The data collector was not one of the instructors of the professional development workshop. Before initiating the data collection process, each participant was asked by the data collector to read and sign informed consent forms for participating in this study. They were assured that participation was voluntary and that if they elected not to participate it would not affect their workshop participation in any way. Informed consent was received from each of the participants by the data collector at the start of the professional development workshop. Confidentiality was ensured as the data were reported in aggregate. The conduct of this study was approved by the study’s principal investigator’s Ethics Committee of the University of Brasília (Brazil) and by the second author’s university Institutional Review Board (IRB) Committee.

Next, the study’s attitude survey with accompanying demographic questionnaire was distributed and collected by the data collector from each participant before the first session (Day 1, pretest) and after the last session (Day 2, posttest) of the professional development workshop. The number of participants was determined by randomly selecting 90 completed pretest and 90 completed posttest surveys from a total of 147 people who attended the workshop and volunteered to participate (and provided usable responses). In order to keep data collection confidential, no participant name was identified at any point.

In general, the participants were informed that the attitude survey comprised general directions, a definition of inclusion, a disability-specific definition page, and a series of statements that express judgments about teaching students with disabilities in physical education. More specifically, the PEJI was administered with an attached cover sheet that gave the teachers general instructions for completing the instrument and a definition of inclusion. On the PEJI cover sheet, inclusion was defined as an approach that supports the placement of all students with different abilities and disabilities (mild to severe) into physical education classes with schoolmates in their neighborhood schools. A definition sheet describing the various disability types mentioned in the PEJI also accompanied the survey. The participants were asked to circle the response, for each statement, that best described their judgment about that statement. Their responses on the PEJI were averaged based on its five-point scoring scale of strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree =5. Scoring on negatively phrased items was reversed (Hodge et al., 2002b). No names were requested on papers, and participants were assured that their responses were anonymous. No time limit was imposed, but completion of the PEJI scale generally took less than 15 minutes.

Data analysis

Descriptive and inferential statistical applications were used to analyze the data sets (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2004). More specifically, the participants’ demographic data were first analyzed with descriptive statistics. Next, to check for group differences (i.e. gender and experience variables), mean responses on each subscale of the survey were analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures (MINITAB Statistical Software, 2000). For analysis purposes, gender was identified as female (women) and male (men), and the experience variable was categorized as (a) early career = 0–4 years, maturity = 5–9 years, and (c) veteran = 10 years or more of experience teaching physical education. These categories were informed by Katz’s (1972) model of teachers’ developmental stages. In regards to teaching students with disabilities, the experience variable was categorized as (a) early years = 0–4 years, (b) maturity = 5–9 years, and (c) veteran = 10 years or more of experience teaching such students. MINITAB Statistical Software was used for all descriptive and inferential analyses. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level.

In all, descriptive statistics involved frequency, central tendencies, and standard deviations data. General Linear Model (GLM) factorial ANOVA (Levin, 1983; Shavelson, 1988) parametrical tests (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2004) were chosen as inferential techniques to check for equivalency and homogeneity of the selected pretest scores. Statistical analyses to address the research hypotheses included GLM factorial ANOVA procedures, followed by MCB (Hsu’s Multiple Comparisons with the Best) post-hoc analyses (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2004). Where statistical significance was revealed, practical significance was also estimated using an omega squared (ω²) statistic, which estimates the proportion of the total variance attributed to treatment effects (Rosenthal, 1994; Thomas et al., 1999; Vincent, 1995). Typically, effect size values of >.10 are required to be considered substantial (Tolson, 1980; Vincent, 1995).

Results

To examine pre-intervention scores, a GLM factorial ANOVA procedure was used on total scale (i.e. PEJI’s three subscales combined) pretest mean scores to check for initial homogeneity and equivalency of group variables. Statistical analysis revealed the participants were not significantly different on pretest attitude scores as a function of: (a) gender, F (1, 89) = 0.82, p = .37; (b) age, F (30, 89) = 0.99, p = .49; (c) ethnic identity, F (5, 89) = 1.18, p = .33; (d) experience teaching physical education, F (28, 89) = 1.11, p = .36; and (e) experience teaching students with disabilities, F (19, 89) = 0.84, p = .65 variables. A substantial linear pattern, as illustrated by a normal probability plot using the Anderson–Darling Normality Test, indicated population normality and provided evidence that the researchers could appropriately use ANOVA procedures (Devore and Peck, 1993).

To examine the sample for group differences following the study’s intervention, GLM factorial ANOVA tests were performed for gender and experience variables on each of the three dimensions of the PEJI survey, separately. Post-intervention (professional development workshop) results indicated that the male and female participants were not significantly different in their mean scores (Table 2) for items representing the three hypothesized dimensions: Judgments about Inclusion versus Exclusion, Judgments about Acceptance of Students with Disabilities, and Judgments about Perceived Training Needs on the PEJI survey.

Table 2

Descriptive data on participants (n = 90), by gender, experience teaching physical education, experience teaching students with disabilities, and physical educators’ judgments about inclusion scores (pretest/posttest).

	Sample (N/%)		Total scale (M/SD)		Subscale 1 (M/SD)		Subscale 2 (M/SD)		Subscale 3 (M/SD)
	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest
Gender
Male	33 (36.7%)	35 (38.9%)	3.89/0.29	3.86/0.35	2.82/0.55	2.76/0.62	4.53/0.58	4.46/0.64	4.24/0.57	4.28/.047
Female	57 (63.3%)	55 (61.1%)	3.89/0.41	3.95/0.30	2.89/0.64	2.86/0.63	4.36/0.61	4.44/0.49	4.33/0.53	4.46/0.49
Experience teaching physical education
Early career	19 (21.1%)	14 (15.6%)	3.90/0.33	3.96/0.39	2.96/0.54	2.81/0.52	4.39/0.62	4.57/0.51	4.29/0.42	4.42/0.60
Maturity	12 (13.3%)	19 (21.1%)	3.92/0.22	3.89/0.27	2.87/0.44	2.67/0.54	4.45/0.60	4.53/0.51	4.35/0.51	4.38/0.50
Veteran	59 (65.6%)	57 (63.3%)	3.88/0.41	3.92/0.30	2.83/0.66	2.87/0.67	4.43/0.61	4.40/0.57	4.29/0.59	4.39/0.47
Experience teaching students with disabilities
Early career	37 (41.1%)	34 (37.8%)	3.94/0.33	3.93/0.30	2.90/0.52	2.81/0.58	4.40/0.68	4.44/0.63	4.41/0.44	4.44/0.50
Maturity	21 (23.3%)	26 (28.9%)	3.79/0.36	3.93/0.35	2.71/0.51	2.63/0.70	4.45/0.55	4.66/0.48	4.15/0.59	4.39/0.46
Veteran	32 (35.6%)	30 (33.3%)	3.86/0.42	3.90/0.34	2.92/0.75	3.00/0.56	4.44/0.56	4.29/0.46	4.25/0.60	4.34/0.51

Note. Early career = 0–4 years; maturity = 5–9 years; veteran = 10 years or more of experience teaching; Subscale 1 = Inclusion versus Exclusion; Subscale 2 = Acceptance of Students with Disabilities; Subscale 3 = Perceived Training Needs.

Likewise, the results of a separate GLM factorial ANOVA test indicate the participants were not significantly different in their mean scores (Table 2) for items representing the three dimensions of the survey as a function of the experience teaching (years) physical education variable. Similarly, no significant differences were revealed on the experience teaching students with disabilities variable. The specific ANOVA test results will be discussed in the next section.

Inclusion versus exclusion

In addressing the first research hypothesis related to attitude change of the participants toward the ideology of inclusion following their participation in the professional development training, a GLM factorial ANOVA revealed no significant difference, F (1, 179) = 0.08, p =.78, existed between the pretest sample’s (Day 1) and posttest sample’s (Day 2) test scores. Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis and reject the first research hypothesis. Further, a GLM factorial ANOVA test on the first subscale, Judgments about Inclusion versus Exclusion, revealed that the men and women participants, F (1,179) = 0.95, p = 0.33, did not hold significantly different attitudes about the ideology of inclusion following the two-day workshop. Pretest–posttest results indicate that a large percentage of participants scored in the undecided range in their Judgments about Inclusion versus Exclusion. Generally speaking, the women (pretest mean = 2.89, posttest mean = 2.86) and men (pretest mean = 2.82, posttest mean = 2.76) were hesitant or uncertain about the ideology of inclusion both before and after the workshop. Likewise, no significant differences, F (2, 179) = 0.16, p = .85, were revealed on the years of experience teaching physical education variable. Regardless of the teachers’ developmental stage (i.e. early career, maturity, or veteran), they were hesitant or indecisive about inclusion (Table 2).

Likewise, GLM factorial ANOVA tests indicated that the participants were not significantly different in their mean scores (Table 2) for items representing this subscale, Judgments about Inclusion versus Exclusion, F (2, 179) = 2.66, p = 0.07, as a function of previous experience teaching students with disabilities in physical education. True across categories (i.e. early years, maturity, and veteran) with regards to experience teaching students with disabilities in physical education, the participants were hesitant or indecisive about inclusion as a practical ideology.

Acceptance of students with disabilities

A second research hypothesis involved examination of attitude change toward teaching students with disabilities following the professional development training. On the second subscale, Judgments about Acceptance of Students with Disabilities, GLM factorial ANOVA test results were non-significant, F (1, 179) = 0.03, p = 0.86 (between the pretest sample’s and posttest sample’s test scores), where both the female (pretest M = 4.36, posttest mean = 4.44) and male (pretest mean = 4.53, posttest mean = 4.46) participants’ mean scores, F (1, 179) = 1.20, p = 0.27, revealed moderate to strong acceptance in teaching students with disabilities (Table 2). As such, our decision was to accept the null and reject the second research hypothesis. Further, no statistical differences were revealed for years of experience teaching physical education, F (2, 179) = 0.31, p = .76, or years teaching students with disabilities, F (2, 179) = 1.68, p = .19. In other words, regardless of where they were in their occupational development and careers (i.e. early career, maturity, or veteran) (Table 2), or whether they did or did not have experience teaching students with disabilities (Table 2), the teachers were accepting of teaching students with disabilities in physical education classes.

Perceived training needs

The third research hypothesis involved analysis of the physical education teachers’ desire for additional professional development opportunities following the current professional development training. For the third subscale, Judgments about Perceived Training Needs, GLM factorial ANOVA test results on the pretest sample’s to posttest sample’s scores were non-significant, F (1, 179) = 1.78, p = 0.18, on this dimension. More specifically, both men and women participants (Table 2) continued to express a need for more specialized training after the APA workshop (men’s pretest mean = 4.24, posttest mean = 4.28; women’s pretest mean = 4.33, posttest mean = 4.46). Further, there were no significant differences in the participants’ attitudes as a function of the experience variables. Obligated to statistical rule, our decision was to accept the null (no statistically significant change) and reject the third research hypothesis. However, the participants did in fact express a desire for more professional development opportunities following the APA workshop training. Their attitudes about Training Needs in general demonstrated modest to high levels of agreement with the scale’s items advocating professional development opportunities, such as the APA workshop, which focused on strategies for teaching students with various disabilities.

Discussion

In this study, we examined the impact of a two-day professional development workshop on the attitudes of Brazilian physical education teachers toward inclusion and teaching students with disabilities. The findings support those of previous research in Brazil, and demonstrate similarities and differences among Brazilian physical educators and those from other countries in regard to their views on and practices in inclusion.

Over the past decade, inclusive practices have gained momentum in Brazil and in the future students with and without disabilities will be more likely to be educated in the same classes (Ferreira, 2003). However, previous research indicates Brazilian physical education teachers tend to be hesitant in teaching students with disabilities (Nascimento et al., 2007). This sentiment is reflected in the current study, where participants were hesitant or uncertain about an inclusive ideology both prior to and after the workshop. Interestingly, though, the participants’ stage of career development did not significantly influence whether or not they perceived a need for more improvements in attitudes toward inclusion. The results of this study suggest that regardless of the teachers’ stage of career development, they were hesitant or indecisive about inclusion as a practical reality. This finding does not lend support to previous results where more experienced physical education teachers from various countries, such as Ghana (Africa), Puerto Rico, and the USA, held more favorable or less ambivalent attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities than the less experienced teachers, whose control beliefs were likely to be more volatile (Hodge et al., 2009).

It is somewhat surprising to find that the Brazilian teachers with more experience teaching did not demonstrate more favorable attitudes toward inclusive practices. Noteworthy previous research findings indicate that teachers with more experience typically have different insights than pre-service or novice teachers beginning their careers (Katz, 1986). Mindful of this phenomenon, we categorized the participants’ years of experience teaching into three stages: early career, maturity, and veteran.

In the current study, Katz’s (1972) survival (a novice teacher’s first year), consolidation (a teacher’s first two to three years of teaching), and renewal (a teacher’s third or fourth year of teaching) stages of development were combined to form the early career stage. In the survival stage, teachers are merely coping with daily tasks and responsibilities associated with teaching and may even question their own competence and desire to teach (Stroot and Whipple, 2003). By their second year, however, most teachers enter the consolidation stage and shift their focus more to the concerns and needs of their students. Teachers in the renewal stage of occupational development are believed to have had enough years of experience to become competent in their pedagogies. It is during this stage of development where teachers typically use various innovative methods to improve their physical education programs (Stroot and Whipple, 2003). Teachers move from the early career stages (i.e. survival, consolidation, and renewal) to maturity.

According to Katz’s (1972) stages of development, teachers with four years or more experience of teaching have reached the maturity stage (Katz, 1972; Stroot and Whipple, 2003). We categorized the Brazilian physical education teachers studied as in the maturity stage if they had taught for between five and nine years. At this stage, teachers start to ask questions that focus on their insights and beliefs about themselves, their teaching, and their students (Stroot and Whipple, 2003). Logically, with enhanced self-efficacy in their pedagogy, it is in this stage, if not sooner, where teachers would tend to demonstrate favorable attitudes toward inclusive practices (Hodge and Akuffo, 2007). We categorized teachers who had taught for 10 years or more as being in the veteran stage of their careers. Likewise, veteran teachers tend to demonstrate favorable attitudes toward inclusive practices (Hodge and Akuffo, 2007; Qi and Ha, 2012). In a review of literature, for instance, Qi and Ha (2012) presented teacher variables, such as those who had more experience with students with disabilities, as potential influences on more favorable attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities and inclusion. However, the results of this current study do not provide additional affirming evidence that those with more experience teaching tend to express more positive dispositions toward inclusion than teachers with less experience.

Most participants in this study scored in the undecided range in the Inclusion versus Exclusion dimension of the survey during both the pretest and posttest phases. The study’s results indicate the participants were consistently undecided about their positioning toward the inclusive ideology both before and after participating in the professional development workshop. This finding is not unprecedented, and previous research in the USA has demonstrated similar results. For example, Hodge and colleagues (2002a) studied an APE instructor’s approaches to the introductory APE course and compared the effects of two practicum types (off campus and on campus) on changes in attitudes and perceived competence in teaching students with disabilities. Hodge and colleagues found no significant shifts in attitudes following the practicum experiences. They concluded that the APE instructor’s focus on knowledge of law, disability, activity modifications, assessment, and program development took precedence over any direct attitude change strategy. Likewise, the dialogue and practical experiences held in the two-day APE workshop in this study did not provide direct hands-on learning experiences teaching students with disabilities. Instead, the workshop facilitators emphasized knowledge of laws in Brazil, disability definitions and terminology, and activity modifications, which took precedence over any direct attitude change strategy. Further, because of the novelty of the phenomenon, educators in Brazil may still be unsure of their positioning toward inclusion.

Although the concepts of inclusive practices are growing in Brazil’s schools, the two-day workshop may not have provided the magnitude of information and experience necessary to alter the participants’ dispositions toward inclusive practices. These results are consistent with Taliaferro and Harris (2014), who demonstrated that a short duration workshop (i.e. six hours) was not a long enough period of time to influence significant change in attitudes. In addition, a ceiling effect plausibly limited the possibility of the occurrence of an intervention effect. Because participants demonstrated such favorable attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities and the need for further training prior to the workshop, there was little room for increased scores after its culmination. Like research from Slininger et al. (2000), it was not feasible, in this instance, to see improvements in attitudes that would have been considerable enough to show a statistically significant posttest effect. To date, there is limited empirical evidence examining whether a disability-focused professional development workshop will influence teachers’ decision-making and attitudes about teaching students with disabilities (Kozub and Lienert, 2003). Kozub and Lienert (2003) explain that much research in this area of inquiry focuses on pre-service teachers; however, studies of teachers at all levels (e.g. pre-service, in-service) are needed. Further, in two recent reviews of literature pertaining to inclusion (Block and Obrusnikova, 2007; Qi and Ha, 2012) and a documentary analysis of Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly (Haegele et al., 2015), no articles are presented that discuss the impact of workshops on the attitudes of teachers toward inclusion or teaching those with disabilities. Moreover, there have been calls for research to explore the quality of training that teachers receive internationally, and the impact of that training on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion (Avramidis and Norwich, 2002; Morley et al., 2005).

Findings from this study indicate the Brazilian teachers were moderate to strong in their acceptance of students with disabilities prior to and after the workshop. This finding both affirms and conflicts with previous research pertaining to physical education teachers’ attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities. A number of studies demonstrate evidence of physical education teachers having positive dispositions in teaching students with disabilities within their classes (e.g. Combs et al., 2010; Hodge et al., 2004). What is more, Combs and colleagues (2010) describe participants who express frustration and dissatisfaction with other teachers’ behavior when they restrict physical education opportunities from students with disabilities. However, this is not always the case, and negative attitudes are also shared throughout the extant literature (Bryan et al., 2013; Combs et al., 2010). Specific to Brazil, physical education teachers have consistently expressed hesitancy in teaching students with disabilities (Nascimento et al., 2007). Teachers’ ambivalence and negative attitudes can result in students with disabilities feeling as though their teachers are ignoring, neglecting, or marginalizing them (Coates and Vickerman, 2008).

The high rate of acceptance of students with disabilities by the physical education teachers in this present study is encouraging, particularly since inclusion and teaching students with disabilities is an emerging concept in Brazil. One explanation for why acceptance may be high in this particular group is that participants were sampled from a voluntary workshop pertaining specifically to teaching students with disabilities in physical education. Because the workshop was voluntary, it can be assumed that those who attended may have had a more positive disposition toward teaching students with disabilities in comparison to others who did not attend. Therefore, readers should be cautious when considering these findings in regard to the entire population of physical education teachers in Brazil. Should researchers be interested in the attitudes of Brazilian teachers overall, sampling would need to occur in other contexts (e.g. in schools) and geographic locations.

While the physical education teachers in this study expressed positive dispositions toward teaching students with disabilities in their classes, they also recognized the need for more professional training. Before and after the APA workshop, both men and women participants agreed they needed more specialized training. The participants’ attitudes about Training Needs in general demonstrated modest to high levels of agreement with the scale’s items, which explicitly advocate professional development opportunities, such as the APA workshop, with a focus on strategies for teaching students with various disabilities. These findings are similar to those described by Nascimento and colleagues (2007) regarding Brazilian physical education teachers and similar research pertaining to teachers in the USA, where a yearning for more training is ubiquitous among physical education teachers teaching students with disabilities (e.g. Casebolt and Hodge, 2010).

Because teachers view themselves as works in progress, they tend to believe their self-efficacy in teaching students with disabilities will continue to grow as they are able to consume more knowledge about the topic (Casebolt and Hodge, 2010). Teachers have stressed the need for specific content within professional development training opportunities, including knowledge of adapting instruction, the use of adapted equipment in classes, and disability-specific information (Conroy, 2012; Hodge et al., 2004). The results of this study lead us to believe that the perceived training needs discussed by physical education teachers in the USA and elsewhere (Hodge et al., 2009) may also be applicable to those in Brazil. The fact is the results of this study suggest that Brazilian physical educators were not in full support of inclusion, but would readily accept teaching students with disabilities in their classes, which is consistent with previous results. For example, Hodge and colleagues have reported that physical education teachers in various countries, although compassionate toward all students, often lack adequate professional preparation and may encounter difficulties in teaching students with disabilities, which in turn can lead to them feeling wary about full inclusion (Hodge et al., 2009; Sato and Hodge, 2009).

Study limitations

A number of limitations must be acknowledged with this study. The sampling of participants may be considered a limitation to this study, as the inherent positive attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities and training needs of people attending a voluntary workshop may have limited potential changes in attitudes resulting from the intervention. Further, because the majority of participants were working with or had experience working with students with disabilities, it is difficult to ascertain the amount of knowledge participants had prior to the training and whether the training provided them with additional information about their students. Providing a similar workshop to Brazilian physical education teachers who did not begin with such positive dispositions toward accepting students with disabilities or training needs may have warranted larger intervention effects.

Secondly, the research design (pretest–posttest group design) utilized in this study can be considered a limitation. This design, considered a pre-experimental design because it controls few sources of invalidity, permitted direct access to the participants directly before and after exposure to the training workshop. However, because of the absence of a control group, this design does not allow researchers to directly state that an intervention was the cause of change (Thomas et al., 2005).

Conclusions

Globally, there is growing interest in inclusive practices for students with disabilities in physical education (Hodge et al., 2009; O’Brien et al., 2009; Son et al., 2012). When including students with disabilities in physical education, attitudes may be the most critical factor in ensuring meaningful learning experiences in inclusive physical education (Block and Obrusnikova, 2007). In Brazil, teachers tend not to feel adequately prepared to teach students with disabilities in their education programs across content areas (Chakraborti-Ghosh et al., 2014; Ferreira, 2003), making professional preparation and development in this arena essential. However, research focusing on improving teachers’ attitudes is scarce (Haegele et al., 2015). Although intervention effects were not significant, this study provides telling information about the attitudes of Brazilian physical education teachers toward inclusion, professional development, and teaching students with disabilities, as well as a framework for exploring the effectiveness of a common professional development practice, a two-day workshop, on the attitudes of physical education teachers toward teaching students with disabilities in their classes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aguiar

JSA

Duarte

(2005) Educação inclusiva: Um estudo na área da educação física. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial 11(2): 223–240.

Alves

MLT

Duarte

(2012) The participation of students with Down syndrome in physical education classes: A case study. Movimento 18(1): 237–256.

Alves

MLT

Duarte

(2014) The perception of students with disabilities on their inclusion in the classes of Physical Education: A case study. Revista Brasileira de Educação Física 28(2): 329–337.

Avramidis

Norwich

(2002) Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Needs Education 17(2): 129–145.

Banville

Desrosiers

Genet-Volet

(2000) Translating questionnaires and inventories using a cross-cultural translation technique. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 19(3): 374–387.

Bechtel

O’Sullivan

(2006) Paper 2: Effective professional development—What we now know. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 25(4): 363–378.

Block

Obrusnikova

(2007) Inclusion in physical education: A review of literature from 1995-2005. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 24(2): 103–124.

Brazil (2014) Key Education Indicators Literacy, Diversity and Inclusion of People with Disabilities. Brasília: Federal Government.

Brazil (2015) Decree Law 13146, 6 July 2015. Brazilian law Inclusion of People with Disabilities (Status of Persons with Disabilities). Brasília: Federal Government

10.

Brazilian Civil Society (2015) 1st Joint Submission to the Committee on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: An overview from the Brazilian Civil Society. July. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Available at: tbinternet.ohchr.org/ (accessed 30 June 2016).

11.

Bryan

McCubbins

van der Mars

(2013) The ambiguous role of the paraprofessional in the general physical education environment, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 30(2): 164–183.

12.

Casebolt

Hodge

(2010) High school physical education teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with mild or severe disabilities. The Physical Educator 67(3): 140–155.

13.

Chakraborti-Ghosh

Orellana

Jones

(2014) A cross-cultural comparison of teachers’ perspectives on inclusive education through a study abroad program in Brazil and in the US. International Journal of Special Education 29(1): 4–13.

14.

Coates

Vickerman

(2008) Let the children have their say: Children with special education needs and their experiences of physical education – A review. Support for Learning 23(4): 168–175.

15.

Combs

Elliott

Whipple

(2010) Elementary physical education teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of children with special needs: A qualitative investigation. International Journal of Special Education 25(1): 114–125.

16.

Conroy

(2012) Support students with visual impairments in physical education: Needs of physical educators. Insight: Research and Practice in Visual Impairment and Blindness 5(1): 3–10.

17.

Devore

Peck

(1993) Statistics: The Exploration and Analysis of Data. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.

18.

Ferreira

(2003) Public policies. Available at: www.cnotinfor.pt/inclusiva/report_politicas_publicas_en.html (accessed 30 June 2016).

19.

Folsom-Meek

Nearing

Groteluschen

. (1999) Effects of academic major, gender, and hands-on experience on attitudes of preservice teachers. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 16(4): 389–402.

20.

Fraenkel

Wallen

Hyun

(2012) How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

21.

Gravetter

Wallnau

(2004) Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 6th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

22.

Gutierres Filho

PJB

Monteiro

MDAF

da Silva

. (2013) Instructors’ application of the theory of planned behavior in teaching undergraduate physical education courses. Educational Research and Reviews 8(10): 589–595.

23.

Gutierres Filho

PJB

Monteiro

MDF

Silva

. (2011) Concepções, opiniões e atitudes docentes associadas à inclusão da pessoa com deficiência na educação física: Uma revisão da produção científica Brasileira. Liberabit 17(1): 19–30.

24.

Haegele

Hersman

Hodge

. (in press) An exploration of students with disabilities in Asia, Brazil, and the United States: Implications for inclusion and social justice. In: Morin

Maiano

Lonsdale

, et al. (eds) Inclusive Physical Activities: International Perspectives. Vol X. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press, pp.XX–XX.

25.

Haegele

Lee

Porretta

(2015) Research trends in Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly from 2004 to 2013. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 32(3): 187–205.

26.

Haegele

Sutherland

(2015) Perspectives of students with disabilities toward physical education: A qualitative inquiry review. Quest 67(3): 255–273.

27.

Hersman

Hodge

(2010) High school physical educators’ beliefs about teaching differently abled students in an urban public school district. Education and Urban Society 42(6): 730–757.

28.

Hodge

Akuffo

(2007) Adapted physical education teachers’ concerns in teaching students with disabilities in an urban public school district. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 54(4): 399–416.

29.

Hodge

Ammah

Casebolt

. (2004) High school general physical education teachers’ behaviors and beliefs associated with inclusion. Sport, Education and Society 9(3): 395–419.

30.

Hodge

Ammah

JOA

Casebolt

. (2009) A diversity of voices: Physical education teachers’ beliefs on teaching students with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 56(4): 401–419.

31.

Hodge

Davis

Woodard

. (2002a) Comparison of practicum types in changing preservice teachers’ attitudes and perceived competence. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 19(2): 155–171.

32.

Hodge

Gutierres Filho

Haegele

. (2015) Development of the physical educators’ judgments about inclusion instrument for Brazilian physical education teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching 4(2): 96–103.

33.

Hodge

Murata

Kozub

(2002b) Physical educators’ judgments about inclusion: a new instrument for pre-service teachers. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 19(4): 435–452.

34.

Hodge

Sato

Mukoyama

. (2013) Development of the physical educators’ judgments about inclusion instrument for Japanese physical education majors and an analysis of their judgments. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 60(4): 332–346.

35.

International Disability Rights Monitor (IDRM) (2004) Brazil—2004 IDRM country report. Available at: http://www.ideanet.org/content.cfm?id=535D (accessed 30 June 2016).

36.

Katz

(1972) Developmental stages of preschool teachers. Elementary School Journal 73(1): 50–54.

37.

Katz

(1986) Developmental stages of preschool teachers. In: Nias

(ed.) Teachers Socialization: The Individual in the System. Victoria, Austrailia: Deakin University Press, pp.56–59.

38.

Kowalski

Rizzo

(1996) Factors influencing preservice student attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 13(2): 180–196.

39.

Kozub

Lienert

(2003) Attitudes toward teaching children with disabilities: Review of literature and research paradigm. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 20(4): 323–346.

40.

Levin

(1983) Elementary Statistics in Social Research. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row.

41.

Martin

McCaughtry

Kullina

. (2008) The effectiveness of mentoring-based professional development on physical education teachers’ pedometer and computer efficacy and anxiety. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27(1): 68–82.

42.

Mauerberg-deCastro

(2011) Atividade Física Adaptada. 2nd ed. Ribeirão Preto: Novo Conceito.

43.

Mauerberg-deCastro

Paiva

Figueiredo

. (2013) Attitudes about inclusion by educators and physical educators: Effects of participation in an inclusive adapted physical education program. Motriz: Revista de Educacao Fisica 19(3): 649–661.

44.

MINITAB Statistical Software (2000) MINITAB Release 13 for Windows. State College, PA: Minitab Inc.

45.

Morley

Bailey

Tan

. (2005) Inclusive physical education: Teachers views of including pupils with special education needs and/or disabilities in physical education. European Physical Education Review 11(1): 84–107.

46.

Nascimento

Rodrigues

Grillo

. (2007) A formação do professor de educação física na atuação profissional inclusiva. [The professionalization of physical education teacher and its inclusive professional activity] Revista Mackenzie de Educação Física e Esporte 6(3): 53–58.

47.

O’Brien

Kudláček

Howe

(2009) A contemporary review of English language literature on inclusion of students with disabilities in physical education: A European perspective. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity 2(1): 46-61.

48.

O’Sullivan

Deglau

(2006) Paper 7: Principles of professional development. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 25(4): 441–449.

49.

Palla

Mauerberg-deCastro

(2004) Atitudes de professores e estudantes de educação física em relação ao ensino de alunos com deficiência em ambientes inclusivos. Revista da Sobama 9(1): 25–34.

50.

(2012) Inclusion in physical education: A review of literature. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 59(3): 257–281.

51.

Rizzo

Kirkendall

(1995) Teaching students with mild disabilities: What affects attitudes of future physical educators? Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 12(3): 205–216.

52.

Rizzo

Vispoel

(1991) Physical educators attributes and attitudes toward teaching students with handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 8(1): 4–11.

53.

Rosenthal

(1994) Parametric measures of effect size. In: Cooper

Hedges

(eds) The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp.231–244.

54.

Sato

Hodge

(2009) Japanese physical educators’ beliefs on teaching students with disabilities at urban high schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 29(2): 159–177.

55.

Sato

Hodge

Murata

. (2007) Japanese physical education teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with disabilities. Sport, Education and Society 12(2): 211–230.

56.

Shavelson

(1988) Statistical Reasoning for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

57.

Slininger

Sherrill

Jankowski

(2000) Children’s attitudes toward peers with severe disabilities: Revisiting contact theory. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 17(2): 176–196.

58.

Son

Hodge

Chun

. (2012) South Korean undergraduate collegians’ beliefs about inclusion and teaching students with disabilities. International Journal of Human Movement Science 6(1): 153–174.

59.

Stroot

Whipple

(2003) Organizational socialization: Factors affecting beginning teachers. In: Silverman

Ennis

(eds) Student Learning in Physical Education: Applying Research to Enhance Instruction. 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp.311–328.

60.

Taliaferro

Harris

(2014) The effects of a one-day workshop on physical educators’ self-efficacy toward inclusion of students with autism. Palaestra 28(3): 38–43.

61.

Thomas

Nelson

Silverman

(2005) Research Methods in Physical Activity. 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

62.

Thomas

Nelson

Thomas

(1999) A generalized rank-order method for nonparametric analysis of data from exercise science: A tutorial. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 70(1): 11–23.

63.

Tolson

(1980) An adjunct to statistical significance: ω² . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 51(3): 580–584.

64.

Vincent

(1995) Statistics in Kinesiology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

65.

Watson

(2013) Lessons from Brazil: Separate and unequal educational systems. Preventing School Failure 57(3): 148–151.

66.

Xapuri (2015) Brazilian law of inclusion – Live without limits. Available at: http://www.xapuri.info/en/. (accessed 30 June 2016).

67.

Zanandrea

Rizzo

(1998) Attitudes of undergraduate physical education majors in Brazil toward teaching students with disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills 86(2): 699–706.