Inclusion of Children With Disabilities in Physical Education in Zimbabwean Primary Schools

Abstract

Since Zimbabwe adopted inclusion in 1994 in alignment with the world, the number of children with disabilities educated in regular schools has significantly increased. Teachers experience diverse challenges when including children with disabilities in physical education (PE) in regular classrooms. This qualitative study carried out individual interviews, document analysis and nonparticipant observations with 24 Zimbabwean primary school teachers to explore pedagogical practices for including children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms. A comparative approach of organizing individual interviews, document analysis and observation data with continual adjustment was used throughout the analysis. Although participants had individual and institutional concerns, including inadequate preparation and resources, about the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms, they had positive dispositions toward it. Knowing individual children, having positive social relationships with children, fostering positive social relationships among children, supporting collaborative structures and cultures, and utilizing adapted instruction facilitated the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms. Individual and institutional capacity building, including comprehensive preservice and in-service teacher training and the passage and enforcement of specific policies and legislation on inclusion, could enhance the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms. This study serves as a baseline for future studies on the subject.

Keywords

children with disabilities inclusion physical education regular classrooms primary schools teachers Zimbabwe

Introduction

Worldwide, education communities are in pursuit of the inclusion of children with disabilities (Ballard, 2012; Chhabra, Srivastava & Srivastava, 2010; Florian & Spratt, 2013). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1994) underpins the global impetus for inclusion (Flecha & Soler, 2013; Majoko, 2013; Pantic & Florian, 2015). It reaffirmed the right to education of everyone as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) and the renewed commitment of the World Conference on Education for All and Framework for Action to Meet Basic Learning Needs (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1990) to guarantee that right for all irrespective of individual differences (Donnelly & Watkins, 2011; Pantic & Florian, 2015; Voss & Bufkin, 2011). Children with disabilities are globally educated in regular schools in compliance with civil rights movements as expressed in international human rights instruments (Allday, Neilsen-Gatti, & Hudson, 2013; Kim & Rouse, 2011; Majoko, 2018; Pantic & Florian, 2015). These include the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (United Nations, 1965), the International Year of the Child (United Nations, 1976), the International Year of Disabled Persons (United Nations, 1981), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), the Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons With Disabilities (United Nations, 1993) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (United Nations, 2006; Chakuchichi, 2013; Majoko, 2013; Mpofu & Shumba, 2012).

Comparable with several other countries, including Ghana (Agbenyega, 2007); South Africa (Naicker, 2009), Botswana (Chhabra et al., 2010), Tanzania (Kisanji & Saanane, 2009), the United Kingdom (Friend & Bursuck, 2012), Uganda (Lynch, McCall, Douglas, McLinden, & Bayo, 2011), and Scotland (Florian, 2012), several policies and legislation in Zimbabwe mandate the inclusion of children with disabilities in regular schools (Chakuchichi, 2013; Majoko, 2016; Munjanganja & Machawira, 2015). Such include the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987 as revised in 2006, the Zimbabwe Constitution Amendment Number 20 of 2013 section 75, the Disabled Persons Act of Zimbabwe of 1996, the Principal Director’s Circular Number 20 of 2011, and the Director’s Circular 12 of 2005 (Majoko, 2017; Mandipa & Manyatera, 2014; Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013). Children with disabilities in Zimbabwe are learners with specific learning disabilities, traumatic brain injuries, health impairments, speech or language impairments, intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments including deafness, emotional disturbances, autism, orthopedic impairments or visual impairments including blindness (Mandina, 2012; Mandipa & Manyatera, 2014; Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013).

The Schools Psychological Services and Special Needs Education (SPS & SNE) Department within the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MoPSE) of Zimbabwe diagnoses and places children with disabilities in schools in consultation with teachers, educational psychologists, occupational therapists, parents, and other stakeholders (Majoko, 2005; Mpofu & Shumba, 2012; Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013). A continuum of placements, including part-time resource rooms or self-contained special education classrooms, are provided for children with disabilities depending on the inclusion practices of a specific school and the preference of the parents (Majoko, 2018; Mandina, 2012; Mandipa & Manyatera, 2014). Nevertheless, the regular classroom is the preferred option of placement and the least restrictive (Majoko, 2016; Mpofu & Shumba, 2012; Musengi & Chireshe, 2012). The SPS & SNE Department provides several services, including expansion of education, advocacy for education that meets the needs of the children, quality assurance of education, awareness education, and inclusion of children with disabilities among communities, parents, headteachers, teachers and the whole country (Chireshe, 2013; Majoko, 2018; Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013). This involves staff development of teachers, headteachers and district, provincial and national education officers (Chakuchichi, 2013; Chireshe, 2011; Munjanganja & Machawira, 2015). A multidisciplinary team comprising of parents, headteachers, teachers, occupational therapists, educational psychologists, physiotherapists, social workers, and other specialists collaboratively design and implement individualized educational programs for children with disabilities (Mutepfa, Mpofu, & Chataika, 2007; Musengi & Chireshe, 2012; Zimbabwe Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, 2017).

The Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development (MoHTES & TD), in collaboration with the MoPSE, oversees preservice and in-service training of teachers for inclusion, early intervention, rehabilitation, and inclusive interaction services (Chakuchichi, 2013; Chireshe, 2011; Majoko, 2018). The Department of Teacher Education of the University of Zimbabwe, in partnership with the MoPSE, MoHTES & TD, and the SPS & SNE Departments offers strategic support toward teacher training for inclusion (Majoko, 2018; Zimbabwe Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, 2018; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, 2013). Six universities and 11 primary school teachers’ training colleges offer full-time and part-time teacher training for inclusion at degree and diploma levels.

Despite the global pursuit of inclusion, a universally accepted definition of the philosophy is elusive due to conceptual difficulties in defining it, including what counts as evidence of its model practice (Kim & Rouse, 2011; Pantic & Florian, 2015; Voss & Bufkin, 2011). Globally, inclusion is perceived as a continuous process of transforming regular schools and school systems to support all children, including those with diverse unique needs, to realize their social, academic and career potential (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Forlin, 2010). It involves the removal of barriers in teaching, learning, communication, curriculum, environment, assessment and socialization at all levels (Chireshe, 2013; Donnelly & Watkins, 2011). In Zimbabwe, inclusion is perceived as access, acceptance, participation, and success of all children including those with exceptionalities and their families in ordinary activities of the community of the regular school while meeting their diverse needs and contributing to the advancement of the community of the regular school (Chireshe, 2011; Deluca, Tramonta, & Kett, 2013; Majoko, 2013).

Inclusive physical education (PE) prioritizes access for all to ensure participation in the subject area and physical activity more generally (Grenier, 2006; Simpson & Mandich, 2012; Vickerman & Coates, 2009). There is negligible reflection regarding the type of learning experiences children should access or the results for construction of knowledge and identity (Seymour, Reid, & Bloom, 2009; Vickerman & Coates, 2009; Wrench & Garrett, 2012). Structures and practices that are founded on constructed norms and grids of intelligibility (Foucault, 2003) within which all children can be known, underpin schooling (Allday et al., 2013; Ball, 2013; Graham & Slee, 2008). Resultantly, pedagogical practices of classification, categorization, and division exclude children as “other” in terms of, for example, race, disability, class, and gender (Ball, 2013; Blanton, Pugach, & Florian, 2011; Chireshe, 2011). Rather than centring the “other,” inclusion recognizes diversity, values difference, responds to the uniqueness of individuals and focuses on the strengths of children instead of their deficits (Forlin & Sin, 2010; Groundwater-Smith, Ewing, Le, & Cornu, 2011; Kim & Rouse, 2011).

Social arrangements that allow participation of all as peers in social life are required in premises of justice that are embedded in equal moral worth (Fraser, 2010). Social justice addresses barriers to parity in participation within three distinct but interrelated domains, particularly, recognition, redistribution, and representation (Fraser, 2010). Recognition deals with cultural dimensions and, in PE, it involves confronting and countering the dominance of specific movement forms, understandings of ability and desired corporeality that may exclude children with disabilities (An & Meaney, 2015; Grenier, 2011; Qi & Ha, 2012). Redistribution deals with economic barriers and facilitating access to educational goods and cultural capital (Lingard & Keddie, 2013). Implications for PE teachers manifest with respect to how they support children with disabilities to access and develop physical capital as a form of cultural capital and resources associated with regular physical activity, bodies, and health (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Combs, Elliot, & Whipple, 2010; Overton, Wrench, & Garrett, 2017). Representation is the political dimension of justice, which underpins who is included and excluded and warrants “just distribution and reciprocal recognition” (Fraser, 2010, p. X). Resultantly, there are implications with respect to how PE teachers recognize and cater to the abilities, voices, and perspectives of children with disabilities (Grout, Long, & Marshallsay, 2009; Lingard & Keddie, 2013; Obrusnikova, 2008).

Pedagogical Practices of Teachers for Inclusion in PE

Teachers’ pedagogical practices are a fundamental social justice issue in regard to improved learning outcomes for all children (Kershner, 2009; Majoko, 2017). Inclusive practices in PE that eliminate discrimination, value and respect diversity, and encourage input and participation of children represent a fundamental stride toward social justice (Keddie, 2012; Simpson & Mandich, 2012; Vickerman & Coates, 2009). Inversely, the practice of overt or subtle forms of exclusion violates the notion of equality of opportunity (Chireshe, 2011; Lingard & Mills, 2007; Majoko, 2016). Regarding equity and social justice, inclusion of children with disabilities in PE needs to involve more than keeping score or watching from the side lines (Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). In PE, inclusion includes changes to curriculum and providing necessary support to ensure every child is afforded opportunities to succeed (Block, 2007; Callcott, Miller, & Wilson-Gahan, 2012; Elliot, 2008). Thus, justice, equity, and inclusion are manifested in the interplay of pedagogical practices and curriculum (Ballard, 2012; Friend & Bursuck, 2012; Musengi & Chireshe, 2012).

Pedagogy is complicated and includes relationships between teachers, children, curriculum content, and knowledge created (Tinning, 2010). This relational perspective of pedagogy recognizes the importance of teacher–child relationships and relationships between children for effective pedagogical practices (Lysaker & Furuness, 2011). Important factors include how teachers foster relationships and teach specific curriculum content, as well as the nature of learning of children (Wrench & Garrett, 2012). Assumptions about inclusion, whose interests are served, and the nature of educational experiences are of importance for pedagogical practices of PE (Blanton et al., 2011; Graham & Slee, 2008; Odom, Buysse, & Soukakou, 2011). Essential factors in the delivery and impact of inclusion programs in PE for children with disabilities include teachers’ beliefs and understandings of inclusion, equity, and provision for all (Flintoff & Fitzgerald, 2012; Hodge et al., 2009; Vickerman & Coates, 2009). The nature and severity of the disabilities of children significantly frame teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of children in PE (Obrusnikova, 2008). Teachers exhibit more favorable attitudes toward the inclusion of children with mild physical disabilities (Block, 2007; Grout et al., 2009; Hodge et al., 2009) and children with learning disabilities over those with emotional and behavioral needs (Obrusnikova, 2008).

Teachers’ strategies for encouraging social inclusion and structuring learning environments, as well as characteristics of peers, potentially influence the experiences of children with disabilities in PE (Hodge et al., 2009; Seymour et al., 2009; Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). Creating a sense of belonging to the group, improving motivation and providing differentiated learning experiences affords children opportunities for meaningful participation in PE (Beamish & Saggers, 2014; Qi & Ha, 2012; Vickerman & Coates, 2009). The premise that teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion are fundamental to pedagogical practices for guaranteeing the inclusion of children with disabilities underpins this area of inquiry (Callcott et al., 2012). The specific foci of the current study are the pedagogical practices that teachers use to include children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms. This is a point of departure from previous literature on inclusion in an effort to examine what this entails in practice.

Theoretical Framework

Inclusive pedagogy underpinned this study. Inclusive pedagogy shifts the focus from only those individuals with additional needs to the learning of all children in the community of the regular classroom (Majoko, 2017; Pantic & Florian, 2015). This entails creating learning opportunities that are adequately afforded to all children so that they are able to participate in regular classroom life, and extending what is generally available for all children instead of utilizing teaching and learning strategies that are appropriate for most children alongside additional instruction for those with learning challenges (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012). This approach focuses on what is to be taught and how it is taught, instead of who is to learn (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012; Pantic, 2015). Inclusive pedagogy rejects deterministic beliefs about ability as being fixed and the associated premise that the presence of some will interfere with the progress of others (Pantic & Florian, 2015). This entails believing that all children progress, learn and achieve; focusing teaching and learning on what children can do instead of what they cannot do; utilizing diverse grouping strategies to support the learning of all children instead of depending on ability grouping to separate “able” from “less able”; and using formative assessment to support learning (Florian & Linklater, 2010; Pantic, 2015).

Inclusive pedagogy views difficulties in learning as professional challenges instead of deficits in children, which motivates the development of innovative ways of working (Florian & Spratt, 2013). This involves seeking and trying out new ways of working to support the learning of all children (Flecha & Soler, 2013), working with and through other adults who respect the dignity of all children as full members of the community of the regular classroom (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011), and continuing professional development for more inclusive practices (Florian & Spratt, 2013; Pantic & Florian, 2015). In Zimbabwe, inclusion in PE in regular classrooms requires teachers to extend what is ordinarily available in the community of the classroom to reduce the need to label some children as “different.”

Rationale for the Study

Inclusion in education is a national priority in Zimbabwe (Deluca et al., 2013; Majoko, 2005; Mandina, 2012). Its government has passed policies and legislation mandating inclusion in all public schools (Chakuchichi, 2013; Mutepfa et al., 2007; Zimbabwe Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, 2017). Since Zimbabwe adopted inclusion in 1994, all educational provinces including Midlands educational province where this study was carried out have cited a remarkable increase in the number of children with disabilities educated in regular primary schools (Chireshe, 2013; Majoko, 2018; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, 2013). However, the presence of children with disabilities in regular classrooms does not also guarantee their inclusion (Florian & Linklater, 2010; Hornby, 2010; Kim & Rouse, 2011). Inclusion entails physical, emotional, social and cultural integration of children with disabilities in regular classrooms (Forlin, 2010; Naicker, 2007). The inclusion of children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms is a global challenge to teachers attempting to meet the diverse needs of these children and those without disabilities (An & Meaney, 2015; Grenier, 2011; Overton et al., 2017; Qi & Ha, 2012; Simpson & Mandich, 2012).

Zimbabwe is transforming its higher education institutions, including advancing them to meet the top higher education markets of the world (Majoko, 2013; Munjanganja & Machawira, 2015; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, 2013). These institutions have revised their PE curriculum to infuse modules on inclusion to train teachers to teach children with disabilities (Majoko, 2018). Since 2015, Zimbabwe has also adopted a new Inclusive Curriculum Framework for Primary and Secondary Education (2015-2022; Zimbabwe Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, 2017). This framework articulates inclusion for the first time since Zimbabwe adopted it in 1994 (Majoko, 2018). The Inclusive Curriculum framework for Primary and Secondary Education (2015-2022) requires teachers to provide quality education for all children in regular classrooms (Zimbabwe Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, 2017). Inclusive PE constitutes a teaching and learning environment for children with disabilities to support the development of fitness, motor skills, knowledge and understanding of movement, and to enhance psychosocial well-being for a lifestyle relevant to their individuality in the community of their age-appropriate peers with support services and supplementary aides (Hodge, Ammah, Casebolt, Lamaster, & O’Sullivan, 2004; Klavina & Block, 2008; Ward & Ayvazo, 2006). Unlike other subjects, which are entrenched in academic development, PE is embedded in academic, social, and career development of children and their ultimate holistic development (An & Goodwin, 2007; Garrett & Wrench, 2011; Grenier, 2006).

International multiple stakeholders have examined inclusion in PE over the past three decades (Hodge et al., 2004; Hodge et al., 2009; LaMasfer, Kinchin, Gall, & Siedentop, 1998; Morley, Bailey, Tan, & Cooke, 2005), including children with and without disabilities (Goodwin & Watkinson, 2000; Suomi, Collier, & Brown, 2003; Verderber, Rizzo, & Sherrill, 2003) and the parents of children with disabilities (An & Goodwin, 2007). Previous studies primarily explored stakeholders’ attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion, the influence of inclusion on the learning of children, and the imperative for successful inclusion (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Combs et al., 2010; Elliot, 2008; Hodge et al., 2009; Obrusnikova, 2008; Qi & Ha, 2012). Some recent international studies have examined the impact of teaching strategies used to include children with disabilities in PE (Grenier, 2011; Klavina & Block, 2008; LaMasfer et al., 1998; Ward & Ayvazo, 2006). Based on literature search, there is dearth of studies on teachers’ pedagogical practices in the inclusion of children with disabilities in regular classrooms in Zimbabwe. Pedagogical practices are integral in teachers’ delivery of services and influence the achievement of children (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Grout et al., 2009; Lingard & Mills, 2007), primarily those with disabilities (Blanton et al., 2011; Friend & Bursuck, 2012). More initiatives are required to establish regular classrooms that are friendly toward children with disabilities (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Combs et al., 2010; Florian & Linklater, 2010). Thus, this study specifically addressed the following research question:

Research Question 1: What pedagogical practices do teachers use to include children with disabilities in PE in regular public primary school classrooms in Midlands educational province of Zimbabwe?

Method

This study used a multiple-case study approach entrenched in qualitative research methodology. In the subsequent section, the research design, settings, participants, procedure and data analysis are presented.

Research Design

Entrenched in qualitative research methodology, this study utilized a multiple-case study design. Qualitative research methodology examines a phenomenon from the perspectives of individuals experiencing it by using textual descriptions that are analyzed for themes and inducing transferrable interpretations (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Grbich, 2007; Silverman, 2009). A multiple-case study design is a variant, which includes two or more observations of the same research phenomenon for replication and extension (Creswell, 2009; Silverman, 2009). A sample of 24 primary schools, purposively drawn from urban, peri-urban, and rural settings of each one of the eight districts of Midlands educational province, were selected for participation in the current study. Interest in individual cases instead of the methods of inquiry utilized defines a multiple-case study design (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), therefore, one teacher was drawn from each of the participating schools.

A multiple-case study explores real-life cases and multiple-bounded systems using detailed, in-depth data collection, including multiple sources of information (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007; Silverman, 2009). Document analysis, nonparticipant observations, and individual interviews were used in this study. A multiple-case study enables data analysis, both within and across cases, thereby facilitating comprehension of the similarities and differences between cases (Creswell, 2009). Each school and teacher was a case, which facilitated independent confirmation of emerged constructs and propositions. This study was embedded in a phenomenological methodological approach. Phenomenological research examines the daily life situations of individual participants (Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). This consisted of the pedagogical practices of individual teachers in including children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms.

Research Settings

Zimbabwe groups its public schools into 10 educational provinces (Munjanganja & Machawira, 2015). Its government mandates inclusion in all educational provinces. This study was conducted in Midlands educational province for transferability of findings. Consistent with other educational provinces, Midlands educational province consists of regular primary schools in urban, peri-urban, and rural settings of its districts, namely, Shurugwi, Gweru, Mberengwa, Zvishavane, Gokwe North, Kwekwe, Chirumhanzu, and Gokwe South. Comparable with other educational provinces, Midlands has benefited from the expansion of schools, resource improvement, and training of teachers in postcolonial Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, 2017; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, 2013). These factors served to redress colonial inequities and imbalances in access to education for all children including those with disabilities (Chakuchichi, 2013; Majoko, 2005; Mpofu & Shumba, 2012). Similar to other educational provinces, primary school education in Midlands educational province is tuition-free, which has resulted in about 100% gross enrollment ratio (Munjanganja & Machawira, 2015) and has led to a significant increase in the number of children with disabilities educated in regular primary schools since its adoption of inclusion in 1994 (Munjanganja & Machawira, 2015; Zimbabwe Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, 2017; Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, 2013).

Participants

Midlands educational province constitutes 766 regular public primary schools (Munjanganja & Machawira, 2015). A sample of 24 schools was purposely drawn from those that included children with seizures, intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, visual impairment, autism, emotional/behavioral disabilities, cerebral palsy, physical disabilities, and Down syndrome, as identified by the SPS & SNE Department, according to teachers’ remedial record books. One institution was purposely drawn from urban, semi-urban, and rural settings in each one of the eight districts. Teachers were recruited through contact with Midlands provincial education offices. Information letters were distributed to contacts in the designated schools. Following the headteachers’ approval of the study, information letters were sent out to teachers who were perceived to meet the inclusion criteria. To establish eligibility for participation and to schedule interview venues and times, teachers were screened telephonically. The criteria for participation of teachers in this study included at least: a primary school teachers’ diploma, a bachelor’s degree in PE, a bachelor’s degree in special needs education, and teaching experience of 4 years or more in a public regular primary classroom including at least one child with disabilities. The sample constituted 24 teachers (15 male and nine female), one per participating institution.

Procedure

Ethical approval to execute the study was sought and secured from the MoPSE of Zimbabwe, Midlands provincial education offices, and headteachers of participating institutions. Thereafter, informed consent of the participants was sought and secured before conducting the study. A brief, clear, concise, and precise research profile was provided to the above parties to secure the permission to conduct this study.

Because an interview allows the participants to express their perceptions about a studied phenomenon in their own words (Cohen et al., 2007; Creswell, 2009; Silverman, 2009), it is a fundamental data collection instrument in qualitative research (Cohen et al., 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Grbich, 2007). The interview schedule used in the current study was developed based on a review of interview guides of previous literature on the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE (An & Meaney, 2015; Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Campos, Ferreira, & Block, 2015; Combs et al., 2010; Grenier, 2006; Morley et al., 2005; Overton et al., 2017; Qi & Ha, 2012; Vickerman & Coates, 2009; Vickerman & Hayes, 2013). Individual interviews question items allowed participants to express their pedagogical practices in the inclusion of children with disabilities in the content, process, environment, and product of PE. A criteria jury opinion was used to ensure the validity and reliability of the interview questions. Three academics in the Department of Inclusive Education of the University of South Africa reviewed the interview guide independently. They commented on its validity, reliability, and content suitability and suggested refinements, which were applied to the questions before its administration. Thereafter, the interview guide was piloted tested with participants who met the inclusion criteria to take part in this study and accordingly adjusted based on their responses to the questions. A total of 24 individual interviews, one per participant, were executed. On average, each interview lasted 75 min. Examples of the interview questions include the following:

For how long have you been teaching? (A probe for demographic data including number of years of teaching experience and qualifications).

How do you teach children with disabilities in PE in your classroom?

What works well when including children with disabilities in PE in your classroom?

What would you like to add regarding the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE in your classroom?

Despite the organization and structure of the data collection because of the use of an interview guide, context-specific questioning of issues ensured flexibility. For subsequent analysis, all interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim with individual participants’ consent. Audiotaping facilitated attention to individual participants during their interviews and accurate data collection. Interviews were conducted in English in classrooms of participants after working hours.

A total of 24 class observations, one per participant, were conducted. These focused on teacher inclusivity of all children, child interactions, teaching strategies, and educational content. To avoid disruptions to the class, the researcher remained as unobtrusive as possible. The observations were unstructured (Silverman, 2009) as predetermined categories in a checklist were not utilized (Creswell, 2009. The researcher was attentive to the conversations, behavior, and actions of the participants and took field notes. Observations facilitated collection of “thick descriptions” about the phenomenon under investigation and lasted 50 min on average. To ensure clarity, informal conversations were held with individual participants regarding pedagogy during a follow-up after each observation. Access audits were executed to establish institutionalized pedagogical practices teachers used to include children with disabilities in PE. Materials, resources, facilities, and activities of every observed institution were photographed. Documents including social record books, individualized educational plans, performance lag adjustment programs, government gazettes, progress record books, schemes of work, remedial record books, anecdotal record books, lesson plans, and workbooks of children were analyzed.

Theoretical saturation was realized when no new or relevant data emerged (Cohen et al., 2007; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Grbich, 2007; Pierce, 2008) about participants’ knowledge about individual children, teacher–child relationships, child–child relationships, collaborative structures and cultures, adapted instruction, concerns about inclusion and strategies to enhance inclusion. In addition to undergraduate qualifications in PE, special needs and regular education, seven participants had master’s degrees in special needs education. Participants were aged between 34 years and 57 years with 6 to 18 years of experience teaching in regular classrooms including at least three children with disabilities. Each one of the participants taught a regular class, which had a maximum of 48 6-to-12-year-old children, which stretched from Grades 1 to 7.

Data Analysis

Data solicited from several settings, sources, and methods were triangulated to illuminate themes. Analysis of individual interviews, nonparticipant observations and documents determined complementarity of findings and elaborated on divergences between findings (Creswell, 2009; Pierce, 2008; Silverman, 2009). Individual interviews facilitated understanding of the process of including children with disabilities in PE. Observations facilitated contextual understanding of the pedagogical practices teachers used to include these children. Individual interviews supplemented and validated observations. Data triangulation consisted of the following: (a) recognizing and understanding trends within and across data sets, (b) generating initial codes, (c) examining and determining similarities and differences to identify overarching initial themes, (d) reexamining initial themes, and (e) delineating and renaming themes.

After completing preliminary analysis of data, two critical readers, who were experts in qualitative research, and the researcher presented the primary themes, which emerged to the individual participants. These themes were compared with those identified by a professor of research by dividing the number of agreements by the sum of agreements and disagreements and multiplying by 100% for an interrater reliability index. The computed interrater was 89% for the themes. Law and MacDermid (2008) posit that a reliability of at least 80% is unlikely to take place by chance. Cohen’s kappa, which is perceived as a more robust method of ascertaining agreement as the computation corrects for chance, was further used to assess the agreement between the researcher, the research professor, and the critical readers. Cohen’s kappa was calculated to be 0.86 for the themes.

A negative case analysis and credibility and confirmation of member-checking were realized through the triangulation of sources (Cohen et al., 2007). Triangulation was facilitated by the inclusion of diverse sources of data and multiple data collection methods, including transcripts, external evaluation and field notes, across multiple settings. Individual participants checked the data after its coding as an individual interview summary and a list of themes was provided to them to ensure that their pedagogical practices were reflected accurately. All participants reported that the themes accurately reflected their expressions. The transferability and dependability of the findings were established through documenting the natural history of the research methodology. A full range of data, including deviant cases, was included to allow for a full range of findings (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Grbich, 2007; Silverman, 2009). To ensure that perspectives of individual participants did not outweigh those of their peer participants, two critical readers reviewed the findings.

Results

Through data analysis, seven themes emerged. These were knowing individual children, teacher–child relationships, child–child relationships, collaborative structures and cultures, adapted instruction, concerns about inclusion, and strategies to enhance inclusion.

Knowing Individual Children

All participants (100%) reported that their planning and delivery of lesson plans, based on the knowledge and information about individual children with and without disabilities, facilitated inclusion in PE in regular classrooms, as illustrated in the following selected excerpts:

I continuously review social record books, individualised educational plans, progress record books, schemes of work, remedial record books, anecdotal record books and lesson plans to establish what individual pupils with and without disabilities can do. I then plan and deliver my PE lessons based on their individual capabilities. For instance, pupils who are competent in gross motor skills engage in ball throwing and basketball dribbling whereas pupils who are competent in fine motor skills engage in throwing and catching the balloon (Huya).

My knowledge and information on unique abilities, interests, characteristics and disabilities of every educand informs my planning and teaching of every PE lesson. Educands with developmental challenges and typically developing educands individually inform me on games, athletics, gymnastics and dance activities that they are interested in prior to my lesson planning and teaching. I consult and partner with peer teachers, parents of individual educands and their counterparts for information on their needs to inform my planning and teaching of lessons. In ball throwing, I increase targets for educands with advanced skills and decrease target distance for educands with elementary skills (Vhara).

I solicit individual needs and interests of all my learners. I engage in diverse PE activities with them during pedagogy to identify what they can do to use as basis for planning my lessons and teaching. I identify their abilities during playtime, break and lunch times. I use balls of different sizes, colour, texture and weight for different learners in basketball based on needs I observe (Masikati).

Some participating institutions (46%) held meetings in which teachers solicited parents for information regarding the needs of individual children with and without disabilities. Some teachers conducted one-on-one meetings with typically developing children to solicit information about the needs of children with disabilities. Teachers planned and delivered PE lessons diagnostically and prescriptively as they were based on formative and summative evaluation in performance lag adjustment programs, error analysis in workbooks of children, schemes of work and lesson plans.

Teacher–Child Relationships

All participants (100%) revealed that their nurturance of positive relationships with individual children with and without disabilities facilitated inclusion in PE in regular classrooms, as illustrated in the following selected statements:

I nurture positive social relationship with all my learners with and without developmental challenges. Each one of them takes me as their father. I equally take each one of them as my daughter or son. They freely inform me on PE activities that they are able or unable to do depending on the nature and severity of their disabilities, interests and abilities (Tenda).

We [teacher and children] friendly discuss the benefits of every primary school subject. They are interested and committed to PE because they are aware that it fosters in them leading, following, sharing, caring, turn-taking, reading, writing, speaking and listening skills which makes them responsible, independent and productive citizens (Guta).

I openly engage with all the educands on the career paths in PE. They all know that individuals who are into sport such as basketball, rugby, soccer, netball, cricket and tennis are international celebrities and well remunerated. As a result, they are all committed to inclusive teaching and learning of PE since they know that sporting activities are done with others (Shoma).

In participating schools (100%), teachers served in loco-parentis including guiding and counseling children who misbehaved in PE lessons. Children freely drew to teachers’ attention their satisfaction and concerns including simplicity and complexity of PE activities that they were engaged in. Teachers schemed, planned, and delivered lessons on benefits of PE and career pathways.

Child–Child Relationships

All participants (100%) reported that positive relationships among children facilitated inclusion in PE in regular classrooms, as illustrated in the following selected statements:

I cultivate positive relationships between children with and without developmental delays in my class. Through using non-competitive individual, pair, trio, group and class activities in teaching and learning of PE, I have cultured these children to consult and partner with each other. Inclusive playing, learning and living is ingrained in all my children (Zhinji).

Inclusion in PE is an extension of daily activities, roles, responsibilities and social relations of learners with and without developmental challenges. I use their social relationships and games for inclusive teaching and learning of PE. I pair and group them according to their social relations at home and school which accounts for social cohesion and ultimate inclusion in the subject (Usiku).

Afrocentric values of Ubuntu, particularly respect and accommodation of human diversity including disabilities and abilities, informs my teaching of PE. I make learners practice Ubuntu values including empathy, sharing, caring, respect and love in every PE lesson which facilitates inclusion (Gamba).

In all participating institutions (100%), children with and without disabilities were observed consulting and partnering with each other in individual and group work as necessary for successful completion of assigned PE activities. Social record books, schemes of work, and lesson plans indicated that teachers used social grouping and made children identify and apply Ubuntu principles in PE lessons.

Collaborative Structures and Cultures

Most participants (92%) revealed that collaborative structures and cultures facilitated the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE, as confirmed in the following selected statements:

We work hand in glove with the School Development Committee Association in securing finance, technology and materials for inclusion in PE including equipment and resources for netball, soccer and gymnastics, such as wheelchairs for table tennis and racing. The School Development Committee Association, community and church leadership mediate when parents of children with exceptionalities do not cooperate with us in their education or when parents of typically developing children resist inclusion. Village headmen also furnish us with information on challenges and opportunities of specific families, including cultural and religious orientations, in inclusion of children with and without exceptionalities in PE which informs our interventions (Mbwende).

I use a team approach to inclusion in PE. I use the input of learners with developmental delays and their parents, nurses, deputy headteachers, head of department, peer teachers, nurse aids, regular teachers, educational psychologists, social workers and the school staff development committee chairperson in developing and implementing individualised educational plans. I also use the input of these role players in designing and implementing interventions, including peer support, to include learners with developmental delays in PE (Siya).

Our school staff development committee sources experts who present to us on challenging topics in athletics, games, dance and gymnastics including team handball in inclusion of educands with developmental lags. These expert staff members develop us on the adaptation of the teaching and learning subject matter, setting, activities, assessment and evaluation without compromising the standards of the general PE curriculum. We have scheduled and unscheduled workshops, meetings and demonstration lessons on the inclusion of educands with developmental lags in PE with peer teachers at this school and sister schools. In these sessions, we (PE teachers), regular teachers, headteachers, heads of departments and deputy headteachers share on best practices, challenges and opportunities in inclusion in PE (Zvino).

School Development Committee Associations and School Staff Development Committees of participating institutions executed supplementary and complementary roles and responsibilities including securing resource persons, support staff, and disability friendly educational environments and equipment such as large and light balls with sounds to aid in tracking. School profiles showed that there were different standing committees and subcommittees for supporting inclusion in PE and other subjects.

Adapted Instruction

All participants (100%) reported that they adapted the teaching methods, strategies, techniques, and assessments to include children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms, as demonstrated in the following selected excerpts:

For effective teaching and learning of both learners with and without developmental challenges in PE, I use learner-centred, teacher-centred, content-centred and interactive teaching methods. I assign these learners to diverse learning arrangements including individual, pair, trio, group work and one-on-one teaching based on their individual needs, lesson demands and participation of their counterparts. Learners who are field dependent work in pairs, trios and groups. Learners who are field independent work individually. I pair and group learners who are short-tempered with those who are tolerant (Makare).

Various teaching strategies, including active learning, cooperative learning and integrating technology in response to the needs of educands with disabilities and their typically developing counterparts, support inclusion in PE. I adapt and modify PE lessons in response to the needs of individual learners. This includes shortening or lengthening the playing space in response to the nature and severity of their disabilities and endurance (Kwedu).

Children with and without disabilities are individuals. I use direct instruction, role-play, simulations, discussions, brainstorming, drill and practice, discovery learning and other teaching techniques to meet their individual needs in inclusion in PE (Nzara).

I utilise alternative assessments in PE to include children with disabilities. I use self-evaluation, peer assessments, portfolios, authentic assessments, performance assessments, journals, individual projects, group projects and written tests (Tadzoka).

In pair, trio and group work activities in PE that included both children with and without disabilities, across participating institutions, members were assigned specific roles, including reporter, writer, chair, and observer, which provided each of them a task to do and kept them focused. The transition from independent to group or whole class work and back was communicated precisely and concisely. Scheming, planning, and delivery of lessons of teachers included diverse teaching strategies, methods, techniques, and alternative assessment that were responsive to the needs of individual children.

Concerns About Inclusion

Most participants (88%) reported individual and systemic concerns about the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms, as illustrated in the following selected excerpts:

Inclusion in PE in general education settings requires access, quality and equitable social experiences and optimised learning outcomes for pupils with and without developmental delays. With 48 pupils in my class, I struggle to facilitate full participation and quality and equitable educational experiences for these pupils. I struggle to move from one pupil to the other rendering intensive individualised support to meet their unique needs (Sviba).

I lack the support of occupational therapists, educational psychologists, specialist teachers and physiotherapists to meet the unique needs of learners with disabilities in PE in my class (Sando). There are no specific policies and legislation on inclusion. General education policies and legislation, particularly the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987 as revised in 2006, the Constitution of Zimbabwe and Director’s Circulars, are the basis for inclusion (Famba).

All participants struggled to attend fully to individual children during PE lessons because of large class sizes. Class registers of participating schools constituted 48 children on average. School and class log books revealed inadequate specialist staff, including educational psychologists, physiotherapists, social workers, nurses, and occupational therapists. Meetings that were in progress in participating schools lacked these specialists. National regular education policies and legislation in government gazettes underpinned inclusion.

Strategies to Enhance Inclusion

All participants (100%) reported individual and institutional capacity building strategies to enhance the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms, as confirmed in the following selected statements:

We all [PE teachers] require specialised training in inclusive teaching of pupils with autism, intellectual disabilities and behaviour disorders in PE. We are incompetent to manage the behaviour of these pupils (Mira).

Pre-service and in-service teachers need teaching practice in ordinary classrooms that include learners with diverse disabilities in PE. Teachers and lecturers who are qualified and experienced in inclusion in PE should mentor them in such teaching practice so that they can be equipped with both the relevant theory and practice (Dziya).

The government needs to pass and enforce specific policies and legislation on inclusion that can promulgate its practice and other role players such as communities, parents, schools and teachers to provide resources for inclusion in PE. Currently, role players are not legally bound to provide technology, trained teachers, disability friendly physical infrastructure including disability-friendly playgrounds and other resources for inclusion in PE (Zvako).

Pre-service and in-service teacher education for inclusion needs to train teachers on psychological, philosophical and sociological issues in inclusion in PE. Pre-service and in-service teachers require training on social-cultural issues, such as disabilities and culture, guidance and counselling, to respond to the needs of children with and without developmental challenges and their parents. They also need training in adaptation of teaching and learning content, environment, assessment and teaching strategies in PE as well as using local resources to make PE materials and equipment readily available (Kwedu).

Teachers in participating institutions struggled to manage children with behavioral disorders, autism, and intellectual disabilities in PE lessons in regular classrooms. Vision and mission statements of all participating schools focused on typically developing children. None of the participating schools had PE materials and equipment made from local resources.

Discussion

Consistent with the rest of the world, Zimbabwe adopted inclusion in 1994 (Majoko, 2017; Mandipa & Manyatera, 2014; Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013). Consequently, teachers are required to meet the individual needs of both children with and without disabilities in regular classrooms simultaneously (Chireshe, 2013; Mandina, 2012; Munjanganja & Machawira, 2015). Entrenched in inclusive pedagogy, this study examined the pedagogical practices that teachers used to include children with disabilities in PE in regular classrooms. Pedagogical practices solicited in this study are research evidence based and globally utilized.

Participants were committed to and strategized on inclusion of both children with and without disabilities in PE. This finding resonates with previous research, which revealed that inclusion in PE embraces all children (Callcott et al., 2012; Graham & Slee, 2008; Voss & Bufkin, 2011). Similarly, inclusive pedagogy is entrenched in the learning of all children in the community of the regular classroom (Majoko, 2017; Pantic & Florian, 2015). Teacher agency facilitates inclusion. Entrenchment of planning and delivery of lessons in entry competencies of children facilitated inclusion in PE because their capabilities were a springboard for their teaching and learning. Similarly, previous research reveals that inclusion requires teachers to focus on strengths rather than deficits of children (Ballard, 2012; Hyde, 2010; Seymour et al., 2009). In the same vein, inclusive pedagogy focuses teaching and learning on what children can do instead of what they cannot do (Florian & Linklater, 2010; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Participants assigned advanced PE activities to children who were competent in gross motor skills while they assigned elementary PE activities to children who were competent in fine motor skills. This finding is inconsistent with inclusive pedagogy, which concentrates on what is to be taught and how instead of who is to learn (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012).

Planning and delivery of lessons in PE, based on the interests of children, fostered their commitment to it which promoted inclusion. Past studies, similarly, demonstrate that inclusion meets the interests of children (Forlin & Sin, 2010; Groundwater-Smith et al., 2011; Hsieh & Hsieh, 2012). This finding resonates with the premise of inclusive pedagogy that all children progress, learn, and achieve (Kim & Rouse, 2011). Planning and delivery of lessons based on the needs of children, solicited from stakeholders, facilitated inclusion in PE as their individuality was met. Inclusive pedagogy, similarly, requires teachers to work with and through other adults who respect the dignity of all children as full members of the community of the regular classroom (Florian, 2012). Whereas participants increased targets in throwing for children with advanced skills, they decreased targets for throwing for children with elementary skills to facilitate inclusion in PE. This finding contradicts with inclusive pedagogy, which is embedded in extending teaching and learning strategies that are available to all children (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Pantic & Florian, 2015). Lesson planning and delivery based on the needs and interests of children, solicited formally and informally, supported inclusion because of their uniqueness. In the same vein, inclusive pedagogy requires the use of formative assessment to support learning (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Majoko, 2017).

Positive social relationships between teachers and individual children, with and without disabilities, promoted inclusion in PE through enabling them to communicate about the activities they were able and unable to do. Consistent evidence shows that inclusion values and respects diversity and encourages participation of all children (Keddie, 2012; Simpson & Mandich, 2012; Vickerman & Coates, 2009). This finding aligns with inclusive pedagogy, which expects teacher recognition and acceptance of all children (Donnelly & Watkins, 2011; Pantic, 2015). Awareness of the social/personal benefits of PE for children supports the practice of inclusion, as it fosters in them interest and commitment to acceptance of all. Similarly, inclusive pedagogy requires trusting children to make positive decisions about their learning (Florian, 2012). Children’s awareness of the career and vocational benefits of PE promoted inclusion. This finding resonates with past research, which demonstrates that children are interested in curriculum subjects that have direct benefits for them (Friend & Bursuck, 2012; Majoko, 2013).

Positive social relationships between children with and without disabilities facilitated inclusion in PE through enabling consultation and partnership of these children. In the same vein, inclusive pedagogy expects teachers to utilize diverse grouping strategies to support learning of all children rather than relying on ability grouping to separate “able” from “less able” (Flecha & Soler, 2013; Florian & Spratt, 2013; Pantic & Florian, 2015). The embedment of pedagogy in the daily activities, roles, responsibilities, and home and school social relations of children with and without disabilities fostered social coherence of these children, which supported inclusion in PE. This finding aligns with inclusive pedagogy, which requires teachers to reject deterministic beliefs about ability as being fixed and the associated premise that the presence of some will interfere with the progress of others (Pantic & Florian, 2015). The entrenchment of pedagogy in Afrocentricity, particularly Ubuntu values and the practice of these values, aided inclusion in PE through inculcating in children respect and accommodation of human diversity. Consistent evidence reveals that ways of motivating and structuring teaching and learning environments and peers affect the experiences of children with disabilities in PE (Hodge et al., 2009; Seymour et al., 2009; Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010).

Partnerships of teachers with School Development Committee Associations promoted inclusion in PE as it facilitated collaborative pooling of resources. Previous research, similarly, indicates that inclusion in PE requires teachers to collaborate with school support systems and structures to aid children with disabilities to access and develop physical capital as a form of cultural capital and resources associated with regular physical activity, bodies and health (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Combs et al., 2010; Overton et al., 2017). In the same vein, inclusive pedagogy requires teachers to develop innovative ways of working with other stakeholders to create rich learning communities (Florian & Linklater, 2010; Florian & Spratt, 2013; Majoko, 2016). School Development Committee Associations and community and church leadership promoted inclusion in PE through mediation in the face of parental resistance or absence of cooperation in the education of children. This finding resonates with past research that demonstrates that inclusion involves confrontation and countering of dominance of specific movement forms, understanding of ability and desired corporeality that excludes children with disabilities (An & Meaney, 2015; Grenier, 2011; Qi & Ha, 2012). Similarly, inclusive pedagogy expects teachers to view children’s difficulties in learning as professional challenges rather than deficits to develop innovative ways of working (Donnelly & Watkins, 2011; Florian & Linklater, 2010).

Through providing information on challenges and opportunities in inclusion of specific families that informed interventions, village headmen facilitated inclusion in PE. Similarly, inclusive pedagogy is embedded in the collaboration of teachers with families (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). A multidisciplinary approach promoted the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE as it necessitated collaborative development and implementation of individualized educational plans. Past studies show that inclusive pedagogy is grounded in relationships between teachers and other role players, children, curriculum content and knowledge generated (Tinning, 2010). Multidisciplinary teams facilitated the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE through collaborative development and implementation of interventions. This finding aligns with previous research, which indicates that the holistic support of children with disabilities requires collaboration of parents, professional, and paraprofessional stakeholders (Ballard, 2012; Majoko, 2013; Overton et al., 2017).

Inclusion in PE was further supported by the securing of resource persons who equipped teachers with competence in curriculum adaptation, through challenging topics and adaptation of pedagogy, by Staff Development Committees of Schools. Consistent evidence demonstrates that understanding of inclusion, equity, and provision for all influences the delivery and impact of inclusion programs in PE (Flintoff & Fitzgerald, 2012; Hodge et al., 2009; Vickerman & Coates, 2009). Scheduled and unscheduled staff development of teachers and demonstration lessons facilitated inclusion in PE as it enabled their sharing of knowledge and information. Similarly, inclusive pedagogy requires teacher commitment to continuing professional development to develop more inclusive practices (Blanton et al., 2011; Florian & Spratt, 2013). Previous studies also demonstrate that teachers need training to create a sense of belonging to the group, motivate students and differentiate learning experiences that provide all children with opportunities for meaningful participation in PE (Hodge et al., 2009; Morgan & Bourke, 2008; Vickerman & Coates, 2009). Community of practice of teachers promotes inclusion.

The meeting of the uniqueness of children through assigning them to various learning arrangements, based on their individual needs, pedagogical demands, and peer participation, promoted inclusion in PE. Previous research indicates that inclusion in PE requires pedagogical practices of teachers to be embedded in social justice with respect to enhanced teaching and learning outcomes for all children (Flintoff & Fitzgerald, 2012; Hodge et al., 2009; Keddie, 2012). Inclusive pedagogy, similarly, expects children to choose how, where, when, and with whom they learn (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Past studies also reveal that teachers require competencies and skills in diverse teaching strategies to meet the unique diverse needs of children in inclusive settings (Beamish & Saggers, 2014; Grout et al., 2009; Lysaker & Furuness, 2011).

Teachers’ adaptation and modification of lessons addressing the nature and severity of disabilities of individual children promoted inclusion in PE. Although some evidence indicates that teachers have negative attitudes toward children with severe disabilities (Block, 2007; Grout et al., 2009; Hodge et al., 2009), teachers’ use of diverse teaching techniques that responded to the needs of individual children promoted inclusion in PE. This finding aligns with previous research, which demonstrates that teachers need competency in teaching techniques to meet the needs of individual children in regular classrooms (Block, 2007; Morgan & Bourke, 2008; Qi & Ha, 2012). Teachers’ use of alternative assessments that met the diverse abilities and disabilities of children facilitated inclusion in PE. Similarly, inclusive pedagogy involves seeking and trying out innovative ways of working to support the learning of all children (Flecha & Soler, 2013). Previous research also reveals that alternative assessments respond to the needs of individual children in inclusive settings (Farrell, 2012; Graham & Slee, 2008; Pantic & Florian, 2015).

Large class sizes interfered with inclusion in PE in regular classrooms as it compromised participants’ rendering of intensive individualized support to individual children. This finding highlights the importance of addressing large class sizes, as past research indicates that inclusion in PE respects, accommodates and responds to individuality of children (Callcott et al., 2012; Hodge et al., 2009; Qi & Ha, 2012). Teachers’ lack of specialist support interfered with inclusion in PE because it compromised their meeting of the unique needs of children with disabilities. Inconsistent evidence demonstrates that inclusion in PE requires a multidisciplinary team that includes specialist staff (Hodge et al., 2009; Obrusnikova, 2008; Vickerman & Coates, 2009). Similarly, inclusive pedagogy requires the creation of learning opportunities that are provided to all children so that they are able to participate in regular classroom life (Florian, 2012). The absence of specific policies and legislation on inclusion interfered with its practice as stakeholders lacked legal accountability to pool resources. This finding contrasts with past research, which indicates that, since the global adoption of inclusion in 1994, several countries have passed policies and legislation on it (Grout et al., 2009; Morgan & Bourke, 2008; Qi & Ha, 2012).

Specialist training of PE teachers on the inclusion of children with neurological disorders could prepare them to manage the behavior of these children in regular classrooms. Some previous evidence reveals that PE teachers are competent in the management of the behavior of children with diverse disabilities (Beamish & Saggers, 2014; Seymour et al., 2009; Spencer-Cavaliere & Watkinson, 2010). Similarly, responding to child diversity underpins inclusive pedagogy (Florian & Linklater, 2010; Kershner, 2009). Teaching practice of preservice and in-service teachers in regular classrooms that include children with diverse disabilities under the mentorship of teachers and lecturers who are qualified and experienced in inclusion in PE could equip them with its praxis. In the same vein, inclusive pedagogy requires teacher competencies and skills in teaching and learning of all children (Florian & Spratt, 2013; Pantic & Florian, 2015). The passage and enforcement of specific policies and legislation of the government on inclusion could legally bind stakeholders to pool resources for its practice in PE. However, previous research found that specific policies and legislation underpin inclusion in PE in several countries (Keddie, 2012; Simpson & Mandich, 2012; Vickerman & Coates, 2009).

Preservice and in-service training of teachers in psychological, philosophical, and sociocultural issues of inclusion could foster in them the competency in its practice in PE to meet the needs of all parents and their children. Similarly, past studies, show that adequately trained PE teachers respond to the need of all stakeholders (Block, 2007; Callcott et al., 2012; Hodge et al., 2009). Preservice and in-service training of teachers in adapting pedagogy could enable them to meet the needs of all children in inclusion in PE. This finding resonates with previous studies, which demonstrate that teachers require the competency to adapt pedagogy for inclusion in PE without interfering with the standards of the regular school curriculum (Flintoff & Fitzgerald, 2012; Garrett & Wrench, 2006; Vickerman & Coates, 2009). Similarly, exposition of all children to the same curriculum through tailored teaching and learning underpins inclusive pedagogy (Pantic, 2015). Training of teachers in using local resources could ensure availability of materials and equipment for inclusion in PE. Similarly, previous research shows that teachers need to secure equipment to include children with disabilities while ensuring the authenticity and integrity of activities (Block, 2007; Garrett & Wrench, 2006; Simpson & Mandich, 2012). In the same vein, inclusive pedagogy requires teachers to nurture conducive teaching and learning opportunities for all children irrespective of their individual differences (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2011; Florian & Spratt, 2013).

Implications

This study explored the pedagogical practices that Zimbabwean teachers used in inclusion of children with disabilities in regular PE classrooms. Although concerns abound regarding inclusion, teachers had positive dispositions toward it and strategized its practice. Capitalization of countries and education authorities on positive dispositions of teachers through individual and institutional support can improve their pedagogical practices in including children with disabilities in PE. However, the failure of countries and education authorities to resolve the concerns of teachers in the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE may culminate in a degeneration of the positive dispositions of these teachers. Based on the importance of the sociocultural environment and life in inclusion of children with disabilities in PE, preservice and in-service training of teachers in sociocultural issues is integral to enhancing their effectiveness in service delivery to these children. Because teachers are fundamental in the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE, teacher education institutions need to provide them with comprehensive preservice and in-service training to ensure their professional competence to meet the diverse needs of these children.

As inclusion in PE benefits both children with and without disabilities, collaborative structures and cultures among all stakeholders is needed for its successful practice for the betterment of humanity. Because all stakeholders are central in the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE, capacity-building initiatives for teachers, administrators, parents, policy makers, and communities need to be rolled out to foster their competence and support for its practice. In addition to the teaching of career pathways in inclusion in PE, teachers must incorporate academic, social, and career issues in the curriculum to sensitize stakeholders, including children without developmental challenges and regular teachers, on human diversity and the impetus for inclusion. Because the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE requires the collaboration of stakeholders, schools need to institutionalize communities of practice, including teacher–parent, teacher–teacher, teacher–child, and school–school collaboration, to ensure synergy and syllogism in its practice. Professional training of specialist support staff is an imperative, as multidisciplinary teams are inadequately constituted to support the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE. Because adequate resources are fundamental in the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE, schools need to work in consultation and partnership with other individual, organizational and institutional stakeholders to secure the requisite resources. Pedagogical practices for the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE can be improved through sensitizing teachers on the available supportive national and international policy and legislative framework, systems and structures, and human, material, technological, time, and financial resources.

Research Limitations and Future Research

Participants were purposively drawn from one educational province of Zimbabwe. As inclusion of children with disabilities in PE is practiced in all educational provinces, teachers’ pedagogical practices must be investigated from a nationally representative sample to aid transferability of findings. Because participants were volunteers, their positive or negative experiences, practices, and perspectives may have influenced their choice to take part in the study, which may have potentially affected their perceptions and expressions. Resultantly, the transferability of the findings of the study to regular primary schools in the country is unknown.

Perceptions of other stakeholders, including parents, headteachers, and regular teachers, are excluded from this study. Consequently, it cannot be ascertained whether these stakeholders’ perceptions are consistent with those of teachers. Future research could explore these stakeholders’ perceptions to solicit diverse perceptions. This study explored teachers’ pedagogical practices in the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE, yet the practices of other stakeholders, including headteachers and parents, could also be impactful. Future studies could examine headteachers and parents’ practices in the inclusion of children with disabilities in PE. As this study revealed the importance of training teachers in special needs education and PE in inclusion, future research could explore and establish models of such training.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Tawanda Majoko is the sole funder of the current study. He would like to thank all regular education primary school teachers who gave their time to participate in this study. In addition, he also thanks the schools whose teachers participated, colleagues, friends, and family who offered guidance and support through the duration of the current study.

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.

Ethical approval

The ethical clearance to conduct this study was secured from the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education of Zimbabwe, Midlands Provincial Education Office, headteachers of primary schools and participating teachers before its execution.

Informed consent

Participants were furnished with the research profile and were provided with the option of participation or nonparticipation and were also assured the right to withdraw at any time without giving reasons.

ORCID iD

Tawanda Majoko

Author Biography

Tawanda Majoko, PhD, is senior lecturer, University of South Africa, College of Education, Department of Inclusive Education. Tawanda’s research interests include early childhood education and development and inclusion in education.

References

Agbenyega

(2007). Examining teachers’ concerns and attitudes to inclusive education in Ghana. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3, 41-56.

Allday

Neilsen-Gatti

Hudson

T. M.

(2013). Preparation for inclusion in teacher education pre-service curricula. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 298-311.

Goodwin

D. L.

(2007). Physical education for students with spina bifida: Mothers’ perspectives. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24, 38-58.

Meaney

K. S.

(2015). Inclusion practices in elementary physical education: A social-cognitive perspective. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 62, 143-157.

Ball

S. J.

(2013). Foucault, power and education. London, England: Routledge.

Ballard

(2012). Inclusion and social justice: Teachers as agents of change. In Carrington

MacArthur

(Eds.), Teaching in inclusive school communities (pp. 65-88). Milton, Australia: John Wiley.

Beamish

Saggers

(2014). Strengthening social and emotional learning in children with special needs. In Garvis

Pendergast

(Eds.), Health and wellbeing in children (pp. 303-315). Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

Black-Hawkins

Florian

(2012). Classroom teachers’ craft knowledge of their inclusive practice. Teachers and Teaching Practice, 18, 567-584.

Blanton

L. P.

Pugach

M. C.

Florian

(2011). Preparing general educators to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and National Council for Learning Disabilities.

10.

Block

M. E.

(2007). A teacher’s guide to including students with disabilities in general physical education. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks.

11.

Block

M. E.

Obrusnikova

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

12.

Callcott

Miller

Wilson-Gahan

(2012). Health and physical education: Preparing educators for the future. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Campos

M. J.

Ferreira

J. P.

Block

M. E.

(2015). Exploring teachers’ voices about inclusion in physical education: A qualitative analysis with young elementary and middle school teachers. Comprehensive Psychology, 4, 1-9.

14.

Chakuchichi

(2013). Inclusive education in Zimbabwe: Mashonaland West province (Unpublished report).

15.

Chhabra

Srivastava

(2010). Inclusive education in Botswana: The perceptions of school teachers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 219-228.

16.

Chireshe

(2011). Special needs education in-service teacher trainees’ views on inclusive education in Zimbabwe. Journal of Social Science, 27, 157-164.

17.

Chireshe

(2013). The state of inclusive education in Zimbabwe: Bachelor of education (special needs education) students’ perceptions. Journal of Social Science, 34, 223-228.

18.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.

19.

Combs

Elliot

Whipple

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

20.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Deluca

Tramonta

Kett

(2013). Including children with disability in primary school: The case of Mashonaland, Zimbabwe (Unpublished report).

22.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

(2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23.

Donnelly

Watkins

(2011). Teacher education for inclusion in Europe. Prospects, 41, 341-353.

24.

Elliot

(2008). The effect of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion on the practice and success levels of children with and without disabilities in physical education. International Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 48-55.

25.

Farrell

(2012). Inclusive education for children with special educational needs: Current uncertainties and future directions. In Armstrong

Squires

(Eds.), Contemporary issues in special educational needs (pp. 35-47). Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.

26.

Flecha

Soler

(2013). Turning difficulties into possibilities: Engaging Roma families and students in school through dialogic learning. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43, 451-465.

27.

Flintoff

Fitzgerald

(2012). Theorizing difference and (in)equality in physical education, youth sport and health. In Dowling

Fitzgerald

Flintoff

(Eds.), Equity and difference in physical education, youth sport and health (pp. 11-36). London, England: Routledge.

28.

Florian

Linklater

(2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40, 369-386.

29.

Florian

(2012). Preparing teachers to work in diverse classrooms: Key lessons for the professional development of teacher educators from Scotland’s inclusive practice project. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 275-285.

30.

Florian

Black-Hawkins

(2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37, 813-828.

31.

Florian

Spratt

(2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28, 119-135.

32.

Forlin

(2010). Reframing teacher education for inclusion. In Forlin

(Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion (pp. 29-38). New York, NY: Routledge.

33.

Forlin

Sin

(2010). Developing support for inclusion: A professional learning approach for teachers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6, 8-26.

34.

Foucault

(2003). Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France 1974–1975. London, England: Verso.

35.

Fraser

(2010). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalising world. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

36.

Friend

M. P.

Bursuck

W. D.

(2012). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

37.

Garrett

Wrench

(2006). Teaching for inclusivity. In Tinning

Hunter

McGuaig

(Eds.), Teaching health and physical education in Australian schools (pp. 200-208). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson.

38.

Garrett

Wrench

(2011). Negotiating a critical agenda in middle years physical education. Australian Educational Researcher, 38, 239-255.

39.

Goodwin

D. L.

Watkinson

E. J.

(2000). Inclusive physical education from the perspective of students with physical disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17, 144-160.

40.

Graham

L. J.

Slee

(2008). Inclusion? In Gabel

S. L.

Danforth

(Eds.), Disability and the politics of education: An international reader (pp. 81-99). Oxford, UK: Peter Lang.

41.

Grbich

(2007). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction. London, England: Sage.

42.

Grenier

(2006). A social constructionist perspective of teaching and learning in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23, 245-260.

43.

Grenier

(2011). Coteaching in physical education: A strategy for inclusive practice. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 28, 95-112.

44.

Groundwater-Smith

Ewing

Le Cornu

(2011). Teaching challenges and dilemmas. South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage.

45.

Grout

Long

Marshallsay

(2009). Inclusion in physical education lessons through differentiated teaching approaches and removing barriers to learning. In Grout

Long

(Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in physical education (pp. 103-127). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

46.

Hodge

Ammah

Casebolt

Lamaster

O’Sullivan

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

47.

Hodge

Ammah

J. O. A.

Casebolt

LaMaster

Hersman

Samalot-Rivera

Sato

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

48.

Hornby

(2010). Preparing teachers to work with parents and families of learners with SEN in inclusive schools. In Forlin

(Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 93-101). New York, NY: Routledge.

49.

Hsieh

(2012). Urban early childhood teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Early Child Development and Care, 182, 1167-1184.

50.

Hyde

(2010). Understanding diversity and inclusion. In Hyde

Carpenter

Conway

(Eds.), Diversity and inclusion in Australian schools (pp. 3-13). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

51.

Keddie

(2012). Schooling and social justice through the lens of Nancy Fraser. Critical Studies in Education, 53, 263-279.

52.

Kershner

(2009). Learning in inclusive classrooms. In Hick

Kershner

Farrell

(Eds.), Psychology for inclusive education: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 52-65). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

53.

Kim

C. Y.

Rouse

(2011). Reviewing the role of teachers in achieving education for all in Cambodia. Prospects, 41, 415-428.

54.

Kisanji

Saanane

C. B.

(2009). Responding to marginalization and exclusion in education in Tanzania. Tuscon: University of Arizona.

55.

Klavina

Block

M. E.

(2008). The effect of peer tutoring on interaction behaviors in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 25, 132-158.

56.

LaMasfer

Kinchin

Gall

Siedentop

(1998). Inclusion practices of effective elementary specialists. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15, 64-81.

57.

Law

MacDermid

(2008). Evidence based rehabilitation: A guide to practice. Thorofar, NJ: SLACK Incorporated.

58.

Lingard

Keddie

(2013). Redistribution, recognition and representation: Working against pedagogies of indifference. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21, 427-447.

59.

Lingard

Mills

(2007). Pedagogies making a difference: Issues of social justice and inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11, 233-244.

60.

Lynch

McCall

Douglas

McLinden

M. T.

Bayo

(2011). Inclusive educational practices in Uganda: Evidencing practice of itinerant teachers who work with children with visual impairment in local mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 1119-1134.

61.

Lysaker

J. T.

Furuness

(2011). Space for transformation: Relational, dialogic pedagogy. Journal of Transformative Education, 9, 183-197.

62.

Majoko

(2005). Specialist teachers’ perceptions on the inclusion of children with disabilities mainstream school system in Zimbabwe (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Masvingo State University, Masvingo, Zimbabwe.

63.

Majoko

(2013). Challenges in school guidance and counselling (SGC) services provisions for children with disabilities in Zimbabwean inclusive primary schools (DEd Unpublished thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria.

64.

Majoko

(2016). Inclusion of children with autism spectrum disorders: Listening and hearing to voices from the grassroots. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 1429-1140.

65.

Majoko

(2017). Regular teacher preparation for inclusion. International Journal of Special Education, 32, 207-236.

66.

Majoko

(2018). Zimbabwean general education preschool teacher needs in inclusion. SAGE Open, 8, 1-16.

67.

Mandina

(2012). Bachelor of education in-service teacher trainees’ perceptions and attitudes on inclusive education in Zimbabwe. Asian Social Science, 8(13), 227-232.

68.

Mandipa

Manyatera

(2014). African disability rights yearbook volume 2. Pretoria, South Africa: Pretoria University Law Press.

69.

Morgan

P. J.

Bourke

(2008). Non-specialist teachers’ confidence to teach PE: The nature and influence of personal school experiences in PE. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13, 1-29.

70.

Morley

Bailey

Tan

Cooke

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

71.

Mpofu

Shumba

(2012). Challenges faced by students with special educational needs in early childhood development centers in Zimbabwe as perceived by ECD trainers and parents. Anthropologist, 14, 327-338.

72.

Mugweni

R. M.

Dakwa

F. E.

(2013). Exploring the implementation of “education for all” in early childhood development in Zimbabwe: Successes and challenges. Case Studies Journal, 1, 1-9.

73.

Munjanganja

L. E.

Machawira

M. S.

(2015). Education for all 2015 national review report: Zimbabwe. Available from http://unesdoc.unesco.org

74.

Musengi

Chireshe

(2012). Inclusion of deaf students in mainstream primary schools in Zimbabwe: Challenges and opportunities. Studies of Tribes and Tribals, 10, 107-116.

75.

Mutepfa

M. M.

Mpofu

Chataika

(2007). Inclusive education in Zimbabwe: Policy, curriculum, practice, family, and teacher education issues. Childhood Education, 83(6), 342-346.

76.

Naicker

(2007). From policy to practice: A South-African perspective on implementing inclusive education policy. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(1), 1-6.

77.

Naicker

(2009). From policy to practice: A South African perspective on implementing inclusive education policy. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3, 1-7.

78.

Obrusnikova

(2008). Physical educators’ beliefs about teaching children with disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106, 637-644.

79.

Odom

Buysse

Soukakou

(2011). Inclusion of young children with disabilities: A quarter century of research perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 344-356.

80.

Overton

Wrench

Garrett

(2017). Pedagogies for inclusion of junior primary students with disabilities in PE. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22, 414-426.

81.

Pantic

(2015). A model for study of teacher agency for social justice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21, 759-778.

82.

Pantic

Florian

(2015). Developing teachers as agents of inclusion and social justice. Educational Inquiry, 6, 331-351.

83.

Pierce

(2008). Analyzing qualitative information: Classifying, coding and interpreting information. In Pierce

(Ed.), Research methods in politics (pp. 241-262). London, England: Sage.

84.

A. S.

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

85.

Seymour

Reid

Bloom

G. A.

(2009). Friendship in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Education Quarterly, 26, 201-219.

86.

Silverman

(2009). Doing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

87.

Simpson

Mandich

(2012). Creating inclusive physical education opportunities in elementary physical education. Physical & Health Education Journal, 77(4), 18-21.

88.

Spencer-Cavaliere

Watkinson

E. J.

(2010). Inclusion understood from the perspectives of children with disability. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 27, 275-293.

89.

Suomi

Collier

Brown

(2003). Factors affecting the social experiences of students in elementary physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 186-202.

90.

Tinning

(2010). Pedagogy and human movement: Theory, practice, research. London, England: Routledge.

91.

United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. New York, NY: Author.

92.

United Nations. (1965). International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. New York, NY: Author.

93.

United Nations. (1976). International year of the child. New York, NY: Author.

94.

United Nations. (1981). International year of disabled persons. New York, NY: Author.

95.

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. New York, NY: Author.

96.

United Nations. (1993). Standard rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. New York, NY: Author.

97.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of person with disabilities. New York, NY: Author.

98.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1990). World declaration on education for all and framework for action to meet basic learning needs. New York, NY: Author.

99.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1994). World conference on special needs education: Access and quality. Salamanca declaration and framework for action. Paris, France: Author.

100.

Verderber

J. M.

Rizzo

T. L.

Sherrill

(2003). Assessing student intention to participate in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 26-45.

101.

Vickerman

Coates

J. K.

(2009). Trainee and recently qualified physical education teachers’ perspectives on including children with special educational needs. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14, 137-153.

102.

Vickerman

Hayes

(2013). Special educational needs and disability in physical education. In Stiddler

Hayes

(Eds.), Equity and inclusion in physical education and sport (2nd ed., pp. 51-65). London, England: Routledge.

103.

Voss

Bufkin

(2011). Teaching all children: Preparing early childhood pre-service teachers in inclusive settings. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32, 338-354.

104.

Ward

Ayvazo

(2006). Classwide peer tutoring in physical education: Assessing its effects as an inclusion strategy with kindergartners with autism. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 23, 233-244.

105.

Wrench

Garrett

(2012). Identity work: Stories told in learning to teach physical education. Sport Education and Society, 17, 1-19.

106.

Zimbabwe Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education. (2017). Annual education statistics profile. Harare, Causeway: Author.

107.

Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency. (2013). Education report. Harare, Causeway: Author.