Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 2015, 32, 137-155

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/APAQ.2014-0140
2015 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Official Journal of IFAPA

www.APAQ-Journal.com
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Beliefs of Chinese Physical Educators

on Teaching Students With Disabilities
in General Physical Education Classes

Lijuan Wang

Jing Qi

Shanghai University of Sport

Beifang University of Nationalities

Lin Wang
Shanghai University of Sport
This study examined the behavioral beliefs of physical education (PE) teachers
about teaching students with disabilities in their general PE (GPE) classes and
to identify the factors that contribute to their beliefs. A total of 195 PE teachers
from a region in eastern China were surveyed. Results of the Physical Educators
Attitudes Toward Teaching Individuals With Disabilities-III survey indicate that
although some teachers felt that including students with disabilities in GPE classes
provides benefit for them, they were concerned about the practical difficulties
of teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes, the lack of support, and
the possible rejection of students with disabilities by their peers. Moreover, the
behavioral beliefs of teachers vary according to the disability conditions of the
students. Results show that there is no significant effect of demographic factors
on the beliefs of PE teachers. Quality of experience predicts positive beliefs. The
study has important implication for teacher training, provision of equipment, and
support from teacher assistants.
Keywords: PE, adapted physical education, behavioral beliefs

The philosophy behind teaching students with disabilities has significantly

changed over the last 2 decades, and several countries, namely, the United States,
Ireland, and Japan, have implemented policies to facilitate their teaching in general
classes (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Sato & Hodge, 2009). In the United States,
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) suggested that
students with disabilities be educated with students without disabilities in the least
restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate. The law states that students with disabilities must be afforded the opportunity to participate in the general

Lijuan and Lin Wang are with the Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China. Qi is with Beifang
University of Nationalities, Yinchuan, China. Address author correspondence to Lijuan Wang at
wanglijuan@sus.edu.cn
137

138Wang, Qi, and Wang

physical education (GPE) program. As a result, there has been an increase in the
number of students with disabilities receiving physical education (PE) in general
classes with their peers without disabilities (Meegan & MacPhail, 2006). Many
factors affect the success of teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. One
important factor is the behavioral belief of teachers, which is the key to changing
their intention to teach students with disabilities (Theodorakis, Bagiatis, & Goudas,
1995). If professionals can understand teacher beliefs and concerns about teaching
students with disabilities in their GPE classes, they can address these issues and
focus on changing these beliefs. This can, in turn, lead to more successful professional programs on teaching students with disabilities in general classes (Conatser,
Block, & Gansneder, 2002; Kozub & Porretta, 1998).
Several studies in North America and Europe used various survey instruments
such as the Physical Educators Attitude Toward Teaching the Handicapped (Rizzo,
1984, 1988) and the Physical Educators Attitudes Toward Teaching Individuals
with Disabilities-III (PEATID-III; Rizzo, 1993) to examine behavioral beliefs of
PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their general classes (Block
& Rizzo, 1995; Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1984;
Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). These studies indicate that beliefs
range from negative or undecided (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Meegan & MacPhail,
2006; Petkova, Kudlacek, & Nikolova, 2012) to positive (Knoll & Fediuk, 2012;
Obrusnikova, 2008). Teacher-related variables may influence behavioral beliefs of
PE teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. These
variables include gender, age, academic degree, years in teaching PE, experience
with students with disabilities, quality of experience, perceived competence, and
coursework in special education and adapted PE.
Some variables such as gender and age have inconsistent relationships with
beliefs. Aloia, Knutson, Minner, and Von Seggern (1980) found that women have
more positive beliefs than men when teaching students with disabilities in their
GPE classes, but subsequent studies (Fournidou, Kudlacek, & Evagellinou, 2011;
Meegan & MacPhail, 2006; Petkova et al., 2012; Rizzo, 1985; Rizzo & Wright,
1988) do not concur. Studies show that age is negatively correlated with teaching
beliefs and that older teachers are more negative toward teaching students with
disabilities in GPE classes (Rizzo, 1985). Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) and Rizzo
and Wright (1988) failed to find a significant correlation between age and beliefs.
Several studies have examined the effect of academic degree on PE teachers
beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. However, no
significant relationship was found between an academic degree and beliefs (Block
& Rizzo, 1995; Rizzo, 1985).
The effect of years of teaching PE on the beliefs of PE teachers about teaching
students with disabilities in their GPE classes has been examined in several studies
(Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). However, no significant relationship
was found between years of teaching PE and the beliefs of PE teachers. Most studies
reported that teachers with more experience in teaching students with disabilities in
GPE classes have more positive beliefs than teachers with less experience (Block
& Rizzo, 1995; Knoll & Fediuk, 2012; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991;
Rizzo & Wright, 1988). However, Rizzo (1985) failed to find a significant relationship between teaching experience and positive teaching beliefs.

Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 139

Several studies show that educational preparation is a predictor of beliefs

(Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1985). Some studies indicate
that teachers who completed adapted-PE coursework or special education courses
have more positive beliefs (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1985).
However, Rizzo and Wright (1988) and Rizzo and Vispoel (1991) found no significant correlation between coursework in special education or adapted PE and beliefs.
Quality of experience is an assessment indicator of the perception of PE teachers of teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes and the reflection of
their enjoyment in teaching such students. Block and Rizzo (1995) and Obrusnikova
(2008) examined the effect of quality of experience on the beliefs of PE teachers
about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. They found that the
beliefs of PE teachers become more positive as the quality of experience in teaching students with disabilities improved.
Perceived competence and self-efficacy have been correlated with beliefs of PE
teachers about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes. Researchers suggest that PE teachers with higher level of perceived teaching competence
exhibit more positive beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE
classes (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo
& Wright, 1988). However, those studies failed to use a validated instrument to
measure perceived competence. In addition, Beamer and Yun (2014) reported that
PE teachers self-efficacy is positively related to their beliefs about teaching students
with disabilities in their GPE classes.
Aside from teacher-related variables, various studies found that student-related
variables such as type of disability are linked to teacher behavioral beliefs. Students
with learning disabilities are generally viewed more positively than students with
emotional and behavioral disorders (Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo &
Vispoel, 1991).

Teaching Students With Disabilities in Chinese

General Classes: Policy and Implementation
Teacher behavioral beliefs may differ because of cultural differences in the way
persons with disabilities are regarded (Leyser, Kapperman & Keller, 1994; Sharma,
Ee, & Desai, 2003). Most studies have focused on the United States and European
countries. Much remains unknown about beliefs or concerns of PE teachers in China.
Teaching students with disabilities in Chinese general classes, commonly
referred to as Suiban Jiudu, has ideological and pragmatic roots. Sweeping reforms
in China in the 1980s resulted in tremendous social, political, and economic changes
(Deng & Manset, 2000). Consistently, equal rights for individuals with disabilities
have become a focus of the Chinese government (Deng & Manset, 2000). Financial
constraints may be another important reason behind the initiation of teaching students with disabilities in general schools rather than special schools. According to
Deng and Manset, separate education for nearly 5 million children with disabilities
in China would require establishing at least 210, 000 new special schools. Thus,
enrolling students with disabilities in general schools is a cost-effective approach
(McCabe, 2003).

140Wang, Qi, and Wang

The drafting of several policies has contributed to the progression of teaching

students with disabilities in general classes. In China, the Compulsory Education
Law was the first official call for teaching students with disabilities in general
schools in areas without or that could not afford special schools or programs
(National Peoples Congress, 1986). The 1990 Law on the Protection of Persons
with Disabilities (National Peoples Congress, 1990) and the 1994 Regulations on
Education for Persons with Disabilities (State Council, 1994) called for compulsory
9-year education for students with disabilities. As a result, the Chinese educational
system has seen an increasing number of students with disabilities taught in general
education settings. In 1992, 129,400 students with intellectual disability, visual
impairment, and hearing impairment were enrolled in general schools (Gu, 1993).
By 2011, their enrollment reached 225,200 out of 208,000,000 students in general
schools (Ministry of Education of China, 2012).
Some studies examined teacher perceptions and practice about teaching students with disabilities in China (e.g., Chen, 2008; Li & Sam, 2011). Research findings indicate that most Chinese school or university teachers agree to teach students
with disabilities in their general classes, but they are not confident in teaching them
in a general setting (Chen, 2008). Teaching students with disabilities in general
classes has many barriers. On one hand, no guidance was provided in the teaching
program and syllabus for general teachers. Teachers are not directed by policy on
how to teach and assess this group of students (Li & Sam, 2011). On the other
hand, special education courses are provided only in few universities, and professional training programs for school teachers are deficient (Wu, 2011). Xiao (2005)
reported that the number of teachers with professional knowledge in China could
not fulfill the requirement of teaching students with disabilities in general classes
in the country. However, no studies on PE teacher beliefs have been conducted.
GPE classes in China focus on fitness, health, and cognitive and affective
orientation. The aims of PE teachers are to develop motor competencies and promote sports participation, social adaptability, and a healthy and safe lifestyle for
students (Ministry of Education of China, 2002). Taking into account these aims,
the purposes of this study were (a) to describe the behavioral beliefs of Chinese PE
teachers about teaching students with different types of disabilities; (b) to examine
demographic differences in the beliefs of Chinese PE teachers in terms of gender,
academic degree, teaching level, PE teaching experience, experience teaching students with disabilities, special education courses, and adapted-PE courses; and (c)
to identify some teacher-related variables significantly contributing to their beliefs.
The current study will provide a foundation of knowledge to develop professional
training programs for PE teachers on teaching students with disabilities in China.

Method
Participants
The participants of the current study were 195 full-time PE teachers from 30
primary, secondary, and high schools from Shanghai in Eastern China. Sampling
was conducted in two steps. First, 10 schools from six districts in Shanghai were
deliberately selected from 1,521 schools with 7,503 PE teachers. These 10 schools

Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 141

had the highest number of students with disabilities in this region in the past 3 years.
All PE teachers (51) in the subject schools, who have substantial experience in
teaching students with disabilities, agreed to participate in the study. The remaining
13 out of 19 districts were targeted for the second sampling step. One primary and
one secondary school were randomly selected from each district. We contacted the
principals of these 26 schools. Six schools declined to participate. The remaining
20 schools, with 144 PE teachers, participated in the study. Some teachers had
experience in teaching students with disabilities, although to a lesser degree than
the participants from the first step.

Instrumentation
Data were collected using the PEATID-III (Rizzo, 1993). This instrument contains
three sections, namely, a belief scale to measure teacher beliefs, a demographic
survey to collect attribute information, and an open-ended question that explores
reasons for beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. The
first portion of the PEATID-III consists of 12 statements. A sample statement is
Teaching students labeled ________ in my GPE classes will motivate nondisabled
students to learn to perform motor skills. The six types of disability classificationsemotional and behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, specific learning disability, mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, visual impairment, and
hearing impairmentare included in the PEATID-III. Under each statement, the
six disability classifications are listed and rated according to a 5-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The
participant expresses the extent of his or her agreement with each disabling condition per item. Six items are positively phrased (1, 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12), while six are
negatively phrased (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10). Scores for negatively phrased items were
reversed to offset any possible respondent mental set and to derive accurate scale
means (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). The second portion of the PEATID-III includes
11 selection-type or open-ended items. The following are examples of the attribute
questions asked: Rate the quality of your teaching experience for students with
disabilities (No experience/not good/satisfactory/very good) and Have you taken
any adapted physical education courses? (Yes / No). Respondents were asked to
fill in the blanks or circle the most appropriate answers. The third section contains
one open-ended question: How do you feel about teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes? (positive/neutral/negative) Why? Respondents were asked
to choose the answer, express their opinions, and explain the reason behind their
beliefs. The validity and reliability of the PEATID have already been established
by Folsom-Meek and Rizzo (2002).
The instrument was translated into Chinese and validated before data collection.
According to the guideline for adapting self-report measures (Beaton, Bombardier,
Guillemin, & Ferraz, 2000), the translation and back-translation of the instrument
were undertaken by two research assistants who are fluent in both Chinese and
English. Noted differences were negotiated until the translators agreed. To verify
the validity of the Chinese version of the instrument, the questionnaire was sent
to five experts who all had doctoral degrees, one in special education, two in PE,
and two in adapted PE. Three experts found that the Chinese version is valid, but

142Wang, Qi, and Wang

two experts thought that some statements need revision. Minor modifications were
made based on the expert comments. For example, the original types of disabilities
included were adjusted to the six disability types in the current study (i.e., emotional
and behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, specific learning disability, mild to
moderate intellectual disabilities, visual impairment, and hearing impairment) to
be more consistent with current law (i.e., State Council, 1994) and professional
practice. The background question What grade levels are you presently teaching? was omitted because the variable was excluded from the study. Experts also
suggested that perceived competence be excluded from the study because the
question How competent do you feel teaching students with disabilities? cannot
reflect the teaching competence of teachers without experience in teaching students
with disabilities. The revised version was re-sent to the experts, and they all agreed
that the instrument is valid.
A pilot study was then conducted with 20 PE teachers to determine whether
confusing items were still found in the questionnaire. For example, one original
statement is Students labeled ________ will develop a more positive self-concept
as a result of learning motor skills in my GPE class with nondisabled peers. Based
on the comments of the participants, Thinking about oneself was added to explain
self-concept The testretest reliability was checked with 22 other PE teachers
for 2 weeks. The Chinese version demonstrated acceptable testretest reliability
at .74 for emotional and behavioral disorders, .71 for physical disabilities, .80 for
visual impairment, and .78 for hearing impairment. We obtained lower reliability
coefficients for learning disabilities (.67) and mild to moderate intellectual disabilities (.69). Most reliability coefficients surpassed the .70 criterion for acceptability
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Data Collection
The university ethics committee and relevant school authorities approved the study.
Data were collected by the researcher and three postgraduate research assistants
majoring in adapted PE. The team visited 30 elementary and secondary schools in
Shanghai in the middle of the 201112 school year. Face-to-face distribution was
conducted to enable researchers to explain and clarify the aim of the study. Before
data collection, the research assistants were informed about the research purpose
and design and were trained to clarify questionnaire items that might confuse
participants. The process and skills in data collection were also explained to them.
Before their arrival at each school, the head of the PE teaching group was contacted.
The invitation to participate in the study had already been given during weekly
meeting of each school. All PE teachers who participated in the study signed an
informed-consent form approved by the institutional review board. The teachers
were assured that participation was voluntary and confidentiality was guaranteed.
The questionnaires were distributed immediately after the weekly meeting at each
school. The research purpose and several terms in the questionnaire were explained.
Participants were given instructions and directed to complete the questionnaire.
Completed questionnaires were collected in groups. The survey required 1525
minutes to complete and was collected immediately on completion. Out of the 273
contacted teachers, 211 returned the survey, which yielded a 77.3% return rate.

Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 143

After screening, 16 surveys were eliminated because of missing data. The final
sample is 195 participants.

Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics included the means and standard deviation of the overall belief
score and the six disability-specific belief scores. Mean score per disability was
based on the sum of the item ratings of the disability divided by the number of items
on the scale. One-way within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) examined
the differences in teacher beliefs based on disability type. Multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was performed with the teacher beliefs as dependent variables
and demographic data as independent variables to examine the latters main effects
on teaching beliefs. For significant MANOVAs, univariate follow-ups were used
to determine where significant differences occurred. Pearsons productmoment
correlations examined relationships between teacher beliefs and selected teacherrelated variables. Relations among the variables were also examined. A series of
standard multiple-regression analyses specified the variables contributing significantly to positive beliefs. The scores were separately entered into the regression
analysis as dependent variables, and the teacher-related variables such as gender,
academic degree, teaching levels, years of teaching PE, experience in teaching
students with disabilities, course work in adapted PE, course work in special
education, and perceived quality of teaching experience of PE teachers served as
independent variables.
Responses for the open-ended question were inductively analyzed (Patton,
2002) and coded for the principal researcher to identify the themes. Data management and analysis followed the following steps: (a) Raw data themes were identified
per participant. They included the summary of the passage and a number of key
words, phrases, or sentences in the response that conveyed a specific concept or
idea. (b) Using inductive content analysis, common themes, or patterns shaped by
cross-case raw-data analysis, were identified. These common themes emerged as
first-order themes (e.g., practical challenges, offering equal opportunities, and lack
of support). (c) The first-order themes were included under two general dimensions,
namely, benefits of inclusion and teacher concern, which corresponded to major
categories on teacher comments about teaching students with disabilities in GPE
classes. (d) Summaries of first-order themes and general dimensions of participants
were combined to form a dichotomous thematic structure. Pseudonyms are used
throughout the article to protect the privacy of all participants. The percentages of
frequencies of each theme relative to the total number of respondents to the openended question were calculated.
Trustworthiness was established by applying two strategies. Peer debriefing
(Creswell, 2007) was used when the principal researcher met with an experienced
qualitative researcher. Throughout data analysis, data, charts, memos, and the
researchers thoughts and analyses were shared with the peer debriefer, whose
role was to comment on the logical nature of the researchers interpretation, identification of all possible categories, and potential researcher bias. A final analyst
triangulation (Patton, 2002) tested the reliability of the data analysis. After the
themes were determined, two research assistants knowledgeable in adapted PE

144Wang, Qi, and Wang

examined the data and checked the subthemes. Intercoder reliability had an average
of .82, which was higher than the .8 intercoder reliability criterion (Weber, 1990).
A discussion ensued until complete agreement was reached by the researcher and
research assistants. Pseudonyms were used throughout the study to protect the
privacy of all participants.

Results
Participant Characteristics
The mean age of the 195 PE teachers was 33 years (SD = 6.71, range = 2253).
The participants comprised 124 (63%) men and 71 (36%) women. A total of 142
(72%) participants had completed a 4-year undergraduate program with a bachelor
degree. A small group, 37 (19%), had completed a 3-year college program with
a junior college degree, and 16 (8%) had completed both a 4-year undergraduate
program and a 3-year postgraduate program with a masters degree. In terms of
teaching level, 69 participants (35.4%) taught in primary schools with students
age 712, followed by those in secondary schools with students age 1315 (71,
36%), and high schools with students age 1618 (55, 28%). In terms of teaching
experience in PE, 119 (61%) had less than 10 years, 57 (29%) had 1020 years,
and 19 (9%) had over 20 years. A total of 100 (51%) had taught students with
disabilities for 17 years, whereas 95 (49%) had no experience. Only 47 (24%)
had taken one or more undergraduate, graduate, or continuous training courses in
adapted PE, whereas 148 (76%) had not taken such courses. Moreover, only 31
(16%) had taken special education, whereas 164 (84%) had not. When asked to
rate on a 5-point Likert scale the quality of their teaching experience with students
with disabilities in GPE classes (how they liked the experience), 95 (49%) had no
experience and 53 (27%) rated their experience as satisfactory, 15 (8%) as very
good, and 32 (16%) as not good.

Behavioral Beliefs of Teachers About Teaching Students

With Disabilities in Their GPE Classes
A neutral response to the PEATID-III is 3.0 (Block & Rizzo, 1995). The average
of teacher beliefs about students with physical disabilities (M = 3.01, SD = 0.51)
was neutral. ANOVA was used to examine whether there were significant differences between beliefs of teachers about teaching students with mild to moderate
intellectual disabilities, visual impairment, hearing impairment, specific learning
disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, and the neutral beliefs (the belief
of teachers about teaching students with physical disabilities). Results indicated
significant differences between belief about students with physical disabilities and
mild-moderate intellectual disabilities, F(1, 195) = 43.13, p < .01, 2 = .18; visual
impairment, F(1, 195) = 33.56, p < .01, 2 = .15; hearing impairment, F(1, 195) =
33.77, p < .01, 2 = .15; and specific learning disabilities, F(1, 195) = 19.51, p < .01,
2 = .09. Beliefs about students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities (M =
3.26, SD = 0.50), visual impairment (M = 3.18, SD = 0.46), hearing impairment (M
= 3.21, SD = 0.48), and specific learning disabilities (M = 3.15, SD = 0.46) were

Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 145

positive. However, teachers held negative beliefs toward students with emotional
and behavioral disorders (M = 2.79, SD = 0.57), with a significant difference from
beliefs about students with physical disabilities, F(1, 195) = 51.90, p < .01, 2 = .21.
Moreover, ANOVA results showed significant differences in teacher beliefs
toward teaching students with six disabling conditions, F(5, 195) = 23.96, p < .01,
2 = .39. The effect size is generally considered medium (Cohen, 1992). Subsequent
Tukey post hoc comparisons revealed a significant difference among all variables
except the relationship between specific learning disabilities and vision impairment, F(1, 195) = 1.84, p > .05, 2 = .01; between hearing impairment and mild to
moderate intellectual disabilities, F(1, 195) = 3.01, p > .05, 2 = .02; and between
hearing impairment and vision impairment, F(1, 195) = 1.06, p > .05, 2 = .01.

Demographic Differences in the Beliefs of PE teachers

Table 1 presents the mean scores, standard deviations, and F value of beliefs across
demographic characteristics. MANOVA results indicated no significant differences
in beliefs in terms of gender, F(1, 195) = 0.53, p > .05, 2 = .02; academic degree,
F(2, 195) = 2.09, p > .05, 2 = .04; teaching level, F(2, 195) = 0.69, p > .05, 2 = .03;
PE teaching experience, F(2, 195) = 0.72, p > .05, 2 = .02; and special education
courses, F(1, 195) = 0.95, p > .05, 2 = .03]. With regard to the experience teaching
students with disabilities in their GPE classes, 144 participants came from schools
with little experience or exposure to students with disabilities. To avoid bias, the
experienced group (51 teachers) was excluded and the difference in the beliefs of
the teachers was examined. The findings showed no significant differences in beliefs
in terms of experience teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes, F(1,
144) = 0.41, p > .05, 2 = .02. The only significant difference was found in beliefs
in terms of adapted-PE courses, F(1, 195) = 3.55, p < .01, 2 = .10. The follow-up
univariate test results indicated that the beliefs toward students with emotional and
behavioral disorders contributed to this significant difference, F(1, 195) = 5.22, p
< .05, 2 = .03. PE teachers who had taken adapted-PE courses had significantly
higher beliefs toward students with emotional and behavioral disorders than those
who had not taken adapted-PE courses (Table 1).

Relationship Between Selected Teacher-Related Variables

and Beliefs
The analysis results of correlations between some ordinal and interval variables such
as academic degree, teaching levels, PE teaching experience, quality of experience
teaching students with disabilities, and overall beliefs indicated there are no significant correlations except for that between quality of teaching experience and overall
beliefs (r = .29, p < .01). A series of standard multiple-regression analyses identified
and assessed the collective and separate contributions of all teacher-related variables. Table 2 summarizes these results. Quality of experience is the only variable
that significantly contributed to the prediction of positive beliefs about teaching
students with disabilities in GPE classes. This variable explained 8% variance.
The variable solely significantly contributed to the prediction of positive beliefs
about teaching students with physical disabilities, specific learning disabilities,

146

2.76 (0.57)

female

2.97 (0.55)
2.75 (0.54)

bachelors degree

masters degree

2.79 (0.59)
2.77 (0.63)

secondary school

high school
2.82 (0.58)
2.76 (0.61)
2.79 (0.39)

<10

1020

>20

Years of teaching physical education

2.83 (0.50)

primary school

Teaching level

2.72 (0.77)

junior college degree

Academic degree

2.82 (0.57)

male

Gender

EBD

3.02 (0.35)

3.02 (0.49)

3.00 (0.53)

3.00 (0.57)

2.97 (0.51)

3.05 (0.46)

3.24 (0.53)

2.99 (0.47)

2.61 (0.69)

2.97 (0.53)

3.03 (0.49)

PD

3.17 (0.39)

3.19 (0.47)

3.13 (0.47)

3.18 (0.51)

3.08 (0.49)

3.19 (0.39)

3.34 (0.46)

3.15 (0.43)

2.73 (0.69)

3.16 (0.49)

3.15 (0.45)

SLD

3.12 (0.41)

3.32 (0.53)

3.25 (0.49)

3.26 (0.53)

3.20 (0.49)

3.32 (0.49)

3.45 (0.47)

3.25 (0.47)

3.09 (0.75)

3.27 (0.52)

3.25 (0.49)

MMID

Type of Disability

3.14 (0.36)

3.19 (0.49)

3.19 (0.46)

3.22 (0.51)

3.15 (0.46)

3.19 (0.43)

3.38 (0.42)

3.18 (0.44)

3.00 (0.73)

3.16 (0.48)

3.19 (0.45)

VI

3.13 (0.48)

3.27 (0.54)

3.19 (0.45)

3.28 (0.46)

3.16 (0.52)

3.21 (0.45)

3.38 (0.41)

3.21 (0.48)

2.94 (0.58)

3.24 (0.47)

3.19 (0.48)

HI

Table 1 Teachers Beliefs about Teaching Students With Disabilities Across Demographic Differences
(N = 195), M (SD)

(continued)

0.72

0.69

2.09

0.53

147

2.86 (0.62)

no

2.79 (0.57)

no

2.75 (0.58)

no

2.99 (0.53)

3.05 (0.43)

3.00 (0.52)

3.14 (0.29)

3.09 (0.48)

2.99 (0.49)

PD

3.16 (0.47)

3.14 (0.44)

3.15 (0.46)

3.21 (0.50)

3.22 (0.44)

3.18 (0.42)

SLD

3.26 (0.52)

3.24 (0.45)

3.25 (0.49)

3.40 (0.59)

3.33 (0.46)

3.26 (0.52)

MMID

Type of Disability

3.18 (0.49)

3.21 (0.37)

3.18 (0.47)

3.35 (0.30)

3.23 (0.42)

3.14 (0.47)

VI

3.24 (0.49)

3.12 (0.44)

3.21 (0.47)

3.32 (0.56)

3.26 (0.47)

3.21 (0.47)

HI

3.55**

0.95

0.41

Note. EBD = emotional and behavioral disorders; PD = physical disability; SLD = specific learning disability; MMID = mild to moderate intellectual disabilities; VI
= visual impairment; HI = hearing impairment.
**p < .01.

2.96 (0.51)

yes

Adapted physical education courses

2.97 (0.61)

yes

Special education courses

2.78 (0.53)

EBD

yes

Experience teaching students with disabilities

Table 1 (continued)

148

0.10
0.08

Adapted physical education course work

0.09

quality of experience

Beliefs about teaching students with hearing impairment

quality of experience

Beliefs about teaching students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities

quality of experience

0.11

0.19

Experience teaching students with disabilities

Beliefs about teaching students with vision impairment

0.18

0.13

0.13

0.13

quality of experience

Beliefs about teaching students with emotional and behavior disorders

quality of experience

Beliefs about teaching students with specific learning disabilities

quality of experience

Beliefs about teaching students with physical disabilities

quality of experience

Overall belief

Variable

0.08

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.09

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.03

SE

Table 2 Standard Multiple-Regression Analysis for Predicting the Beliefs (N = 195)

2.22

2.78

2.39

3.18

1.98

4.25

3.49

3.33

4.09

.03

.01

.02

.002

.04

<.001

.001

.001

<.001

.05

.02

.05

.09

.05

.06

.08

R2

Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 149

visual impairment, and mild to moderate intellectual disabilities at 6%, 5%, 5%,
and 2% of the variance, respectively. Results showed no statistically significant
prediction of beliefs in terms of other variables. Two variables, namely, quality of
experience and experience teaching students, significantly predicted beliefs about
teaching students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The variables explained
9% of the variance. In addition, quality of experience and adapted-PE coursework
predicted beliefs about teaching students with vision impairment and explained
5% of the variance. Results showed no statistically significant prediction in terms
of other variables (Table 2).

Teachers Comments on Teaching Students With Disabilities

in Their GPE classes
Of 195 participating teachers, 118 responded to the open-ended question, indicating a response rate of 61%. Although not all participants provided feedback, the
responses gave insights into their beliefs about teaching. Although the comments
of teachers are not be generalized, these thoughts may provide insights into the
beliefs of the participants.
The summary and analysis of teacher comments (see Table 3) found that teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes was beneficial because equal learning
opportunities were provided and the students communication skills and self-esteem
were developed. Several teachers (n = 28, 24%) suggested that students with mild
disabilities be taught in GPE classes to provide a truly fair opportunity for them
to receive the same education as their peers without disabilities. Xiao Yun wrote,
Actually, some students with mild disabilities do not have a problem with learning
with others without disabilities. They have the right to receive the same education
as their peers [without disabilities]. Several respondents (n = 23, 19%) thought
that students with disabilities could develop their basic social and communication
skills by attending GPE classes, which helps their future social adaptation. Wang
Min responded, Students with disabilities have to interact with their peers and
learn how to cooperate and communicate with their classmates by playing team
games. This skill is important for their future social adaptation. Several teachers
(n = 17, 14%) favored teaching students with disabilities because these students
Table 3 Percentages of Interview Themes
General dimension

Themes

Benefits of inclusion

Providing equal learning opportunities.

24%

Developing basic social and communication

skills.

19%

Developing self-esteem.

14%

Not practical.

27%

Appropriate instruction could not be provided to

students with and without disabilities.

16%

Concern of gaining peer acceptance.

12%

Teacher concern

Percentage

150Wang, Qi, and Wang

would not be referred to as special and would, therefore, develop self-esteem.

Liu Qiang stated, Learning in general classes enables students with disabilities
to feel that they are not different from their peers without disabilities. This setup
is beneficial for the establishment of their self-esteem.
Some teachers raised concerns about the practical difficulties of teaching
students with disabilities in GPE classes, the lack of support (e.g., peer tutors and
teacher aides), and possible rejection by peers. A large number of teachers (n = 32,
27%) thought that teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes was good
conceptually but not practically, because teachers usually encountered serious challenges during actual teaching. Some teachers faced limited professional knowledge
and teaching skills, difficulties in interacting with students with disabilities,
limited equipment and class time, and concerns over classroom management.
For example, Lin Xi wrote, The idea is good, but I feel that it is difficult to teach
students with disabilities because I never acquired this kind of knowledge and
teaching skills. Several teachers (n = 19, 16%) asserted that appropriate instruction could not be provided to students with and without disabilities because of the
lack of support. Some teachers thought that providing individualized instruction to
students with disabilities without the assistance of other teachers is difficult. This
difficulty may result in limiting the learning outcome of students with disabilities.
Wang Jing responded, I doubt that students with disabilities could learn effectively.
Only one teacher takes care of so many students in a class, and providing individualized teaching to students with disabilities would be difficult for him or her. The
concern also applies to students without disabilities. According to a small group,
they cannot give proper instructions to students without disabilities because they
give more attention to students with disabilities. Lu Yang responded, Teachers
pay less attention to the regular students because they spend much time assisting
students with disabilities. Having two teachers in one class is more appropriate.
Several teachers (n = 14, 12%) raised the concern of gaining peer acceptance.
Although most students without disabilities accepted peers with disabilities, some
isolated the latter by exhibiting negative beliefs. Qi Jin wrote that some of their
classmates exclude them [students with disabilities] and make fun of them. These
beliefs make students with disabilities feel isolated.

Discussion
Behavioral Beliefs of Teachers About Teaching Students
With Disabilities in Their GPE Classes
The study shows that the beliefs of Chinese PE teachers vary according to the disability conditions. Similar to the findings of previous studies (Ammah & Hodge,
2005; Hersman & Hodge, 2010; Hodge et al., 2009; Sato, Hodge, Murata, &
Maeda, 2007; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991), our study participants
exhibited more willingness to teach students with specific learning disabilities,
mild to moderate intellectual disabilities, and visual or hearing impairment than
students with emotional and behavioral disorders and physical disabilities. The
negative belief against emotional and behavioral disorders such as aggressive or
impulsive behaviors, general pervasive unhappiness, depression, hyperactivity, and

Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 151

social maladjustment may stem from the belief that these students are more likely
to cause problems in discipline or management than students with other disabilities
(Obrusnikova, 2008). Students with emotional and behavioral disorders present
higher demands for organization and management (Obrusnikova, 2008). Chinese
PE teachers may also hold negative beliefs about teaching students with physical disabilities because they perceive these students as having more difficulty in
participating in physical activities than students with other disabilities. Moreover,
some teachers in this study revealed that their lack of professional knowledge may
make dealing with such students difficult.

Demographic Differences in the Behavioral Beliefs

of PE teachers
No demographic differences were found among the different teacher beliefs except
for adapted-PE courses. Teachers who had taken adapted-PE courses had more
positive beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in their GPE classes.
Such teachers may be influenced by their strong professional knowledge, which
resulted in greater competence in overcoming barriers to integrating students with
and without disabilities (Rizzo & Wright, 1988).

Relationship Between Selected Teacher-Related Variables

and Behavioral Beliefs
The quality of experience is significantly related to the general beliefs of Chinese
teachers and to each disabling condition. This result is consistent with previous
studies that reported that PE teachers with positive teaching experiences are likely
to have more positive beliefs (Block & Rizzo, 1995; Obrusnikova, 2008; Rizzo
& Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988). The finding is not surprising because
teachers with positive experience may be more confident in teaching students who
are typically considered a challenge in GPE classes. Teachers who are confident
with their knowledge and teaching experience are more likely to be receptive to
inclusion (Ammah & Hodge, 2005). Consequently, teachers involved in the current study favored teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes. In addition,
regression analysis indicates that adapted-PE coursework and experience teaching
students with disabilities significantly influence beliefs about students with hearing
impairment and emotional and behavior disorders, respectively.
Only quality of experience predicted 8% variance of overall beliefs. The other
92% remains unexplained. Beliefs about teaching students with disabilities in
GPE classes appeared to be complex, and demographic variables, past experience
(e.g., past experience of teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes), and
knowledge (e.g., special coursework) were inadequate to explain teacher beliefs.

Teachers Comments on Teaching Students With Disabilities

in GPE Classes
Although some teachers felt that including students with disabilities in GPE classes
would benefit students, they were concerned with its practical difficulties, lack of

152Wang, Qi, and Wang

support, and possible rejection of peers. This view is supported by previous studies (Hodge et al., 2009; Sato & Hodge, 2009). The concern of PE teachers about
practical challenges is understandable because they have been provided insufficient
professional training (Wu, 2011). Survey results showed that only 24.1% and 15.9%
of participating teachers had taken courses in adapted PE and special education,
respectively. For many years, teaching students with disabilities in China has been
the task of experts or professionals such as special education teachers and related
professionals. The task was only transferred to general teachers in general schools
about 510 years ago (Ministry of Education of China, 2003). When confronted with
problems of teaching students with disabilities in their own classrooms, teachers who
lacked professional knowledge and experience reacted negatively. This reaction is
consistent with the quantitative findings that quality of experience, taking adaptedPE course, and experience teaching students with disabilities in GPE classes directly
or indirectly influence beliefs. Lack of support is a concern, and thus, the need for
personnel support to ensure that no students are ignored should be emphasized (Sato
et al., 2007). Hence, regular access should be provided to support the personnel,
namely, teaching aides, peer tutors, and adapted-PE specialists. This action will
help Chinese teachers provide appropriate learning experiences for all types of
students. Regarding peer acceptance, students with disabilities are excluded and
viewed as objects of curiosity in schools and are therefore, marginalized (Place &
Hodge, 2001; Sato & Hodge, 2009). Place and Hodge referred to such occurrence
as social isolation. Therefore, teachers must be willing and competent to plan
and implement cooperative sporting activities that engage students in high levels
of interaction and relationship building to counter social isolation.

Implications
The findings have several implications for teacher training, field experience,
and teaching for different disability types. First, direct and indirect influences of
academic preparation and experience (quality of experience and the amount of
experience) on beliefs imply that practical training programs should be provided
to Chinese PE teachers to enhance their knowledge, skills, and competence. Such
programs are particularly important in China because no training has been provided
for PE teachers. The programs should provide more field experience and emphasize
best practices in teaching to increase teacher confidence and change current beliefs
to become more positive. Second, the type of disability should also be considered
when teaching students with disabilities in PE classes. Teacher training should
emphasize teaching groups of students with emotional and behavioral disorders and
physical disabilities. For example, teachers should be trained through workshops
or conferences. Teacher educators can share successful experiences in integrating
these two groups with other PE teachers. Additional specific instructional strategies
should be offered to enhance the effective integration of teaching students with
disabilities in GPE classes.
Acknowledgments
This project was funded by a Shanghai Educational Science Research Grant (B12043).

Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 153

References
Aloia, G.F., Knutson, R., Minner, S.H., & Von Seggern, M. (1980). Physical education teachers initial perceptions of handicapped children. Mental Retardation, 18, 8587. PubMed
Ammah, J.O.A., & Hodge, S.R. (2005). Secondary physical education teachers beliefs and
practices in teaching students with severe disabilities: A descriptive analysis. High
School Journal, 89, 4054. doi:10.1353/hsj.2005.0019
Beamer, J.A., & Yun, J. (2014). Physical educators beliefs and self-reported behaviors toward
including students with autism spectrum disorder. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
31, 362376. PubMed http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2014-0134
Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. (2000). Guidelines for the process
of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25, 31863191. PubMed
doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Block, M.E., & Rizzo, T.L. (1995). Attitudes and attributes of physical educators associated
with teaching individuals with severe and profound disabilities. The Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20(1), 8087.
Chen, S.H. (2008). Innovative education approaches for students with disabilities in APA.
Paper presented at the 10th International ASAPE Symposium of the Asian Society for
Adapted Physical Education and Exercise, Seoul, Korea National Sport University.
Cohen J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 112(1), 155159.
Conatser, P., Block, M., & Gansneder, B. (2002). Aquatic instructors beliefs toward inclusion: The theory of planned behavior. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19(2),
172187.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research method: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deng, M., & Manset, G. (2000). Analysis of the learning in regular classrooms movement in China. Mental Retardation, 38(2), 124130. PubMed doi:10.1352/00476765(2000)038<0124:AOTLIR>2.0.CO;2
Folsom-Meek, S.L., & Rizzo, T.L. (2002). Validating the physical educators attitude toward
teaching individuals with disabilities III (PRATID-III) survey for future professionals.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19(2), 141154.
Fournidou, L., Kudlacek, M., & Evagellinou, C. (2011). Attitudes of in-service physical
educators toward teaching children with physical disabilities in general physical education classes in Cyprus. European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 4(1), 2238.
Gu, D.Q. (1993). Teshu jiaoyu lifa de fazhan [Changing of legislation on special education
in China]. Te Shu Jiao Yu Yan Jiu, 1, 19.
Hersman, B.L., & Hodge, S.R. (2010). High school physical educators beliefs about teaching
differently abled students. Education and Urban Society, 42(6), 730757.
Hodge, S., Jonathan, O.A., Casebolt, K.M., LaMadter, K., Hersman, B., Samalot-Rivera,
A., & Sato, T. (2009). A diversity of voices: Physical education teachers beliefs about
inclusion and teaching students with disabilities. International Journal of Disability
Development and Education, 56(4), 401419. doi:10.1080/10349120903306756
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. Section
1412(5) (A).
Knoll, M., & Fediuk, F. (2012). Physical education for children and youth with disabilities
in the special education and general school systems in Germany. European Journal of
Adapted Physical Activity, 5(1), 1827.
Kozub, F.M., & Porretta, D.L. (1998). Interscholastic coaches attitudes toward integration
of adolescents with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 15(4), 328344.
Leyser, R., Kapperman, G., & Keller, R. (1994). Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming:
A cross-cultural study in six nations. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
9(1), 115. doi:10.1080/0885625940090101

154Wang, Qi, and Wang

Li, C., & Sam, K. (2011). Current situation and prospect of inclusive physical education
in mainland China. Asia Journal of Physical Education & Recreation, 17(1), 3136.
McCabe, H. (2003). The beginnings of inclusion in the Peoples Republic of China. Research
and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 1622. doi:10.2511/rpsd.28.1.16
Meegan, S., & MacPhail, A. (2006). Irish physical educators attitude toward teaching
students with special educational needs. European Physical Education Review, 12(1),
7597. doi:10.1177/1356336X06060213
Ministry of Education of China. (2002). Zhongxiao xue tiyu kecheng biaozhun [Primary and
secondary physical education curriculum standard]. Beijing, China: Author.
Ministry of Education of China. (2003). Guanyu kaizhan canji ertong shaonian sui ban jiu
du gongzuo de shixing banfa [Measures of implementing learning in regular classrooms
for children and adolescents with disabilities]. Beijing, China: Ministry of Education
of China.
Ministry of Education of China. (2012). 2011 quanguo jiaoyu shiye fazhan tongji gonggalo.
[Statistics of national education development].Chinese geological education, 3, 128-130.
National Peoples Congress. (1986). Zhonghua renmin gongheguo yiwu jiaoyu fa [Compulsory education law of the Peoples Republic of China]. Beijing: Law Publishers (this
edition printed 1999).
National Peoples Congress. (1990). Zhonghua renmin gongheguo canji ren baozhang fa
[Law of the Peoples Republic of China on the protection of disabled persons]. Beijing:
Legal System Publishers (this edition printed 1998).
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
Obrusnikova, I. (2008). Physical educators beliefs about teaching children with disabilities.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106, 637644. PubMed doi:10.2466/pms.106.2.637-644
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petkova, A., Kudlacek, M., & Nikolova, E. (2012). Attitudes of physical education students
(last university year) and physical education teachers toward teaching children with
physical disabilities in general physical education classes in Bulgaria. European Journal
of Adapted Physical Activity, 5(2), 8298.
Place, K., & Hodge, S.R. (2001). Social inclusion of students with physical disabilities in
general physical education: A behavioral analysis. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
18, 389404.
Rizzo, T.L. (1984). Attitudes of physical educators toward teaching handicapped pupils.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 1, 267274.
Rizzo, T.L. (1985). Attributes related to teachers attitudes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60,
739742. doi:10.2466/pms.1985.60.3.739
Rizzo, T.L. (1988). Validation of the Physical Educators Attitudes Toward Teaching Handicapped Students survey. Abstracts of Research Papers of the Research Consortium of
the American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Kansas
City, MO.
Rizzo, T.L. (1993). Physical educators attitudes toward teaching individuals with disabilitiesIII. Unpublished survey. San Bernardino: California State College at San
Bernardino.
Rizzo, T.L., & Vispoel, W.P. (1991). Physical educators attributes and attitudes toward
teaching students with handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8(1), 411.
Rizzo, T.L., & Wright, R.G. (1988). Physical educators attitudes toward teaching students
with handicaps. Mental Retardation, 26, 307309. PubMed
Sato, T., & Hodge, S.R. (2009). Japanese physical educators beliefs on teaching students with
disabilities at urban high schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(2), 159177.
doi:10.1080/02188790902857164

Teachers Beliefs About Teaching Students With Disabilities 155

Sato, T., Hodge, S.R., Murata, N.M., & Maeda, J.K. (2007). Japanese physical education
teachers beliefs about teaching students with disabilities. Sport Education and Society,
12(2), 211230. doi:10.1080/13573320701287536
Sharma, U., Ee, J., & Desai, I. (2003). A comparison of Australian and Singaporean preservice teachers attitudes and concerns about inclusive education. Teaching and
Learning, 24(2), 207217.
State Council. (1994). Regulations on the education of persons with disabilities. Beijing:
Legal System Publishers.
Theodorakis, Y., Bagiatis, K., & Goudas, M. (1995). Attitudes toward teaching individuals
with disabilities: Application of planned behavior theory. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 12(2), 151160.
Weber, R.P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wu, X. (2011). Quanna jiaoyu Beijing xia woguo tiyu ziyuan jiaoshi de zhuanye fazhan
[Development of professionalization for PE resource teachers under the background of
inclusive education in China]. Shanghai Tiyu Xueyuan Xuebao, 27(5), 8286.
Xiao, F. (2005). Mainstreaming in China: History, actuality, perspectives. Chinese Journal
of Special Education, 3, 37.