Perceptualand MotorSkills, 1990, 70, 899-902. O Perceptual and Motor Skills 1990
ATTITUDES OF PHYSICAL EDUCATORS TOWARD T H E INTEGRATION OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS ' KATIE CHAPUT JARVIS McArthur High School, Ottawa Board of Education
AND
RON FRENCH
Department of Kinesiology, Texas Woman i Uniuersie, Denton
Summary.-The effectiveness of a 2-day workshop to enhance the attitudes of 28 elementary and secondary physical educators toward integrating handicapped students into regular classes was investigated. Subjects in the treated group were matched with the control group by sex, grade taught, and years teaching experience. The control group did not participate in the workshop. Data were collected before the workshop, immediately after the workshop, and about 4 months later. Analysis of covariance indicated although the mean score of the workshop group showed some positive shift in attitudes, no significant differences were evident so the workshop was ineffective in promoting positive attitudes.
Current legislation mandating the integration of handicapped students into regular classes has triggered research in the development and maintenance of positive teacher attitudes. I t is widely accepted that teacher attitudes can enhance or adversely affect students' achievement and behavior (Foster, Ysseldyke, & Reese, 1975). However, teachers' attitudes toward integration have been reported to be nonsupportive (Rizzo, 1984). Research on the effects of inservice training and attitude change has been timely. With some exceptions (Warren, Turner, & Brody, 1984), researchers have reported positive results (Jansma & Schultz, 1982; Preston, et al., 1984). Conflict in the research fin&ngs may be contributed to a variety of factors, such as (a) absence of a control group, (b) type of assessment instrument, (c) use of sociometric techniques which may not be generalizable, (d) use of volunteers, and (e) lack of pretest data. I n research where control groups were used, matching groups was not attempted. This study investigated the effects of a 2-day workshop on developing and maintaining positive attitudes of physical educators. Subjects in the participating group were selected randomly while subjects in the control group matched by sex, years of teaching experience, and grade taught. Pretest data were also collected to establish homogeneity between groups.
Subjects Subjects in the treatment group (n = 14) were randomly selected from physical educators (n = 28) who attended a 2-day workshop. Subjects in the 'Address correspondence to Dr. Ron French, Texas Woman's University, Department of Kinesiology, PO Box 23717, Denton, TX 76204.
900
K. C. JARVIS & R. FRENCH
control group (n = 14) were selected from employment seniority lists of area school districts. Participation for members of each group was not mandatory.
Instrument The Learning Handicapped Integration Inventory (Watson & Hewett, 1976), as revised by Jansma for use by physical educators (Jansma & Schultz, 1982) was given to assess attitudes. One group completed the inventory immediately before and after the workshop. As the control group did not attend the workshop, pre- and posttest data were collected by mail. Delayed posttest data for both groups were collected by mail about 4 months later. Workshop The workshop included (a) physical education and Ontario law, (b) integration of handicapped students, (c) information on handicapping conditions and instructional strategies, (d) evaluation of students, (e) behavior management techniques, (f) modification of games, (g) sports for handicapped athletes, and (h) related instructional programs. Participants actively participated in discussions, problem solving, role playing, and simulations of various handicapping conditions.
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. An analysis of covariance was calculated to assess the difference between the groups at Posttest 1, using the pretest score as the covariate. No significant difference was observed (F,,,,= 3.14, p = .08). TABLE 1 MEANSAND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SCORESON LEARNING HANDICAPPED INTEGRATION INVENTORY BY TWOGROUPS Test
Group
Pretest
Workshop Control Workshop Control Workshop Control
Posttest 1 Posttest 2
Range 27-72 28-66 27-65 31-65 38-53 28-80
M
SD
SE,
47.3 47.7 45.1 48.2 43.0 47.8
14.7 10.0 10.2 9.4 7.4 14.9
4.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.1 4.3
An analysis of covariance was also calculated for Posttest 2 measures. Because the numbers of scores in the groups were not equal, Levene's test as recommended by Glass (1966) was calculated to test the assumption of equal variance. The test for homogeneity was nonsignificant (F,,,, = 4.2, p > .05) so the pretest measure was used as the covariate. No significant difference between groups was noted for Posttest 2 measures (F,,2,= 1.77, p = .19). Attitudes of the groups were similar. When analyses of variance were applied
ATTITUDES TOWARD HANDICAPPED
90 1
to assess the difference in attitude of subjects within each group between Posttests 1 and 2, the attitudes of the participating group (F2,2, = 1.66, p = 21) and control group (F,,,, = 0.16, p = .85) remained constant.
Although some positive shift in attitudes was noted among teachers attending the workshop, this difference was nonsignificant so the 2-day workshop did not improve attitudes of physical educators toward integration of handicapped students into regular physical education. Such results contrast those of studies in which positive changes in attitudes were reported for workshops of longer duration (Patrick, 1987; Rowe & Stutts, 1987) and when interaction with handicapped individuals was provided (Kennon & Sandoval, 1978). I n some respects, the present study replicates the research of Jansma and Schultz (1982). I n both, the workshop period was the same length; the same attitude inventory was used; the delayed posttests were collected about four months after the collection of posttest data. Jansma and Schultz (1982) reported significant difference in attitudes; however, a control group was not used. A neutralizing factor in the present work may have been the highly favorable initial attitudes of participants, so the positive shift for the workshop group was small. Increased time for interactions with handicapped students should be incorporated into plans for workshops. The differences in the collection of data for groups with respect to pre- and postworkshop data was urhkely to affect results. REFERENCES FOSTER,G . G., YSSELDYKE, J. E., & REESE, J. H. (1974) I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it. Elrceptional Children, 41, 469-473. GLASS, G. V. (1966) Testing homogeneity of variances. American Educational Research lournal, 3, 187-190. JANSMA,P., & SCHULTZ,B. (1982) Validation and use of a mainstreaming attitude inventory with physical educators. American Corrective Therapy Journal, 36, 150-158. KENNON,A,, & SANDOVAL, J. (1978) Teacher attitudes. Education and fiaining of the Mentally Retarded, 13, 139-145. PATRICK,G . (1987) Improving attitudes toward disabled persons. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4, 3 16-325. PRESTON,D., GREENWOOD, C., HUGHES, V., YUAN,P., THIB~UIEAU, S., CRITCHLOW,W., & HARRIS,J. (1984) Minority issues in special education: a principal-mediated inservice program for teachers. Exceptional Children, 51, 112-120. W z o , T. U. (1984) Attitudes of physical educators toward teaching handicapped pupils. Adapted Physical Actiuio Quarterly, 1, 267-275. ROE, J., & STUT~S,R. M. (1987) Effects of practica experience and gender on attitudes of undergraduate physical education majors toward disabled persons. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4, 268-277. WARREN,S. A,, TURNER,D., & BRODY,D. (1984) Can educational students' attitudes toward the retarded be changed? Mental Retardation, 2, 235-242.
902
K. C. JARVIS
&
R. FRENCH
WATSON,P., & HEWETT, F. M. (1976) The Learning Handicapped Integration Inventory: assessing regular classroom teachers' perception of the effect of integrating mildly handicapped children. (Technical Report S.E.R.P. 1976-A5)
Accepted April 1G, 1990.
ATTITUDES OF PHYSICAL EDUCATORS TOWARD T H E INTEGRATION OF HANDICAPPED STUDENTS ' KATIE CHAPUT JARVIS McArthur High School, Ottawa Board of Education
AND
RON FRENCH
Department of Kinesiology, Texas Woman i Uniuersie, Denton
Summary.-The effectiveness of a 2-day workshop to enhance the attitudes of 28 elementary and secondary physical educators toward integrating handicapped students into regular classes was investigated. Subjects in the treated group were matched with the control group by sex, grade taught, and years teaching experience. The control group did not participate in the workshop. Data were collected before the workshop, immediately after the workshop, and about 4 months later. Analysis of covariance indicated although the mean score of the workshop group showed some positive shift in attitudes, no significant differences were evident so the workshop was ineffective in promoting positive attitudes.
Current legislation mandating the integration of handicapped students into regular classes has triggered research in the development and maintenance of positive teacher attitudes. I t is widely accepted that teacher attitudes can enhance or adversely affect students' achievement and behavior (Foster, Ysseldyke, & Reese, 1975). However, teachers' attitudes toward integration have been reported to be nonsupportive (Rizzo, 1984). Research on the effects of inservice training and attitude change has been timely. With some exceptions (Warren, Turner, & Brody, 1984), researchers have reported positive results (Jansma & Schultz, 1982; Preston, et al., 1984). Conflict in the research fin&ngs may be contributed to a variety of factors, such as (a) absence of a control group, (b) type of assessment instrument, (c) use of sociometric techniques which may not be generalizable, (d) use of volunteers, and (e) lack of pretest data. I n research where control groups were used, matching groups was not attempted. This study investigated the effects of a 2-day workshop on developing and maintaining positive attitudes of physical educators. Subjects in the participating group were selected randomly while subjects in the control group matched by sex, years of teaching experience, and grade taught. Pretest data were also collected to establish homogeneity between groups.
Subjects Subjects in the treatment group (n = 14) were randomly selected from physical educators (n = 28) who attended a 2-day workshop. Subjects in the 'Address correspondence to Dr. Ron French, Texas Woman's University, Department of Kinesiology, PO Box 23717, Denton, TX 76204.
900
K. C. JARVIS & R. FRENCH
control group (n = 14) were selected from employment seniority lists of area school districts. Participation for members of each group was not mandatory.
Instrument The Learning Handicapped Integration Inventory (Watson & Hewett, 1976), as revised by Jansma for use by physical educators (Jansma & Schultz, 1982) was given to assess attitudes. One group completed the inventory immediately before and after the workshop. As the control group did not attend the workshop, pre- and posttest data were collected by mail. Delayed posttest data for both groups were collected by mail about 4 months later. Workshop The workshop included (a) physical education and Ontario law, (b) integration of handicapped students, (c) information on handicapping conditions and instructional strategies, (d) evaluation of students, (e) behavior management techniques, (f) modification of games, (g) sports for handicapped athletes, and (h) related instructional programs. Participants actively participated in discussions, problem solving, role playing, and simulations of various handicapping conditions.
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. An analysis of covariance was calculated to assess the difference between the groups at Posttest 1, using the pretest score as the covariate. No significant difference was observed (F,,,,= 3.14, p = .08). TABLE 1 MEANSAND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SCORESON LEARNING HANDICAPPED INTEGRATION INVENTORY BY TWOGROUPS Test
Group
Pretest
Workshop Control Workshop Control Workshop Control
Posttest 1 Posttest 2
Range 27-72 28-66 27-65 31-65 38-53 28-80
M
SD
SE,
47.3 47.7 45.1 48.2 43.0 47.8
14.7 10.0 10.2 9.4 7.4 14.9
4.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.1 4.3
An analysis of covariance was also calculated for Posttest 2 measures. Because the numbers of scores in the groups were not equal, Levene's test as recommended by Glass (1966) was calculated to test the assumption of equal variance. The test for homogeneity was nonsignificant (F,,,, = 4.2, p > .05) so the pretest measure was used as the covariate. No significant difference between groups was noted for Posttest 2 measures (F,,2,= 1.77, p = .19). Attitudes of the groups were similar. When analyses of variance were applied
ATTITUDES TOWARD HANDICAPPED
90 1
to assess the difference in attitude of subjects within each group between Posttests 1 and 2, the attitudes of the participating group (F2,2, = 1.66, p = 21) and control group (F,,,, = 0.16, p = .85) remained constant.
Although some positive shift in attitudes was noted among teachers attending the workshop, this difference was nonsignificant so the 2-day workshop did not improve attitudes of physical educators toward integration of handicapped students into regular physical education. Such results contrast those of studies in which positive changes in attitudes were reported for workshops of longer duration (Patrick, 1987; Rowe & Stutts, 1987) and when interaction with handicapped individuals was provided (Kennon & Sandoval, 1978). I n some respects, the present study replicates the research of Jansma and Schultz (1982). I n both, the workshop period was the same length; the same attitude inventory was used; the delayed posttests were collected about four months after the collection of posttest data. Jansma and Schultz (1982) reported significant difference in attitudes; however, a control group was not used. A neutralizing factor in the present work may have been the highly favorable initial attitudes of participants, so the positive shift for the workshop group was small. Increased time for interactions with handicapped students should be incorporated into plans for workshops. The differences in the collection of data for groups with respect to pre- and postworkshop data was urhkely to affect results. REFERENCES FOSTER,G . G., YSSELDYKE, J. E., & REESE, J. H. (1974) I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it. Elrceptional Children, 41, 469-473. GLASS, G. V. (1966) Testing homogeneity of variances. American Educational Research lournal, 3, 187-190. JANSMA,P., & SCHULTZ,B. (1982) Validation and use of a mainstreaming attitude inventory with physical educators. American Corrective Therapy Journal, 36, 150-158. KENNON,A,, & SANDOVAL, J. (1978) Teacher attitudes. Education and fiaining of the Mentally Retarded, 13, 139-145. PATRICK,G . (1987) Improving attitudes toward disabled persons. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4, 3 16-325. PRESTON,D., GREENWOOD, C., HUGHES, V., YUAN,P., THIB~UIEAU, S., CRITCHLOW,W., & HARRIS,J. (1984) Minority issues in special education: a principal-mediated inservice program for teachers. Exceptional Children, 51, 112-120. W z o , T. U. (1984) Attitudes of physical educators toward teaching handicapped pupils. Adapted Physical Actiuio Quarterly, 1, 267-275. ROE, J., & STUT~S,R. M. (1987) Effects of practica experience and gender on attitudes of undergraduate physical education majors toward disabled persons. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4, 268-277. WARREN,S. A,, TURNER,D., & BRODY,D. (1984) Can educational students' attitudes toward the retarded be changed? Mental Retardation, 2, 235-242.
902
K. C. JARVIS
&
R. FRENCH
WATSON,P., & HEWETT, F. M. (1976) The Learning Handicapped Integration Inventory: assessing regular classroom teachers' perception of the effect of integrating mildly handicapped children. (Technical Report S.E.R.P. 1976-A5)
Accepted April 1G, 1990.
