Adapted Physical Education Programs it

Adapted Physical Education Programs

It has been an accepted truth for some time that physical activity is beneficial for all children at all levels. This includes children with mild to severe physical and mental challenges. The challenge for Adapted Physical Education (APE) teachers is, however, to provide all children with the optimal level of physical activity during APE instruction. This is true in both inclusive and segregated educational environments, since few children with disabilities have the same needs when it comes to physical eduction. The aim of the study conducted by Klavina (2008) was therefore to investigate how APE teachers could best serve all the students in their classes. To do this, a comparison was made between teacher directed and peer instructions for students with severe and multiple disabilities (SMD) to determine the effectiveness level of each.

The study included SMD students, peer tutor students, GPE teachers, and APE teachers. three students with SMD from two elementary schools in the mid-Atlantic state in the United States. During an ordinary school day, they experience little to no integration with general education. Generally, they spend their day in a self-contained classroom for students with disabilities. The three students were one boy and two girls, 8 to 9 years of age. They all had disabilities that made communication a challenge for them, with all receiving educational assistance in this regard. There were also 9 general education students, selected to act as peer tutors for the SMD students. They were interviewed, recruited, and trained with the peer tutoring role in mind. Teachers participating in the study included two full-time GPE teachers, one male and one female, as well as two male APE teachers. All teachers had more than 10 years of experience in their respective fields.

The study found that peer tutoring had a significantly positive effect on the experience of SMD students in the physical education class. Indeed, the author goes as far as stating that this might be a viable option for APE teachers seeking ways to accommodate SMD students in general physical education classrooms. The two SMD girls included in the study, for example, higher activity engagement with the inclusion of peer tutoring than only with APE teacher directed instruction. Peer tutors are also able to give more personal and specific attention to SMD students than a teacher necessarily can, as a result of classroom set up and conditions. Another effect of peer tutoring on the general educational experience of SMD students is also positive in terms of peer interaction, which these students seldom have the opportunity to engage in.

The author acknowledges several limitations at the end of her document. The first is the differentiation between instructional methods used by APE teachers and peer tutors. Klavina suggests that future studies use uniform instructional methods for both teacher directed instruction and peer tutoring, since the results may have been influenced by both instructional methods and the setup of teacher and peer tutoring. A second limitation is the individual characteristics of SMD students and their peer tutors, which might have influenced their interaction levels. The author therefore concludes that, while peer tutoring is a valuable asset in APE instruction, teacher supervision is required to create positive outcomes for all.

The implication of the study's findings for me as researcher and possible future leader in the field of adapted physical education programs is significant. Generally, I find myself inspired by the possibility that peer tutoring can be used to help SMD students, as well as those with other levels of disability, become part of the general society in school, even for a small part of their school day.